Search

Aims: Current patient-reported measures (PROMs) do not specifically address radiotherapy (RT) related inconvenience. We conducted, as per guidelines of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the initial (issue generation) phase of development of a RT inconvenience PROM. Specifically, we aimed to develop a conceptual framework for RT inconvenience and generate a comprehensive list of issues pertaining to it.Methods: We reviewed existing PROMs and literature and gathered qualitative and quantitative data from consumers and health professionals, in order to generate a comprehensive list of issues pertaining to RT inconvenience. A framework for the consideration of RT inconvenience was defined and used to ensure all possible issues were explored and to list the issues into conceptual domains.Results: Qualitative data from 26 consumers and 30 health professionals, and quantitative data from 1191 consumers and 253 health professionals resulted in the identification of 38 issues grouped into five conceptual domains: (1) inconvenience of RT opportunity, (2) inconvenience of decision-making, (3) inconvenience of treatment, (4) inconvenience of side effects, and (5) inconvenience of follow-up.Conclusions: This list of RT inconvenience issues will, in future work, be operationalized into a set of items for pretesting and then large-scale field testing as per the EORTC guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer (LPC) face difficult choices between treatment options that can cause persistent problems with sexual, urinary and bowel function. Controlled trial evidence about the survival benefits of the full range of treatment alternatives is limited, and patients' views on the survival gains that might justify these problems have not been quantified.Methods:A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered in a random subsample (n=357, stratified by treatment) of a population-based sample (n=1381) of men, recurrence-free 3 years after diagnosis of LPC, and 65 age-matched controls (without prostate cancer). Survival gains needed to justify persistent problems were estimated by substituting side effect and survival parameters from the DCE into an equation for compensating variation (adapted from welfare economics).Results:Median (2.5, 97.5 centiles) survival benefits needed to justify severe erectile dysfunction and severe loss of libido were 4.0 (3.4, 4.6) and 5.0 (4.9, 5.2) months. These problems were common, particularly after androgen deprivation therapy (ADT): 40 and 41% overall (n=1381) and 88 and 78% in the ADT group (n=33). Urinary leakage (most prevalent after radical prostatectomy (n=839, mild 41%, severe 18%)) needed 4.2 (4.1, 4.3) and 27.7 (26.9, 28.5) months survival benefit, respectively. Mild bowel problems (most prevalent (30%) after external beam radiotherapy (n=106)) needed 6.2 (6.1, 6.4) months survival benefit.Conclusion:Emerging evidence about survival benefits can be assessed against these patient-based benchmarks. Considerable variation in trade-offs among individuals underlines the need to inform patients of long-term consequences and incorporate patient preferences into treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Recent reviews suggest that the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer clinics improves the processes of care but not patient outcomes such as quality of life or satisfaction. We set out to identify future strategies for (1) interventions to impact patient outcomes and (2) trials to identify treatment effects. Methods: MEDLINE and PsycINFO were systematically searched to identify reports of relevant randomized controlled trials. Intervention and trial designs were compared and contrasted along the parameters identified by previous reviews and the rationales reported in each article. Results were cross-referenced with evidence for impact to develop recommendations. Results: Six articles were identified. Evidence for impact on patient outcomes was limited. Interventions varied according to the PROMs used, the frequency, content and presentation of feedback, and the training offered to medical teams. Trials varied in their unit of randomization, outcome measures, control of contamination, monitoring of PROM use, and length of follow-up. Our analysis identified the need for future interventions to ensure that PROM data are used to optimum effect and for trials to control for contamination and monitor use of PROMs to link this with outcomes. Conclusions: Future interventions should motivate and equip health professionals to use PROM data in managing patients, train patients in self-efficacy, use more specific PROMs in clinic, improve the interpretability of feedback for both medical staff and patients, and monitor the use of PROMs to intervene when problems arise. Future trials should use a cluster-randomized design to control for contamination and enable systems-based interventions. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective:To evaluate the validity and responsiveness of a modified SF-36 within a spinal cord-injured (SCI) population.Study Design:SF-36 scores collected at baseline and on completion of a randomized controlled trial in 305 patients with SCI and neuropathic bladder.Setting:New South Wales, Australia.Methods:Subjects were administered the standard SF-36 plus three additional questions, in which ‘walk’ was replaced with ‘wheel’ for three of the physical function (PF) questions. Discriminant validity was determined by comparing participants with paraplegia and tetraplegia using the effect size (ES). Responsiveness was assessed in the subset of patients who developed a urinary tract infection (UTI) during the trial using the standardized response mean (SRM).Results:Compared with the standard SF-36, the SF-36 walk-wheel modification (SF-36ww) increased the mean PF score from 18 to 39 (P<0.001) and the physical composite score from 33 to 37 (P<0.001). Discriminant validity was similar for both versions (PF paraplegia/tetraplegia: ES 1.09(SF-36) vs 1.08(SF-36ww), n=305). Among 138 SCI patients who developed a UTI, the SF-36ww almost doubled PF responsiveness for all neurological levels (SRM increased from 0.36 to 0.68), more so in tetraplegic (SRM, 0.11 vs 0.58; n=77) than paraplegic groups (SRM, 0.77 vs 0.86; n=61).Conclusion:The SF-36ww is a simple, pragmatic modification of the SF-36 PF items, which addresses some problems of content validity and floor effect for SCI subjects and greatly improves responsiveness, particularly for those with tetraplegia. Because it comprises a simple addition to the standard SF-36, external comparisons are preserved.Spinal Cord (2009) 47, 50–55; doi:10.1038/sc.2008.65; published online 17 June 2008 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is general acceptance of the importance of incorporating patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures including health-related quality of life (HRQOL) into clinical trials, and there are now a number of guidance documents available on how to use PRO's for regulatory authorities and in comparative effectiveness research. The methods used to collect, analyse and report PRO data in clinical trials have received considerable scrutiny, revealing many shortcomings in the standard of reporting of HRQOL in clinical trials as well as in how PRO's have been selected and analysed in clinical trials. This has led to the recent Consolidated Standards of Reporting Clinical Trials—PRO extension statement which lays down a framework for selection and reporting analysis of PROs, either as primary or secondary trial end points, thus ensuring scientific rigour. Adherence to these guidelines can only improve the conduct of clinical trials and interpretation of their results, which may help avoid missing out on opportunities as in the past. We review pertinent literature on PRO measures and discuss how various recent PRO guidance documents should be applied to ovarian cancer clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Despite increased recognition of the value of including patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as important end points in phase III clinical trials, there has been a lack of pre-specified PRO hypotheses and shortcomings with the analyses and interpretation of PROs in many ovarian cancer trials. This paper discusses and provides examples of the so-called lost opportunities in ovarian cancer trials. These include: (i) no clear pre-specified PRO hypotheses; (ii) PRO end points not included; (iii) insensitive PRO end point selection; (iv) collection of poor-quality PRO data not suitable for analysis; (v) differences in PROs between treatment arms ignored; and (vi) poor reporting quality. We can learn from the past and with relatively little additional effort, improve the collection and interpretation of PRO data in future ovarian cancer trials. The importance of doing so is underpinned by recent initiatives to improve the standard and usefulness of PRO data in clinical trials. These include the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for PROs to support labelling claims, the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO MCBS), the International Society for Quality-of-Life Research PRO reporting guidance and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Clinical Trials (CONSORT)--PRO-extension statement which includes a checklist of recommended items to include in PRO sections of trial protocols. Promoting the importance of hypothesis-driven PROs in ovarian cancer clinical trials will lead to improvements in the design of these trials and the interpretation of their results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]