UCL Discovery
UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery

Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials

Kyte, D; Retzer, A; Ahmed, K; Keeley, T; Armes, J; Brown, JM; Calman, L; ... Calvert, M; + view all (2019) Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 10.1093/jnci/djz038. (In press). Green open access

[img]
Preview
Text (Article)
Lanceley_djz038.pdf - Published version

Download (1MB) | Preview
[img] Archive (Supplementary data)
Lanceley_supplementary_material_djz038.zip - Published version

Download (98kB)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice. METHODS: We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials which included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored. RESULTS: Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean of 10/33 (range = 2-19, SD = 4) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included: the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimise/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% CI = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49,568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean inclusion of 3/14 (range = 0-11, SD = 3) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). Over half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12/22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with 8 (36.4%) taking 5-8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years. CONCLUSIONS: PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and non-reporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future.

Type: Article
Title: Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials
Location: United States
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz038
Publisher version: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz038
Language: English
Additional information: Copyright © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.
Keywords: cancer, follow-up, guidelines, surrogate endpoints, patient self-report, reporting standards, performance reporting
UCL classification: UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences > Cancer Institute
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Medical Sciences > Cancer Institute > Research Department of Oncology
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Pop Health Sciences > Inst for Women's Health
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Pop Health Sciences > Inst for Women's Health > Women's Cancer
URI: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10077439
Downloads since deposit
8Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item