Reduction of doxorubicin toxicity by methylene blue in cultured rat myocardial cells.

R. J. Anderson,J. Babson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-2952(89)90104-4

IF: 6.1

1989-08-01

Biochemical Pharmacology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Improving completion rates of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer clinical trials: Scoping review investigating the implications for trial designs

Lotte van der Weijst,Abigirl Machingura,Ahu Alanya,Emma Lidington,Galina Velikova,Hans-Henning Flechtner,Heike Schmidt,Jens Lehmann,John K. Ramage,Jolie Ringash,Katarzyna Wac,Kathy Oliver,Katherine J. Taylor,Lisa Wintner,Lúcia P.C. Senna,Michael Koller,Olga Husson,Renée Bultijnck,Roger Wilson,Susanne Singer,Vesna Bjelic-Radisic,Winette T.A. van der Graaf,Madeline Pe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2024.114313

IF: 10.002

2024-09-22

European Journal of Cancer

Abstract:Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play a crucial role in cancer clinical trials. Despite the availability of validated PRO measures (PROMs), challenges related to low completion rates and missing data remain, potentially affecting the trial results' validity. This review explored strategies to improve and maintain high PROM completion rates in cancer clinical trials. Methodology A scoping review was performed across Medline, Embase and Scopus and regulatory guidelines. Key recommendations were synthesized into categories such as stakeholder involvement, study design, PRO assessment, mode of assessment, participant support, and monitoring. Results The review identified 114 recommendations from 18 papers (16 peer-reviewed articles and 2 policy documents). The recommendations included integrating comprehensive PRO information into the study protocol, enhancing patient involvement during the protocol development phase and in education, and collecting relevant PRO data at clinically meaningful time points. Electronic data collection, effective monitoring systems, and sufficient time, capacity, workforce and financial resources were highlighted. Discussion Further research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies in various context and to tailor these recommendations into practical and effective strategies. This will enhance PRO completion rates and patient-centred care. However, obstacles such as patient burden, low health literacy, and conflicting recommendations may present challenges in application.

oncology
Data collection methods for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a rapid scoping review

Lehmann,J.,Krepper,D.,Pe,M.,Kulis,D.,Giesinger,J. M.,Sztankay,M.,Kern,S.,Fitzsimmons,D.,Holzner,B.,on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084935

IF: 3.006

2024-09-12

BMJ Open

Abstract:Background There are different modes and ways to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. However, there is little systematic information on how often different modes of assessment (MOA) are used in cancer clinical trials and how exactly assessments are conducted. The goal of this scoping review is to gain an understanding of the MOA and data management of PROs in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the reporting quality thereof. Methods and analysis This scoping review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant trials will be identified via their indexed publications. We will search PubMed for RCTs conducted in cancer populations that evaluate a biomedical treatment with a PRO endpoint. Trials with publications published between January 2019 and November 2023 will be included. Two independent reviewers will review the references for both the abstract and full-text screening. We will extract data from the publications from a trial and the trial protocol if a protocol can be traced. Data will be summarised at the trial level. We will focus on a descriptive analysis of the MOA of PROs and on the relative frequencies of the different MOA. We will also evaluate the quality of reporting for the relevant SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines that refer to the assessment of PROs in trials. Due to the scoping nature of our review, we will not perform a dedicated quality assessment of all trials. Ethics and dissemination The proposed review is based on secondary, published data. Hence, no ethics review is necessary. The review is part of an ongoing project on the use of electronic data capture methods in cancer clinical trials. The findings from the review will support the project and contribute to synthesising guidance to ultimately improve the (electronic) measurement of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials.

medicine, general & internal
Patient-reported outcomes in Hodgkin lymphoma trials: a systematic review

Esther Natalie Oliva,Tatyana Ionova,Edward Laane,Mario Csenar,Julia Schroer,Karolin Behringer,Ina Monsef,Annika Oeser,Nicole Skoetz,Sam Salek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1353101

IF: 4.7

2024-03-13

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Background: Lymphoma treatment can lead to long-term consequences such as fatigue, infertility and organ damage. In clinical trials, survival outcomes, clinical response and toxicity are extensively reported while the assessment of treatment on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms is often lacking. Objective: We evaluated the use and frequency of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and their consistency of reporting. Methods: MEDLINE, CENTRAL and trial registries for RCTs investigating HL were systematically searched from 01/01/2016 to 31/05/2022. Following trial selection, trial, patient characteristics and outcome data on the use of PRO measures (PROMs) and reporting of PROs using a pre-defined extraction form were extracted. To assess reporting consistency, trial registries, protocols and publications were compared. Results: We identified 4,222 records. Following screening, a total of 317 reports were eligible for full-text evaluation. One hundred sixty-six reports of 51 ongoing/completed trials were included, of which 41% of trials were completed and 49% were ongoing based on registry entries. Full-text or abstract were available for 33 trials. Seventy percent of trials were conducted in the newly diagnosed disease setting, the majority with advanced HL. In 32 trials with published follow-up data, the median follow-up was 5.2 years. Eighteen (35%) completed/ongoing trials had mentioned PRO assessment in registry entries, protocol or publications. Twelve trials (67%) had published results and only 6 trials (50%) reported on PROs in part with the exception of 1 trial where PROs were evaluated as secondary/exploratory outcome. The most referenced global PROM was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (12 studies), the EQ-5D (3 studies) and the FACT-Neurotoxicity (3 studies). FACT-Lymphoma, a disease-specific PROM for non-HL was mentioned in one ongoing trial. None of the trials referenced the EORTC QLQ-HL27, another disease-specific PROM developed specifically for HL patient's QoL assessment. Discussions: Only one-third of RCTs in HL report PROs as an outcome and only half present the outcome in subsequent publications, showcasing the underreporting of PROs in trials. Disease-specific PROMs are underutilized in the assessment of QoL in HL patients. Guidance on the assessment of PROs is needed to inform on comprehensive outcomes important to patients. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=391552, identifier CRD42023391552.

oncology
The Prognostic Significance of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials

Carolyn C. Gotay,Crissy T. Kawamoto,Andrew Bottomley,Fabio Efficace

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.13.3439

IF: 45.3

2008-03-10

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Purpose Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), routinely collected as a part of cancer clinical trials, have been linked with survival in numerous clinical studies, but a comprehensive critical review has not been reported. This study systematically assessed the impact of PROs on patient survival after a cancer diagnosis within the context of clinical trials. Design Cancer clinical trials that assessed baseline PROs and mortality were identified through MEDLINE (through December 2006) supplemented by the Cochrane database, American Society of Clinical Oncology/European Society for Medical Oncology abstracts and hand searches. Inclusion criteria were publication in English language and use of multivariate analyses of PROs that controlled for one or more clinical factors. Two raters reviewed each study, abstracted data, and assessed study quality; two additional raters verified abstractions. Results In 36 of 39 studies (N = 13,874), at least one PRO was significantly associated with survival (P < .05) in multivariate analysis, with varying effect sizes. Studies of lung (n = 12) and breast cancer (n = 8) were most prevalent. The most commonly assessed PRO was quality of life, measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 in 56% of studies. Clinical variables adjusted for included performance status (PS), treatment arm, stage, weight loss, and serum markers. Results indicated that PROs provide distinct prognostic information beyond standard clinical measures in cancer clinical trials. Conclusion PROs might be considered for stratification purposes in future trials, as they were often better predictors of survival than PS. Studies are needed to determine whether interventions that improve PROs also increase survival and to identify explanatory mechanisms through which PROs relate to survival.

oncology
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Cancer Care: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Amaris K Balitsky,Daniel Rayner,Joanne Britto,Anath C Lionel,Lydia Ginsberg,Wanjae Cho,Ann Mary Wilfred,Huda Sardar,Nathan Cantor,Hira Mian,Mark N Levine,Gordon H Guyatt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.24793

2024-08-01

Abstract:Importance: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) come directly from the patient, without clinician interpretation, to provide a patient-centered perspective. Objective: To understand the association of PROM integration into cancer care with patient-related, therapy-related, and health care utilization outcomes. Data sources: Searches included MEDLINE and MEDLINE Epub ahead of print, in-process, and other nonindexed citations; Embase databases (OvidSP); PsychINFO; CENTRAL; and CINAHL from January 1, 2012 to September 26, 2022. Study selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that enrolled adult patients (ages 18 years and older) with active cancer receiving anticancer therapy using a PROM as an intervention. Data extraction and synthesis: Pairs of review authors, using prepiloted forms, independently extracted trial characteristics, disease characteristics, and intervention details. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was followed. Random-effects analyses were conducted. Main outcomes and measures: Overall mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures, and hospital utilization outcomes. Results: From 1996 to 2022, 45 RCTs including 13 661 participants addressed the association of PROMs with outcomes considered important to patients. The addition of a PROM likely reduced the risk of overall mortality (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98; moderate certainty), improved HRQoL (range 0-100) at 12 weeks (mean difference [MD], 2.45; 95% CI, 0.42-4.48; moderate certainty). Improvements of HRQoL at 24 weeks were not significant (MD, 1.87; 95% CI, -1.21 to 4.96; low certainty). There was no association between the addition of a PROM and HRQoL at 48 weeks. The addition of a PROM was not associated with reduced ED visits (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54-1.02; low certainty) or hospital admissions (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.02; low certainty). Conclusion and relevance: The findings of this study suggest that the integration of PROMs into cancer care may improve overall survival and quality of life.
X-linked dyskeratosis congenita with pancytopenia.

A. Gutman,A. Frumkin,A. Adam,N. Bloch‐Shtacher,L. Rozenszajn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHDERM.1978.01640230041011

1978-11-01

Archives of Dermatology

Abstract:Two maternal male cousins in a Jewish Iraqi kindred were affected with dyskeratosis congenita and had a megaloblastic bone marrow. One cousin had pancytopenia and the other had thrombocytopenia. The kindred displays a deficiency of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) and a beta-thalassemia trait. The following genetic "markers" of the X chromosome were studied: G6PD, the X-linked blood groups Xg, and color vision. Linkage analysis indicated that dyskeratosis, G6PD, and Xg are far apart on the X chromosome. Chromosomal studies showed a 46XY karyotype in both cases; however, nonspecific numerical aberrations and structural abnormalities were found in the first and in the second case, polyploidy was seen in four of 60 cells. The proband's cultured fibroblasts did not show increased susceptibility to malignant transformation by simian virus 40, an oncogenic virus.
Examining the Effectiveness of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in People With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Melissa Betty Perry,Sally Taylor,Binish Khatoon,Amy Vercell,Corinne Faivre-Finn,Galina Velikova,Antonia Marsden,Calvin Heal,Janelle Yorke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/49089

2024-07-31

Abstract:Background: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are commonly used in oncology clinical practice and have shown benefits for patients and health resource use. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the isolated effect of administering ePROs to patients with cancer versus a control condition. Methods: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Randomized controlled trials evaluating ePRO interventions that aimed to improve health-related outcomes among patients with cancer were included. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and the secondary outcomes were symptoms, hospital admissions, unplanned visits, chemotherapy completion, survival, and satisfaction with care. The effect sizes of ePROs on health-related outcomes were analyzed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs using a random effects model. Results: The search identified 10,965 papers, of which 19 (0.17%) from 15 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed an improvement in HRQOL at 3 months, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.78), and at 6 months, assessed using various HRQOL measures (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -1.24 to 1.39). The results should be interpreted with caution, given the wide 95% CIs. Of the 15 studies, 9 (60%) reported a positive signal on HRQOL, with two-thirds of the studies (n=6, 67%) including tailored patient advice and two-thirds (n=6, 67%) using clinician alert systems. Conclusions: The meta-analysis showed a potential improvement in HRQOL at 6 months and in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scores at 3 months for studies that included tailored advice and clinician alerts, suggesting that these elements may improve ePRO effectiveness. The findings will provide guidance for future use and help health care professionals choose the most suitable ePRO features for their patients. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020175007; https://tinyurl.com/5cwmy3j6.
Abstract 1302: Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials

Amanda L. King,Jason E. Levine,Elizabeth Vera,Yuti Gandhi,Elaine Novakovich,Theresa Yu,Sefanit Berhanu,Ciara Locke,Kaelyn Julmeus,Tito Mendoza,Terri S. Armstrong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-1302

IF: 11.2

2024-03-22

Cancer Research

Abstract:Abstract Background: There has been a shift in the clinical trial landscape toward early-phase studies where data from well-designed and pivotal phase I/II trials is leading to accelerated drug approval. Our goal was to develop a standardized approach to the measurement and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in early-phase trials to improve assessment of tolerability, address noted barriers to inclusion, and enhance patient-provider communication to inform treatment decisions and ultimately improve outcomes. Methods: The Office of Patient Centered Outcomes Research (OPCORe) was established in 2022 within the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) with the mission to advance understanding of the clinical benefit and tolerability of cancer therapies by integrating patient-centered approaches into CCR clinical trials by fostering education and collaboration with stakeholders. Implementation of regulatory/consortia guidelines related to use of core constructs, assessment frequency, and hypothesis-driven objectives and analysis plans through protocol template, development of data capture, email-based alerts and data visualization for clinical providers was developed and standardized templates for protocol language, research staff education, tools for workflow, and tracking implemented. Results: The OPCORe protocol template includes measurement of 3 constructs, including tolerability, clinical benefit and disease-specific impact, as well as anchors of meaningful change. Core symptomatic toxicities are measured to inform understanding across trials with agent/class-specific symptomatic toxicities added to assure relevance. Baseline and standardized weekly electronic capture of tolerability during early cycles with alerts to clinical research staff if moderate-severe toxicities reported helps facilitate patient check-ins. Repeat PROs assessments in later cycles are expanded to include disease-specific assessments and align with disease evaluation to further inform clinical impact. To date, we have collaborated with 7 research groups and developed approaches for first-in-human, phase I, and phase II studies with trial start-up and data collection in process. Conclusion: The value of including PROs in cancer trials is increasingly recognized by regulators, clinicians, patients, and advocates to advance understanding of the clinical benefit & tolerability of emerging therapies. Standardization and incorporation of PROs in earlier phase trials may enable PROs to be optimized, improve later phase trial design, and help inform health policy, support drug approval, and promote shared decision making between providers and patients to inform treatment decisions. Citation Format: Amanda L. King, Jason E. Levine, Elizabeth Vera, Yuti Gandhi, Elaine Novakovich, Theresa Yu, Sefanit Berhanu, Ciara Locke, Kaelyn Julmeus, Tito Mendoza, Terri S. Armstrong. Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 1302.

oncology
Effects of routine collection of patient-reported outcomes on patient health outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review

Danyu Li,Qingmei Huang,Wen Zhang,Changrong Yuan,Fulei Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apjon.2023.100297

IF: 2.22

2023-01-01

Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing

Abstract:Objective: This study aims to investigate the potential benefits of integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine clinical practice for patients undergoing active anticancer treatment. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials involving cancer patients undergoing active anticancer treatment, spanning various cancer types and stages. The review covered four electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) up to September 2022. Key in-clusion criteria focused on the incorporation of PROs as a routine intervention. Bias assessment followed the Cochrane collaboration's criteria, while the synthesis of results utilized effect size measurements (Cohen's d). The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Results: Out of 1549 initially screened records, 16 published randomized controlled trials encompassing 5300 patients met the inclusion criteria. The interventions involved 18 different PROs measurements, with prominent tools being EORTC QLQ-C30 (utilized in four trials) and PRO-CTCAE (utilized in four trials). Measured endpoints included overall quality of life (12 trials), physical health (11 trials), mental health (7 trials), and social health (5 trials). Overall, the study revealed a limited number of statistically significant findings, with predominantly small to moderate effect sizes associated with the interventions.Conclusions: The findings suggest that the routine integration of PROs into clinical practice does not yield definitive advantages in terms of PROs. It is apparent that further efforts are necessary to ascertain the impact of these interventions on patient health. Systematic review registration: The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022365456).
Abstract PO3-10-10: Are we adequately integrating patient reported outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials?

Yadav Rina,Zhengyan Huang,Jessica Moss,Garima Gupta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-po3-10-10

IF: 11.2

2024-05-03

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: Integrating patient reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer care enhances clinical outcomes and creates a paradigm shift in providing patient-centered care. Several studies performed in the past 15 years have demonstrated that systematic monitoring of patients using PROs through surveys improve patient-clinician communication, clinician awareness of symptoms, symptom management, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and overall survival. There has been uncertainty over the type of PRO system to implement in cancer care, how to evaluate PRO in clinical trials, and how to compare this to the clinician common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE). The PRO concept was first introduced in 1975 with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (QoL) survey. In May 2018, the National Cancer Institute established the PRO-CTCAE to be utilized for cancer patients to report and grade their treatment related adverse events, like that of clinician reported CTCAE. The goal of our study was to evaluate frequency of PRO incorporation in phase III breast cancer clinical trials. Methods: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and Lancet were systematically searched to identify phase III breast cancer clinical trials published between January 2018 and June 2023. A total of 113 phase III studies were identified, 87 of which had reported protocols. Studies that did not demonstrate protocols on these search engines were not included in the review. Of these 87 clinical trials, 36 studies documented evaluation of PRO. These studies were segregated by year of publication. For each year, the number of total phase III breast cancer clinical trials that were published were compared to those that were published and evaluated PRO. A percentage was generated and allowed for a longitudinal trend to be analyzed over a 5-year period to assess if there was improved frequency of PRO integration into breast cancer clinical trials. Summary statistics were calculated using SAS 9.4. Results: 36 of 113 trials demonstrated PRO use and 26 utilized EORTC-QoL, 1 used PRO-CTCAE, and 9 used another measure of PRO assessment within their study protocol (such as FACT-B and PHQ-9. Additionally, in 2018, 33% of published breast cancer studies included PRO data. Since then, there have been fluctuations in breast cancer studies collecting PRO; 2019: 33%, 2020: 47%, 2021: 43%, 2022: 73%, and since the start of 2023: 9%. Conclusions: Our data suggests a trend towards improvement in frequency of PRO data collection in breast cancer clinical trials over the past 5 years, exemplified by the marked increase in 2022. There remains a need to incorporate PROs in clinical trials and routine care to improve patient experience and provide patient-centered care. Citation Format: Yadav Rina, Zhengyan Huang, Jessica Moss, Garima Gupta. Are we adequately integrating patient reported outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl) nr PO3-10-10.

oncology
The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners

Yin Ting Cheung,Alexandre Chan,Andreas Charalambous,H S Darling,Lawson Eng,Lisa Grech,Corina J G van den Hurk,Deborah Kirk,Sandra A Mitchell,Dagmara Poprawski,Elke Rammant,Imogen Ramsey,Margaret I Fitch,Raymond J Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7

Abstract:Background: There exists scant evidence on the optimal approaches to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. This study gathered oncology practitioners' experiences with implementing PROs in cancer care. Methods: Between December 2019 and June 2020, we surveyed practitioners who reported spending > 5% of their time providing clinical care to cancer patients. Respondents completed an online survey describing their experiences with and barriers to using PROs in clinical settings. Results: In total, 362 practitioners (physicians 38.7%, nurses 46.7%, allied health professionals 14.6%) completed the survey, representing 41 countries (Asia-Pacific 42.5%, North America 30.1%, Europe 24.0%, others 3.3%). One quarter (25.4%) identified themselves as "high frequency users" who conducted PRO assessments on > 80% of their patients. Practitioners commonly used PROs to facilitate communication (60.2%) and monitor treatment responses (52.6%). The most commonly reported implementation barriers were a lack of technological support (70.4%) and absence of a robust workflow to integrate PROs in clinical care (61.5%). Compared to practitioners from high-income countries, more practitioners in low-middle income countries reported not having access to a local PRO expert (P < .0001) and difficulty in identifying the appropriate PRO domains (P = .006). Compared with nurses and allied health professionals, physicians were more likely to perceive disruptions in clinical care during PRO collection (P = .001) as an implementation barrier. Conclusions: Only a quarter of the surveyed practitioners reported capturing PROs in routine clinical practice. The implementation barriers to PRO use varied across respondents in different professions and levels of socioeconomic resources. Our findings can be applied to guide planning and implementation of PRO collection in cancer care.
Unleashing patient voices: empowering adverse event assessment with complete patient-reported outcomes

Thi Hanh Phung,Natalie Bradford,Erin Pitt,Kimberly Alexander

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae105

2024-05-24

The Oncologist

Abstract:Abstract The 124-item patient reported-outcome common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE) questionnaire, assessing 78 symptoms, is widely used in cancer clinical trials to identify side effects. However, its regular use in routine cancer care is rarely reported. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of weekly PRO-CTCAE completion over 9 weeks in a prospective study with 30 patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Participants were asked to complete electronic surveys with reminders, but no feedback or incentives. Only 136 (50%) of the planned 270 time points at which a PRO-CTCAE self-report was expected were completed, with an additional 21 (8%) partially completed, and represents a failure to achieve the expected level of completion. Patients reported experiencing up to 51 and a median of 30 symptoms across all time points, highlighting the complexity of symptom assessment in acute cancer care. While weekly implementation of the PRO-CTCAE may not be feasible outside of clinical trial settings, this study highlights the breadth of symptoms experienced.

oncology
Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Medical Oncology Setting (the iPROMOS Study): Type II Hybrid Implementation Study

Natasha Anne Roberts,Anita Pelecanos,Kimberly Alexander,David Wyld,Monika Janda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/55841

2024-08-27

Abstract:Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated that patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can improve mortality and morbidity outcomes when used in clinical practice. Objective: This study aimed to prospectively investigate the implementation of PROMs in routine oncology. Outcomes measured included improved symptom detection, clinical response to symptom information, and health service outcomes. Methods: Two of 12 eligible clinics were randomized to implement symptom PROMs in a medical oncology outpatient department in Australia. Randomization was carried out at the clinic level. Patients in control clinics continued with usual care; those in intervention clinics completed a symptom PROM at presentation. This was a pilot study investigating symptom detection, using binary logistic models, and clinical response to PROMs investigated using multiple regression models. Results: A total of 461 patient encounters were included, consisting of 242 encounters in the control and 222 in the intervention condition. Patients in these clinics most commonly had head and neck, lung, prostate, breast, or colorectal cancer and were seen in the clinic for surveillance and oral or systemic treatments for curative, metastatic, or palliative cancer care pathways. Compared with control encounters, the proportion of symptoms detected increased in intervention encounters (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.99-1.11; P=.08). The odds of receiving supportive care, demonstrated by nonroutine allied health review, increased in the intervention compared with control encounters (odds ratio 3.54, 95% CI 1.26-9.90; P=.02). Conclusions: Implementation of PROMs in routine care did not significantly improve symptom detection but increased the likelihood of nonroutine allied health reviews for supportive care. Larger studies are needed to investigate health service outcomes. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000398202; https://tinyurl.com/3cxbemy4.
Proactive assessment of patient reported outcomes in ovarian cancer studies: a systematic review and call for action in future studies

Ainhoa Madariaga,Rodrigo Sánchez-Bayona,Lawrence Kasherman,Jose Manuel Estrada-Lorenzo,Luis Manso,Pablo Tolosa,Manuel Alva,Laura Lema,Cristina González-Deza,Eva Ciruelos,David Valcarcel,Stephanie Lheureux,Amit M Oza

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2024-005883

2024-10-08

Abstract:Objective: This systematic review aims to evaluate the proactive or real-time assessment of patient reported outcomes in studies involving patients with ovarian cancer undergoing systemic therapy. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (from database inception until February 2022), and prospective ovarian cancer studies (experimental or observational) that incorporated patient reported outcomes, including quality of life, were included. The primary objective was to assess the ratio of studies incorporating real-time use of patient reported outcomes among those studies performing patient reported outcomes. A secondary objective was to describe the patient reported outcome reporting. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist was followed. Descriptive statistics were used. Results: 3071 articles were screened, with 117 included in the final analysis. Studies were published between 1990 and 2022, and consisted of 35 735 patients (median 140 patients per study; interquartile range 58-415). Median time from patient enrollment initiation to study publication was 7 years (range 1-15). Most studies were experimental/clinical trials (n=93, 79%) followed by observational (n=23, 20%). Therapeutic strategies were assessed in 98% (91/93) of experimental studies, most frequently chemotherapy (n=53, 58%), followed by antiangiogenics or poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (n=8, 9%, each). Patient reported outcomes were the primary endpoint in 7.5% (7/93) and 83% (19/23) of experimental and observational studies, respectively. The ratio of real-time patient reported outcomes assessment/evaluation was 0.9% (1/117). Conclusions: Completion of patient reported outcome questionnaires involves time and effort for patients with ovarian cancer. Responses to these questionnaires were only assessed in real time in <1% of analyzed studies. Efforts should be made to incorporate proactive assessment of patient reported outcomes to optimize patient care and safety.
Improving Adherence to electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes: Study Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review and subsequent qualitative Interviews

Rebecca Mukowski,Lisa Otto,Alze Rogge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.13.24308883

2024-06-13

Abstract:Background: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are frequently used to include the patients' perspective in clinical trials and routine clinical care. In contrast to data collected in clinical trials, PRO response rates tend to decrease drastically overtime in routine clinical care, leading to missing data and questionable validity of results reported. This study aims to investigate factors influencing patient adherence to digitally collected PROs. Method: The study comprises of three steps: (1) a systematic literature review (SLR) focusing on factors increasing PRO response rates, (2) focus group interviews with patients to develop criteria on how to increase response rates for real-world evidence (RWE), and subsequently, (3) an anonymous online survey to evaluate developed criteria. The SLR will follow the PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria for the review encompass studies focusing exclusively on patients or people recruited via medical personnel. The literature review will include studies from various settings, encompassing publications in German or English language published within the past 10 years (2014-2024). Participants for the focus group interviews (n = 6-8/group) will be recruited via patient advisory boards or groups/organisations. The findings of the SLR and the focus group form the basis for the anonymous online survey to include more patients. Outlook: The results of the study can be incorporated into the development and implementation of digital collection methods for PROs, with the aim of improving adherence to PROs and thus robustness of RWE data.

Health Systems and Quality Improvement
Feasibility and utilization of electronic patient-reported outcome measures for lung cancer in routine clinical care.

Ethan Basch,Huamao Mark Lin,Mary Lynn Cala,Melpomeni Styliadou,Aaron Galaznik,Debra Wujcik,Emelly Rusli,Nicholas C Coombs,Emily R Beamon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.11107

IF: 45.3

2024-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:11107 Background: Prior studies have shown the value of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) in cost burden, quality of life (QoL), and survival in cancer care. To facilitate focus on patient-centricity and value-based care, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurements (ICHOM) and European Health Outcomes Observatory (H2O) developed a Core Outcomes Set (COS) in lung cancer. We explored the feasibility of deploying standardized PRO measures among patients with lung cancer in US clinical practice. Methods: A retrospective database study was conducted, with IRB waiver, using Carevive PROmPT, an electronic PRO (ePRO) remote symptom monitoring platform with weekly surveys comparable in scope to ICHOM/H2O COS, of symptomatic adverse events (PRO-CTCAE), physical function (PROMIS 4A Physical Function), and QoL items (EORTC QLQ-C30 items #29,30). Severe PRO-CTCAE symptom scores triggered care team alerts. From 9/2020 to 5/2023, 207 patients enrolled across 9 US cancer centers. Patients were ≥18 years, with lung cancer, and in current treatment. Patient engagement was measured by survey compliance, follow-up time, and completeness; clinician engagement was measured by platform utilization time, time to alert response, and clinical action taken. Results: Participants were 50% female, 86% White, 12% African American, median age 68, 81% NSCLC, and 26% with metastatic disease. Median survey persistence: 8 weeks, with 85% compliance over that time. Of domains assessed, 37 (58%) from Carevive data overlapped with ICHOM/H2O COS, with 19 measured over time. Overlapping domains included 15 clinical outcomes with 60% median completion rate and 22 PRO domains with 98% median completion. Of 19 domains assessed longitudinally, median compliance was 76%. Of patients triggering ≥1 ePRO symptom alert, 87% were within 4 weeks, with 46% requesting call-backs. Median clinician follow-up to alerts was 20 hours, with 69.3% addressed within 48 hours. Clinicians accessed the platform 2-3 times weekly, for median 2 minutes (range: 1-14 minutes) per login for nurses and Advanced Practitioners (AP). 89% of alerts were addressed by nurses and AP. Of alert responses, 66% indicated continuation of treatment, 12% were escalated to the clinical team, and 1% were escalated to hospitalization or ER visit. Conclusions: Results support the feasibility of integrating a standard set of multi-domain ePRO measures, comparable to the ICHOM/H2O COS, into routine cancer care, across multiple sites, with consistent patient engagement and provider utilization. One limitation is that clinical and financial impact were not directly assessed. Future research should explore direct clinician feedback, systematic implementation of PRO measures, and impacts on patient outcomes, resource utilization, and health systems.

oncology
Advancing patient-centered cancer care: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcome measures

Hosna Salmani,Somayeh Nasiri,Mahdi Alemrajabi,Maryam Ahmadi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2024.1427712

2024-09-25

Abstract:Background: Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs) have emerged as valuable tools in cancer care, facilitating the comprehensive assessment of patients' physical, psychological, and social well-being. This study synthesizes literature on the utilization of ePROMs in oncology, highlighting the diverse array of measurement instruments and questionnaires employed in cancer patient assessments. By comprehensively analyzing existing research, this study provides insights into the landscape of ePROMs, informs future research directions, and aims to optimize patient-centred oncology care through the strategic integration of ePROMs into clinical practice. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals without time limitations up to 2024. The search was performed across multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, using predefined search terms related to cancer, measurement instruments, and patient assessment. The selected articles underwent a rigorous quality assessment using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results: The review of 85 studies revealed a diverse range of measurement instruments and questionnaires utilized in cancer patient assessments. Prominent instruments such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Patient Reported Outcome-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) were frequently referenced across multiple studies. Additionally, other instruments identified included generic health-related quality of life measures and disease-specific assessments tailored to particular cancer types. The findings indicated the importance of utilizing a variety of measurement tools to comprehensively assess the multifaceted needs and experiences of cancer patients. Conclusion: Our systematic review provides a comprehensive examination of the varied tools and ePROMs employed in cancer care, accentuating the perpetual requirement for development and validation. Prominent instruments like the EORTC QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE are underscored, emphasizing the necessity for a thorough assessment to meet the multifaceted needs of patients. Looking ahead, scholarly endeavours should prioritize the enhancement of existing tools and the creation of novel measures to adeptly address the evolving demands of cancer patients across heterogeneous settings and populations.
Systematic Evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Content of Clinical Trial Protocols

Derek Kyte,Helen Duffy,Benjamin Fletcher,Adrian Gheorghe,Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber,Madeleine King,Heather Draper,Jonathan Ives,Michael Brundage,Jane Blazeby,Melanie Calvert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110229

IF: 3.7

2014-10-15

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Qualitative evidence suggests patient-reported outcome (PRO) information is frequently absent from clinical trial protocols, potentially leading to inconsistent PRO data collection and risking bias. Direct evidence regarding PRO trial protocol content is lacking. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the PRO-specific content of UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme trial protocols.METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an electronic search of the NIHR HTA programme database (inception to August 2013) for protocols describing a randomised controlled trial including a primary/secondary PRO. Two investigators independently reviewed the content of each protocol, using a specially constructed PRO-specific protocol checklist, alongside the 'Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials' (SPIRIT) checklist. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third investigator. 75 trial protocols were included in the analysis. Protocols included a mean of 32/51 (63%) SPIRIT recommendations (range 16-41, SD 5.62) and 11/33 (33%) PRO-specific items (range 4-18, SD 3.56). Over half (61%) of the PRO items were incomplete. Protocols containing a primary PRO included slightly more PRO checklist items (mean 14/33 (43%)). PRO protocol content was not associated with general protocol completeness; thus, protocols judged as relatively 'complete' using SPIRIT were still likely to have omitted a large proportion of PRO checklist items.CONCLUSIONS: The PRO components of HTA clinical trial protocols require improvement. Information on the PRO rationale/hypothesis, data collection methods, training and management was often absent. This low compliance is unsurprising; evidence shows existing PRO guidance for protocol developers remains difficult to access and lacks consistency. Study findings suggest there are a number of PRO protocol checklist items that are not fully addressed by the current SPIRIT statement. We therefore advocate the development of consensus-based supplementary guidelines, aimed at improving the completeness and quality of PRO content in clinical trial protocols.

multidisciplinary sciences
Person‐reported outcomes in registered randomised diabetes trials: A mapping review of constructs

Maartje de Wit,Selina van Luik,David Marrero,Katharine Barnard‐Kelly,Frank J. Snoek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.15385

IF: 3.5

2024-06-16

Diabetic Medicine

Abstract:Aim Recently, efforts have been made to use and report person‐reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Here, we aim to (1) assess the status of inclusion of PROs in registered RCTs over 5 years in people with type 1 or 2 diabetes, and (2) map the PRO measures (PROMs) onto predefined domains. Methods The largest trial registries (Clinicatrials.gov, International Clinical Trial Platform and ISRCTN) were systematically searched for RCTs in people with type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes of all ages between 2018 and 2023. Coding of PROs comprised: (1) PRO measure(s) included yes or no; if yes: (2) PRO(s) as primary outcome yes or no; and (3) mapping PROMs onto predefined PRO domains and per type of intervention. Results N = 1543 trials met our inclusion criteria, of which n = 673 (44%) included PROs, assessed by 545 different measures. Twenty per cent of drug trials (n = 112) and 71% of behavioural interventions (n = 405) included PROs. In 149 trials (9.6%), a PRO was the primary outcome. The psychological functioning domain was most often assessed across all trials (21.6%), specifically in behavioural (44.8%) and medical device interventions (29.7%). In drug trials, the physical functioning and functional health domain was most included (9%). Across all trials, the social and family functioning domain was least assessed (3%). Conclusions We noticed an increase in the inclusion of PROs in diabetes RCTs. However, PROs are rarely included as primary outcomes in the majority of studies, particularly in drug trials. The heterogeneity of PROMs used in RCTs underscores the need for standardisation of PROs.

endocrinology & metabolism
Perceived Barriers Toward Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation in Cancer Care: An International Scoping Survey

Lawson Eng,Raymond J. Chan,Alexandre Chan,Andreas Charalambous,H.S. Darling,Lisa Grech,Corina J.G. van den Hurk,Deborah Kirk,Sandra A. Mitchell,Dagmara Poprawski,Elke Rammant,Imogen Ramsey,Margaret I. Fitch,Yin Ting Cheung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.23.00715

2024-03-08

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:PURPOSE Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection is an important priority in cancer care. We examined perceived barriers toward implementing PRO collection between centers with and without PRO infrastructure and administrators and nonadministrators. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a multinational survey of oncology practitioners on their perceived barriers to PRO implementations. Multivariable regression models evaluated for differences in perceived barriers to PRO implementation between groups, adjusted for demographic and institutional variables. RESULTS Among 358 oncology practitioners representing six geographic regions, 31% worked at centers that did not have PRO infrastructure and 26% self-reported as administrators. Administrators were more likely to perceive concerns with liability issues (aOR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.57]; P = .02) while having nonsignificant trend toward less likely perceiving concerns with disruption of workflow (aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.03]; P = .06) and nonadherence of PRO reporting (aOR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.26 to 1.08]; P = .08) as barriers. Respondents from centers without PRO infrastructure were more likely to perceive that not having access to a local PRO expert (aOR, 6.59 [95% CI, 3.81 to 11.42]; P < .001), being unsure how to apply PROs in clinical decisions (aOR, 4.20 [95% CI, 2.32 to 7.63]; P < .001), and being unsure about selecting PRO measures (aOR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.00 to 5.66]; P < .001) as barriers. Heat map analyses identified the largest differences between participants from centers with and without PRO infrastructure in agreed-upon barriers were (1) not having a local PRO expert, (2) being unsure about selecting PRO measures, and (3) not recognizing the role of PROs at the institutional level. CONCLUSION Perceived barriers toward PRO implementation differ between administrators and nonadministrators and practitioners at centers with and without PRO infrastructure. PRO implementation teams should consider as part of a comprehensive strategy including frontline clinicians and administrators and members with PRO experience within teams.

oncology

Reduction of doxorubicin toxicity by methylene blue in cultured rat myocardial cells.

Improving completion rates of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer clinical trials: Scoping review investigating the implications for trial designs

Data collection methods for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a rapid scoping review

Patient-reported outcomes in Hodgkin lymphoma trials: a systematic review

The Prognostic Significance of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Cancer Care: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

X-linked dyskeratosis congenita with pancytopenia.

Examining the Effectiveness of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in People With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract 1302: Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials

Effects of routine collection of patient-reported outcomes on patient health outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review

Abstract PO3-10-10: Are we adequately integrating patient reported outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials?

The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners

Unleashing patient voices: empowering adverse event assessment with complete patient-reported outcomes

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Medical Oncology Setting (the iPROMOS Study): Type II Hybrid Implementation Study

Proactive assessment of patient reported outcomes in ovarian cancer studies: a systematic review and call for action in future studies

Improving Adherence to electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes: Study Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review and subsequent qualitative Interviews

Feasibility and utilization of electronic patient-reported outcome measures for lung cancer in routine clinical care.

Advancing patient-centered cancer care: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcome measures

Systematic Evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Content of Clinical Trial Protocols

Person‐reported outcomes in registered randomised diabetes trials: A mapping review of constructs

Perceived Barriers Toward Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation in Cancer Care: An International Scoping Survey