Past and current practice of patient-reported outcome measurement in randomized cancer clinical trials: a systematic review

Giesinger, J.M., Efficace, F., Aaronson, N., Calvert, M., Kyte, Derek ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7679-6741, Cottone, F., Cella, D. and Gamper, E.M. (2021) Past and current practice of patient-reported outcome measurement in randomized cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Value in Health, 24 (4). pp. 585-591. ISSN 1098-3015

Preview

Text 1-s2.0-S1098301520345113-main.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (566kB) | Preview

Abstract

Objectives
In our systematic review, we assessed past and current practice of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in cancer randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods
We included RCTs with PRO endpoints evaluating conventional medical treatments, conducted in patients with the most prevalent solid tumor types (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, bladder, and gynecological cancers) and either published in 2004 to 2018 or registered on clinicaltrials.gov and initiated in 2014 to 2019. Frequency of use of individual PRO measures was assessed overall, over time, and by cancer site.

Results
Screening of 42 095 database records and 3425 registered trials identified 480 published and 537 registered trials meeting inclusion criteria. Among published trials, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) measures were used most often (54.8% of trials), followed by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measures (35.8%), the EQ-5D (10.2%), the SF-36 (7.3%), and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI; 2.5%). Among registered trials, the EORTC measures were used in 66.1% of the trials, followed by the FACIT measures (25.9%), the EQ-5D (23.1%), the SF-36 (4.8%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE; 2.2%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures (1.7%), and the MDASI measures (1.1%).

Conclusion
The PRO measures most frequently used in RCTs identified in our review differ substantially in terms of content and domains, reflecting the ongoing debate among the scientific community, healthcare providers, and regulators on the type of PRO to be measured. Current findings may contribute to better informing the development of an internationally agreed core outcome set for future cancer trials.

Actions (login required)

View Item