Dataset Information

Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported.

Design

Retrospective cohort study of RCT protocols approved by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We compared protocols to corresponding publications, which were identified through literature searches and investigator surveys.

Results

Of the 173 cancer trials, 90 (52%) specified QoL outcomes in their protocol, 2 (1%) as primary and 88 (51%) as secondary outcome. Of the 173 trials, 35 (20%) reported QoL outcomes in a corresponding publication (4 modified from the protocol), 18 (10%) were published but failed to report QoL outcomes in the primary or a secondary publication, and 37 (21%) were not published at all. Of the 83 (48%) trials that did not specify QoL outcomes in their protocol, none subsequently reported QoL outcomes. Failure to report pre-specified QoL outcomes was not associated with industry sponsorship (versus non-industry), sample size, and multicentre (versus single centre) status but possibly with trial discontinuation.

Conclusions

About half of cancer trials specified QoL outcomes in their protocols. However, only 20% reported any QoL data in associated publications. Highly relevant information for decision making is often unavailable to patients, oncologists, and health policymakers.

SUBMITTER: Schandelmaier S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4551161 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.

Schandelmaier S S Conen K K von Elm E E You J J JJ Blümle A A Tomonaga Y Y Amstutz A A Briel M M Kasenda B B

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 20150630 9

<h4>Background</h4>Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cohort ...[more]

PMID: 26133966

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis systematic review aims to evaluate the methodology used in pancreatic cancer (PC) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) measuring quality of life (QOL) and focuses on the type, frequency, survey compliance and duration of these assessments.DesignSystematic review of PC RCTs measuring QOL.Data sourcesA search of PubMed.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted for PC RCTs measuring QOL from inception to 21 March 2023. Only phase III RCTs were included. Studies were excluded if QOL was not measured, the study was phase I/II, in the second-line setting or unavailable in English. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers in a standardised fashion.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcomes included the type of QOL instrument used, the timing and frequency of assessments, methods of analysis and survey completion rates (SCRs) over time. Secondary outcomes included patient demographics, significant QOL improvements and the frequency of trials measuring QOL.ResultsOut of 269 studies screened, 54 RCTs were identified, and 24 measured QOL (involving 11 229 patients). Instruments used included the EORTC QLQ-C30 (n=15), FACT-HEP (n=3), Spitzer-QOL-Index (n=2), EQ-5D (n=2), LASA (n=1) and FACT-PA (n=1). Most trials assessed QOL until disease progression or death (10/24), with 4-week intervals being the most common (7/24). SCRs were reported in 15/24 trials, with disease stage influencing SCRs over time. In trials with metastatic, locally advanced/metastatic, and resectable disease, the median times to reach a 50% response rate-defined as the point where the number of surveys completed was half of the enrolled participants-were 12.41 weeks (n=2), 14.14 weeks (n=10), and 54.2 weeks (n=3), respectively." Only 2/24 trials reported significant QOL improvements between treatment arms. Patient age was reported in all trials, while race/ethnicity was only reported in 4/24 trials.ConclusionsSignificant variability exists in the timing, methods and reporting of QOL assessments in PC trials. There is a need for further research to assess the implications of missing data and consider the temporality of QOL assessment in patients with advanced cancers and poor prognosis.

Project description:BackgroundGood radiotherapy reporting in clinical trials of prostate radiotherapy is important because it will allow accurate reproducibility of radiotherapy treatment and minimize treatment variations that can affect patient outcomes. The aim of our study is to assess the quality of prostate radiotherapy (RT) treatment reporting in randomized controlled trials in prostate cancer.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE for randomized trials of prostate cancer, published from 1996 to 2016 and included prostate RT as one of the intervention arms. We assessed if the investigators reported the ten criteria adequately in the trial reports: RT dose prescription method; RT dose-planning procedures; organs at risk (OAR) dose constraints; target volume definition, simulation procedures; treatment verification procedures; total RT dose; fractionation schedule; conduct of quality assurance (QA) as well as presence or absence of deviations in RT treatment planning and delivery. We performed multivariate logistic regression to determine the factors that may influence the quality of reporting.ResultsWe found 59 eligible trials. There was significant variability in the quality of reporting. Target volume definition, total RT dose and fractionation schedule were reported adequately in 97% of included trials. OAR constraints, simulation procedures and presence or absence of deviations in RT treatment planning and delivery were reported adequately in 30% of included trials. Twenty-four trials (40%) reported seven criteria or more adequately. Multivariable logistic analysis showed that trials that published their quality assurance results and cooperative group trials were more likely to have adequate quality in reporting in at least seven criteria.ConclusionThere is significant variability in the quality of reporting on prostate radiotherapy treatment in randomized trials of prostate cancer. We need to have consensus guidelines to standardize the reporting of radiotherapy treatment in randomized trials.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality for women worldwide. Patients may experience a multitude of disease- and treatment-related symptoms that can impact quality of life (QOL) and should be measured and reported in clinical trials. This systematic review investigated the adequacy of reporting of QOL in randomized phase III trials in OC in both the first-line and recurrent disease setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified randomized clinical trials of systemic therapy in OC from 1980 to 2014. The adequacy of reporting QOL was evaluated with respect to adherence to established guidelines on reporting QOL in clinical trials and the recent recommendations on the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials from the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference. RESULTS:Of 3,247 abstracts, 35 studies, including 24,664 patients, met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two trials (63%) were in the first-line setting, with 13 (37%) in the recurrent setting. The inclusion of QOL assessments increased from 2% (1980s) to 62% (2010+). Quality of life was a co-primary endpoint in only one trial.Minimal clinically important differences in QOL were defined in eight trials (23%), with results included in the abstract in 37% and article in 86%. Compliance was reported in 26 trials (74%), with 13 trials (37%) reporting specifically how they dealt with missing data. Only seven trials reported the reasons for missing data (20%).Group results were published in 29 trials (83%), with 6 (17%) reporting individual patient results. Results were more commonly reported as a mean overall score (21 trials; 60%), with specific domain scores in only 9 trials (26%). No studies reported QOL beyond progression or included predefined context-specific endpoints based on objectives of treatment (i.e., palliation/cure/maintenance) and the patient population. Duration of benefit of palliative chemotherapy was reported in only one study. CONCLUSION:Inclusion and reporting of QOL as a trial endpoint has improved in phase III trials in OC, but there are still significant shortfalls that need to be addressed in future trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:The impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL) is an important consideration in patients with ovarian cancer for whom treatment is often given with palliative intent. Both the disease and treatment impact a patient's QOL and require careful evaluation in clinical trials. Matching the QOL questions to the patient population of interest is critical. Similar rigor to that used to assess progression-based endpoints is essential to guide clinical decisions. This systematic review demonstrated that although the inclusion and reporting of QOL as a trial endpoint has improved in phase III trials there are still significant shortfalls that need to be addressed in future trials.

Project description:Background Survival and health status (eg, symptoms and quality of life) are key outcomes in clinical trials of heart failure treatment. However, health status can only be recorded on survivors, potentially biasing treatment effect estimates when there is differential survival across treatment groups. Joint modeling of survival and health status can address this bias. Methods and Results We analyzed patient-level data from the PARTNER 1B trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus standard care. Health status was quantified with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at randomization, 1, 6, and 12 months. We compared hazard ratios for survival and mean differences in KCCQ scores at 12 months using several models: the original growth curve model for KCCQ scores (ignoring death), separate Bayesian models for survival and KCCQ scores, and a Bayesian joint longitudinal-survival model fit to either 12 or 30 months of survival follow-up. The benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on 12-month KCCQ scores was greatest in the joint-model fit to all survival data (mean difference, 33.7 points; 95% credible intervals [CrI], 24.2-42.4), followed by the joint-model fit to 12 months of survival follow-up (32.3 points; 95% CrI, 22.5-41.5), a Bayesian model without integrating death (30.4 points; 95% CrI, 21.4-39.3), and the original growth curve model (26.0 points; 95% CI, 18.7-33.3). At 12 months, the survival benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement was also greater in the joint model (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CrI, 0.32-0.73) than in the nonjoint Bayesian model (0.54; 95% CrI, 0.37-0.75) or the original Kaplan-Meier estimate (0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.74). Conclusions In patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and prohibitive surgical risk, the estimated benefits of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on survival and health status compared with standard care were greater in joint Bayesian models than other approaches.

Project description:BackgroundMore and more immune-oncology trials have been conducted for treating various cancers, yet it is unclear what the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials is,and characteristics associated with higher reporting quality.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials.MethodsThe PubMed and Cochrane library were searched to identify all English publications of clinical trials assessing immunotherapy for cancer. Reporting quality of immune-oncology trials was evaluated by a quality score with 11 points derived from the Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO) statement, which contained two parts: an efficacy score of 6 points and toxicity score of 5 point. Linear regression was used to identify characteristics associated with higher scores.ResultsOf the 10,169 studies screened, 298 immune-oncology trial reports were enrolled. The mean quality score, efficacy score, and toxicity score were 6.46, 3.61, and 2.85, respectively. The most common well-reported items were response evaluation criteria (96.0%) and toxicity grade (98.7%), followed by Kaplan-Meier survival analyses (80.5%). Treatment details beyond progression (12.8%) and toxicity onset time and duration (7.7%) were poorly reported. Multivariate regression revealed that higher impact factor (IF) (IF >20 vs. IF <5, p < 0.001), specific tumor type (p = 0.018 for lung, p = 0.021 for urinary system, vs. pan cancer), and a certain kind of immune checkpoint blocking agent (p < 0.001 for anti-PD-1 or multiagents, vs. anti-CTLA-4) were independent predictors of higher-quality score. Similar independent predictive characteristics were revealed for high-efficacy score. Only IF >20 had a significant high-toxicity score (p < 0.001).ConclusionImmune-oncology trial reports presented an unsatisfied quality score, especially in the reporting of treatment details beyond progression and toxicity onset time and duration. High IF journals have better reporting quality. Future improvement of trial reporting was warranted to the benefit-risk assessment of immunotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough attempts have been made in the past to establish consensus regarding the definitions and grading of the severity of colorectal anastomotic leakage, widespread adoption has remained limited.ObjectiveA systematic review of the literature was conducted to examine the various elements used to report and define anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer resections.Data sourcesA systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Database.Study selectionAll published randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses containing data related to adult patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery and reporting anastomotic leakage as a primary or secondary outcome, with a definition of anastomotic leakage were included.Main outcome measuresDefinitions of anastomotic leakage, clinical symptoms, radiological modalities and findings, findings at reoperation, and grading terminology or classifications for anastomotic leakage.ResultsOf the 471 articles reporting anastomotic leakage as a primary or secondary outcome, a definition was reported in 95 studies (45 randomized controlled trials, 13 systematic reviews, and 37 meta-analyses) involving a total of 346,140 patients. Of these 95 articles, 68% reported clinical signs and symptoms of anastomotic leakage, 26% biochemical criteria, 63% radiological modalities, 62% radiological findings, and 13% findings at reintervention. Only 45% (n = 43) of included studies reported grading of anastomotic leakage severity or leak classification, and 41% (n = 39) included a time frame for reporting.LimitationsThere was a high level of heterogeneity between the included studies.ConclusionsThis evidence synthesis confirmed incomplete and inconsistent reporting of anastomotic leakage across the published colorectal cancer literature. There is a great need to develop and implement a consensus framework for defining, grading, and reporting anastomotic leakage.RegistrationProspectively registered at PROSPERO (ID 454660).

Project description:BackgroundInadequate planning, selective reporting, and incomplete reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contribute to the problem of waste of research. We aimed to describe such a waste and to examine to what extent this waste could be avoided.MethodsThis research-on-research study was based on RCTs included in Cochrane reviews with a summary of findings (SoF) table. We considered the outcomes reported in the SoF tables as surrogates for important outcomes for patients and other decision makers. We used a three-step approach. (1) First, in each review, we identified, for each important outcome, RCTs that were excluded from the corresponding meta-analysis. (2) Then, for these RCTs, we systematically searched for registrations and protocols to distinguish between inadequate planning (an important outcome was not reported in registries or protocols), selective reporting (an important outcome was reported in registries or protocols but not in publications), and incomplete reporting (an important outcome was incompletely reported in publications). (3) Finally, we assessed, with the consensus of five experts, the feasibility and cost of measuring the important outcomes that were not planned. We considered inadequately planned or selectively or incompletely reported important outcomes as avoidable waste if the outcome could have been easily measured at no additional cost based on expert evaluation.ResultsOf the 2711 RCTs included in the main comparison of 290 reviews, 2115 (78%) were excluded from at least one meta-analysis of important outcomes. Every trial contributed to 55%, on average, of the meta-analyses of important outcomes. Of the 310 RCTs published in 2010 or later, 156 were registered. Inadequate planning affected 79% of these RCTs, whereas incomplete and selective reporting affected 41% and 15%, respectively. For 63% of RCTs, we found at least one missing important outcome for which the waste was avoidable and for 30%, the waste was avoidable for all important outcomes.ConclusionsMost of the RCTs included in our sample did not contribute to all the important outcomes in meta-analyses, mostly because of inadequate planning or incomplete reporting. A large part of this waste of research seemed to be avoidable.

Dataset Information

Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.

Background

Design

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets