University of Surrey

Test tubes in the lab Research in the ATI Dance Research

Systematic evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome protocol content and reporting in cancer trials

Kyte, Derek, Retzer, Ameeta, Ahmed, Khaled, Keeley, Thomas, Armes, Jo, Brown, Julia M, Calman, Lynn, Gavin, Anna, Glaser, Adam W, Greenfield, Diana M , Lanceley, Anne, Taylor, Rachel M, Velikova, Galina, Brundage, Michael, Efficace, Fabio, Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca, King, Madeleine T, Turner, Grace and Calvert, Melanie (2019) Systematic evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome protocol content and reporting in cancer trials JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[img] Text
Systematic evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome protocol content and reporting in cancer trials.docx - Accepted version Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only

Download (114kB)

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.

Item Type: Article
Divisions : Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences > School of Health Sciences
Authors :
NameEmailORCID
Kyte, Derek
Retzer, Ameeta
Ahmed, Khaled
Keeley, Thomas
Armes, Jojo.armes@surrey.ac.uk
Brown, Julia M
Calman, Lynn
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam W
Greenfield, Diana M
Lanceley, Anne
Taylor, Rachel M
Velikova, Galina
Brundage, Michael
Efficace, Fabio
Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
King, Madeleine T
Turner, Grace
Calvert, Melanie
Date : 2019
Copyright Disclaimer : © 2019 Oxford University Press.
Related URLs :
Depositing User : Clive Harris
Date Deposited : 25 Feb 2019 15:10
Last Modified : 15 Apr 2019 15:04
URI: http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/id/eprint/850567

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year


Information about this web site

© The University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
+44 (0)1483 300800