A systematic evaluation of compliance and reporting of patient-reported outcome endpoints in ovarian cancer randomised controlled trials: Implications for generalisability and clinical practice

被引：26
作者：
Mercieca-Bebber R. [1 ,2 ]
Friedlander M. [3 ,4 ]
Calvert M. [5 ]
Stockler M. [3 ,4 ]
Kyte D. [5 ]
Kok P.-S. [3 ,4 ]
King M.T. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
机构：
[1] Central Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
[2] Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O’Brien Lifehouse C39Z, Sydney, NSW
[3] NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW
[4] Australian New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG), Camperdown, NSW
[5] Centre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham
来源：
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes | / 1卷 / 1期
关键词：
Missing data; Ovarian neoplasms; Patient-reported outcomes; Quality of life; Reporting;
D O I：
10.1186/s41687-017-0008-3
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of ovarian cancer randomisedcontrolled trial (RCT) publications, describe PRO compliance, and explore potential relationships among these and completeness of PRO protocol content. Methods: Publications of Phase III ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified by Medline and Cochrane systematic search: January 2000 to February 2016. Two reviewers determined the number of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-PRO Extension items addressed in publications. Compliance rates (defined as the proportion of participants included in the principal PRO analysis, of those from whom PRO assessments were expected) were extracted. The relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and compliance rates was explored using scatter plots. Additionally CONSORT-PRO score and PRO compliance rates respectively were compared with corresponding PRO protocol scores obtained from a previous study. Results: Thirty-six eligible RCTs (n = 33 with secondary PRO endpoint) were identified and analysed. The average number of CONSORT-PRO items addressed in publications was 6.7 (48%; Range 0–13.5/14). Three RCTs did not report PRO results; in 1 case due to poor compliance. Some compliance information was reported in 26 RCTs, but was considered complete for only 10 (28%) RCTs. Compliance rates were poor overall, ranging from 59 to 83%; therefore missing PRO data from 17 to 41% of participants in these trials could have been avoided. Of the 26 (73%) RCTs for which PRO protocol completeness scores were available, 6 RCTs reported complete compliance information and the 3 of these RCTs with highest PRO compliance had highest protocol checklist scores. (Continued on next page) Conclusions: Few RCTs reported PRO compliance information in a manner enabling assessment of the generalisability of PRO results. This information is particularly important in RCTs of advanced ovarian cancer because it is important to be able to determine if missing data was due to worsening illness compared to methodological issues. Poor compliance appeared related to poor PRO protocol content, and in one case prevented PRO results from being reported, highlighting the need to address compliance strategies in the protocol. Adhering to protocol and CONSORT-PRO reporting guidance should improve PRO implementation and reporting respectively in ovarian cancer RCTs and allow results to meaningfully inform clinical practice. © The Author(s).
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]  
Au H.J., Ringash J., Brundage M., Palmer M., Richardson H., Meyer R.M., Added value of health-related quality of life measurement in cancer clinical trials: The experience of the NCIC CTG, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10, 2, pp. 119-128, (2010)
[2]  
Appendix 2 to The Guideline on The Evaluation of Anticancer Medicinal Products in Man: The Use of Patientreported Outcome (PRO) Measures in Oncology Studies, (2016)
[3]  
Schnipper L.E., Davidson N.E., Wollins D.S., Blayney D.W., Dicker A.P., Ganz P.A., Et al., Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework: Revisions and Reflections in Response to Comments Received, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34, 24, pp. 2925-2934, (2016)
[4]  
Cherny N.I., Sullivan R., Dafni U., Kerst J.M., Sobrero A., Zielinski C., Et al., A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: The European Society for Medical Oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO-MCBS), Annals of Oncology, 26, 8, pp. 1547-1573, (2015)
[5]  
Hess L.M., Stehman F.B., State of the science in ovarian cancer quality of life research: A systematic review, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 22, 7, pp. 1273-1280, (2012)
[6]  
Friedlander M.L., King M.T., Patient-reported outcomes in ovarian cancer clinical trials, Annals of Oncology, 24, (2013)
[7]  
Ledermann J.A., Raja F.A., Fotopoulou C., Gonzalez-Martin A., Colombo N., Sessa C., Et al., Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up, Annals of Oncology, 24, (2013)
[8]  
du Bois A., Quinn M., Thigpen T., Vermorken J., Avall-Lundqvist E., Bookman M., Et al., Consensus statements on the management of ovarian cancer: Final document of the 3rd international gynecologic cancer intergroup ovarian cancer consensus conference (GCIG OCCC 2004), Annals of Oncology, pp. viii7-viii12, (2004)
[9]  
Friedlander M., Trimble E., Tinker A., Alberts D., Avall-Lundqvist E., Brady M., Et al., Clinical trials in recurrent ovarian cancer, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 21, 4, pp. 771-775, (2011)
[10]  
Stuart G.C., Kitchener H., Bacon M., du Bois A., Friedlander M., Ledermann J., Et al., 2010 gynecologic cancer inter group (GCIG) consensus statement on clinical trials in ovarian cancer: Report from the fourth ovarian cancer consensus conference, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 21, 4, pp. 750-755, (2011)
1234