Search

Smoking is well recognized as one of the most preventable causes of death and disease in the United States (U.S.), accounting for approximately 480,000 deaths each year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2014). In addition, the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP, 2018) estimates that approximately 20–30% of individuals experimenting with cigarettes will meet criteria for tobacco use disorder within their lifetime while 60–80% of current cigarette smokers manifest classic drug dependence criteria. Associated annual healthcare cost of smoking are approximately133 billion dollars, with the additional cost in lost productivity estimated at 156 billion dollars annually (CDC, 2014; United States Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2014). Although recent national rates of cigarette smoking in adults have declined from 20.9% in 2005 to 13.7% in 2018, there remains significant disparity in smoking rates among rural populations (Creamer et al., 2019).

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

Objective: The study sought to describe patient-entered supplemental information on symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical research reported via a National Cancer Institute software system and examine the feasibility of mapping these entries to established terminologies. Materials and Methods: Patients in 3 multicenter trials electronically completed surveys during cancer treatment. Each survey included a prespecified subset of items from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Upon completion of the survey items, patients could add supplemental symptomatic AE information in a free text box. As patients typed into the box, structured dropdown terms could be selected from the PRO-CTCAE item library or Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), or patients could type unstructured free text for submission. Results: Data were pooled from 1760 participants (48% women; 78% White) who completed 8892 surveys, of which 2387 (26.8%) included supplemental symptomatic AE information. Overall, 1024 (58%) patients entered supplemental information at least once, with an average of 2.3 per patient per study. This encompassed 1474 of 8892 (16.6%) dropdowns and 913 of 8892 (10.3%) unstructured free text entries. One-third of the unstructured free text entries (32%) could be mapped post hoc to a PRO-CTCAE term and 68% to a MedDRA term. Discussion: Participants frequently added supplemental information beyond study-specific survey items. Almost half selected a structured dropdown term, although many opted to submit unstructured free text entries. Most free text entries could be mapped post hoc to PRO-CTCAE or MedDRA terms, suggesting opportunities to enhance the system to perform real-time mapping for AE reporting. Conclusions: Patient reporting of symptomatic AEs using a text box functionality with mapping to existing terminologies is both feasible and informative.

Background There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. Methods and Results Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including “missing data,”“health-related quality of life,” and “patient-reported outcome.” Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. Conclusion The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

Purpose: To improve assessment of symptomatic toxicity in cancer clinical trials and complement clinician-based toxicity reporting, the US National Cancer Institute developed a measurement system called the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). The objective of this study was to examine the content validity of PRO-CTCAE in patients undergoing radiation therapy and to establish anatomic site-specific item sets for implementation in cancer research. Methods and Materials: Patients receiving radiation to the brain, head and neck, breast, thorax, abdomen, or pelvis were recruited during the final week of radiation. Participants described side effects qualitatively and completed anatomic site-specific checklists indicating the presence or absence of symptomatic toxicities drawn from the PRO-CTCAE library. Items endorsed by ≥20% of participants were selected for inclusion. Symptomatic toxicities described qualitatively were content analyzed and summarized. Symptomatic toxicities not reflected in the PRO-CTCAE item library were tabulated. Results: We conducted 389 interviews of patients receiving radiation to the brain (n = 46), head and neck (n = 69), breast (n = 134), thorax (n = 30), abdomen (n = 27), female pelvis (n = 36), or male pelvis (n = 47). Median age was 62 years; 62% were female. The 53 solicited PRO-CTCAE symptoms reflected all reported radiation-induced toxicities with the exception of phlegm/mucus production and mouth/throat pain with swallowing in patients receiving head and neck radiation, eye dryness/irritation in patients undergoing brain radiation, and obstructive urinary symptoms in men receiving pelvic radiation. The PRO-CTCAE items “skin burns” and “pain” require greater specificity to adequately reflect toxicities experienced during radiation. Conclusions: PRO-CTCAE demonstrates strong content validity as a measure of symptomatic toxicities in patients receiving radiation. These results provide empirical support for the definition of site-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets to assess the symptomatic toxicities of radiation therapy. The site-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets developed herein are currently being deployed in our department via an electronic platform to capture treatment-related toxicity.

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, are important endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there is little consensus about the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of these data. We did a systematic review to assess the variability, quality, and standards of PRO data analyses in advanced breast cancer RCTs. We searched PubMed for English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2017. Eligible articles were those that reported PRO results from RCTs of adult patients with advanced breast cancer receiving anti-cancer treatments with reported sample sizes of at least 50 patients—66 RCTs met the selection criteria. Only eight (12%) RCTs reported a specific PRO research hypothesis. Heterogeneity in the statistical methods used to assess PRO data was observed, with a mixture of longitudinal and cross-sectional techniques. Not all articles addressed the problem of multiple testing. Fewer than half of RCTs (28 [42%]) reported the clinical significance of their findings. 48 (73%) did not report how missing data were handled. Our systematic review shows a need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs. Lack of standardisation makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions and compare findings across trials. The Setting International Standards in the Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data Consortium was set up to address this need and develop recommendations on the analysis of PRO data in RCTs.

Background: The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) developed software to gather symptomatic adverse events directly from patients participating in clinical trials. The software administers surveys to patients using items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) through Web-based or automated telephone interfaces and facilitates the management of survey administration and the resultant data by professionals (clinicians and research associates). Objective: The purpose of this study was to iteratively evaluate and improve the usability of the PRO-CTCAE software. Methods: Heuristic evaluation of the software functionality was followed by semiscripted, think-aloud protocols in two consecutive rounds of usability testing among patients with cancer, clinicians, and research associates at 3 cancer centers. We conducted testing with patients both in clinics and at home (remotely) for both Web-based and telephone interfaces. Furthermore, we refined the software between rounds and retested. Results: Heuristic evaluation identified deviations from the best practices across 10 standardized categories, which informed initial software improvement. Subsequently, we conducted user-based testing among 169 patients and 47 professionals. Software modifications between rounds addressed identified issues, including difficulty using radio buttons, absence of survey progress indicators, and login problems (for patients) as well as scheduling of patient surveys (for professionals). The initial System Usability Scale (SUS) score for the patient Web-based interface was 86 and 82 (P=.22) before and after modifications, respectively, whereas the task completion score was 4.47, which improved to 4.58 (P=.39) after modifications. Following modifications for professional users, the SUS scores improved from 71 to 75 (P=.47), and the mean task performance improved significantly (4.40 vs 4.02; P=.001). Conclusions: Software modifications, informed by rigorous assessment, rendered a usable system, which is currently used in multiple NCI-sponsored multicenter cancer clinical trials.

Accurate capture of the symptom experience is essential to gauging efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cancer treatments. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed by the National Cancer Institute to allow direct patient self-reporting of symptomatic adverse events in cancer clinical trials. Its content validity has been established in accordance with recommended practices for novel patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments.

Background: The aim was to examine the feasibility, acceptability and clinical utility of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using a subset of items drawn from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in a cancer treatment setting. Methods: Danish-speaking men with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer receiving treatment at the Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen between March 9, 2015 and June 8, 2015 were invited to participate (n = 63 eligible). Participants completed the PRO-CTCAE questionnaire on tablet computers using AmbuFlex software at each treatment visit in the outpatient clinic. In total, 22 symptomatic toxicities (41 PRO-CTCAE items), corresponding to the symptomatic adverse-events profile associated with the regimens commonly used for prostate cancer treatment (Docetaxel, Cabazitaxel, Abiraterone, Alpharadin), were selected. Participants’ PRO-CTCAE responses were presented graphically to their treating oncologists via an AmbuFlex dashboard, for real-time use to enhance the patient-clinician dialogue that occurs during the consultation prior to each treatment cycle. Technical and clinical barriers and acceptability were evaluated through semi-structured interviews with both patients and oncologists. Patients receiving active treatment at the end of the study period completed an evaluation questionnaire. Results: Fifty-four out of sixty-three (86%) eligible patients were enrolled. The PRO-CTCAE questionnaire was completed a total of 168 times by 54 participants (median number per patient was 3, range 1–5). Eight surveys were missed, resulting in a compliance rate of 97%. At the end of the study period, 35 patients (65%) were still receiving active treatment and completed the evaluation questionnaire. Patients reported that their PRO-CTCAE responses served as a communication tool. Oncologists stated that the availability of the PRO-CTCAE self-reports during the consultation improved patient-clinician communication about side effects. Conclusion: Electronic capture of symptomatic toxicities using PRO-CTCAE and the submission of self-reports to clinicians prior to consultation were feasible among metastatic prostate cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in an outpatient setting, and this procedure was acceptable to both patients and clinicians. Continued research, including a cluster-randomized trial, will evaluate the effects of submitting patients’ PRO-CTCAE results to clinicians prior to consultation on the quality of side-effects management and resultant clinical outcomes.

Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes generate important data in cancer randomised trials to assist in assessing the risks and benefits of cancer therapies and fostering patient-centred cancer care. However, the various ways these measures are analysed and interpreted make it difficult to compare results across trials, and hinders the application of research findings to inform publications, product labelling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. To address these problems, the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data (SISAQOL) initiative has been established. This consortium, directed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was convened to provide recommendations on how to standardise the analysis of HRQOL and other patient-reported outcomes data in cancer randomised trials. This Personal View discusses the reasons why this project was initiated, the rationale for the planned work, and the expected benefits to cancer research, patient and provider decision making, care delivery, and policy making.

Objective: This systematic review of the literature assesses congruency of findings from descriptive, qualitative, and association studies focusing on factors influencing smoking and smoking cessation with findings from smoking cessation interventions that included low-income rural women. Design and Sample: Six databases relevant to the health and social sciences were searched in this systematic review using combinations of select keyword terms, specific inclusion criteria, and studies between 1997 and 2012. Results: Descriptive studies on this population of smokers provide economic, environmental, and social factors related to smoking patterns. Qualitative studies found social support received from an individual's social network was viewed as most beneficial when considering or maintaining smoking cessation while randomized controlled trials included in this review implemented social support through peripheral resources or resources with little personal connection to the sample and failed to produce significant results. Conclusions: Few studies have focused on the specific needs and difficulties of smoking cessation among rural low-income women and interventions have not targeted the complex social network of this population. Incongruence in study findings supports the need for smoking assessment and cessation interventions that incorporates the unique social and cultural meanings of smoking in rural low-income women.