Reporting of patient reported outcome (PRO) in clinical trials: A systematic review of clinical trials.

Authors

null

Liat Vidal-Fisher

Syneos Health, Tel Aviv, Israel

Liat Vidal-Fisher , Laura Vidal Boixader , Vasily Andrianov , Kelly Kevelin Curtis , Daniel Shepshelovich , Keren Rachel Moss

Organizations

Syneos Health, Tel Aviv, Israel, Syneos Health, Barcelona, Spain, Syneos Health, San Jose, CA, Syneos Health, Phoenix, AZ, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, Syneos Health, Midreshet Sde Boker, ME, Israel

Research Funding

Other

Background: Clinically relevant outcomes as improvements in overall survival (OS) or quality of life (QOL) should guide decision-making. The FDA encourages the implementation of patient-centric measures in clinical trials. Over the past decade a growing number of protocols have included PROs in their outcome measures. We aimed to evaluate the frequency at which PRO measures, incorporated into clinical trials, are made publicly available, when trial results are published. Methods: We searched Citeline Trialtrove database, a registry of clinical trials, for randomized phase 3 trials of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), recruiting during 2006-2016, with PRO listed. We excluded trials evaluating supportive treatment, and those unpublished. We identified publications associated with the trial, and extracted various parameters, including whether or not PRO outcome was published. Results: Of 158 NSCLC trials identified, 99 listed at least 1 PRO. 24 trials were excluded (supportive care, unpublished). The commonly used scales were EORTC-QLQ C30, QLQ-LC13, LCSS, FACT-L, and EQ-5D. Study sponsor was industry in 45 trials, and industry-academic in 12 trials. Of 75 trials analyzed, 41 (55%) published the results of the PRO endpoint. Only 37% of the 75 included a comprehensive report of PRO, and many publications referenced the PRO briefly. Of 41 trials that reported PRO, only 21 (51%) provided information about missing PRO data. 59 trials were published as full-text, of which 40 (68%) reported the PRO, and 53% reported the PRO more than 6 months after the initial full publication. Of the trials that showed PFS benefit, with no OS benefit, 22/34 (65%) published the results of the PRO endpoints. Conclusions: Despite a growing emphasis on QOL and the inclusion of PROs in oncology clinical trials, and despite patient and healthcare provider efforts to record PRO data, a significant number of NSCLC randomized trials do not report the PRO. The collection of PRO data should result in routine, timely and appropriate reporting as part of the trial outcome publication, to allow for a thorough assessment of investigational clinically relevant treatment effect.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2019 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Health Services Research, Clinical Informatics, and Quality of Care

Track

Quality Care/Health Services Research

Sub Track

Outcomes

Citation

J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 6590)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.6590

Abstract #

6590

Poster Bd #

281

Abstract Disclosures