How Oncologists Perceive the Availability and Quality of Information Generated From Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2022
Introduction: Regulatory agencies encourage the incorporation of the patient voices throughout clinical drug development. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) offer one way of doing this and their use has markedly increased in many therapeutic areas, particularly oncology, in recent years. However, few oncology drug labels include PRO data and those which do, offer little consistency. Objective: To provide multidisciplinary perspectives (patient, pharmaceutical industry, PRO researcher, regulatory expert) on PRO data in oncology drug labels. Methods: PRO data in the labels of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for oncology indications between 2010 and 2020 were critically reviewed by authors who provided their insights on the advantages and disadvantages/gaps. Results: Forty-six oncology drugs included PRO data in their labels. Differences were observed between FDA and EMA PRO labeling (e.g., PRO concept, use of tables and graphs to display PROs or reference to clinical meaningfulness). In providing their perspectives on the number and nature of PROs in labels, authors noted limitations including: the low proportion of oncology drugs with PRO labeling, limited PRO information in labels, lack of patient-friendly language, and potential bias towards positive outcomes. Lack of consistency within-and between-agencies was noted. Conclusion: Despite regulatory agencies' commitment to incorporate patient voices in regulatory decisions, availability of PRO information is limited in oncology drug labels. While several PRO guidance documents are available from regulatory and Health Technology Assessment agencies, harmonization of PRO guidance for labeling inclusion around the world is needed to better
Patient-Reported Outcomes and the Evolution of Adverse Event Reporting in Oncology
Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2007
Adverse event (AE) reporting in oncology has evolved from informal descriptions to a highly systematized process. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the predominant system for describing the severity of AEs commonly encountered in oncology clinical trials. CTCAE clinical descriptors have been developed empirically during more than 30 years of use. The method of data collection is clinician based. Limitations of the CTC system include potential for incomplete reporting and limited guidance on data analysis and presentation methods. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) is a comprehensive medical terminology system used for regulatory reporting and drug labeling. MedDRA does not provide for severity ranking of AEs. CTC-based data presentations are the primary method of AE data reporting used in scientific journals and oncology meetings. Patient-reported outcome instruments (PROs) cover the subjective domain of AEs. Exploratory work suggests PROs can be used with a high degree of patient engagement and compliance. Additional studies are needed to determine how PROs can be used to complement current AE reporting systems. Potential models for integrating PROs into AE reporting are described in this review. AE reporting methods will continue to evolve in response to changing therapies and growing interest in measuring the impact of cancer treatment on health status. Although integration of PROs into AE reporting may ultimately improve the comprehensiveness and quality of collected data, it may also increase the administrative burden and cost of conducting trials. Therefore, care must be used when developing health outcomes and safety data collection plans.
Integrating Patient Reported Outcomes With Clinical Cancer
2013
Background: Routine measurement of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) linked with clinical data across the patient pathway is increasingly important for informing future care planning. The innovative electronic Patient-reported Outcomes from Cancer Survivors (ePOCS) system was developed to integrate PROs, collected online at specified post-diagnostic time-points, with clinical and treatment data in cancer registries.
Health and quality of life outcomes, 2014
Every cancer treatment, irrespective of its clinical effectiveness, has an impact on patients' quality of life (QoL). Even recently developed targeted therapies might have side effects and significantly impact patients' QoL. Thus, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of different treatments from the patient's standpoint has become a must in clinical research and is highly valued by major stakeholders. Thousands of cancer patients are enrolled into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) each year and many complete patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to obtain patient-centered information as part of the assessment of the overall effectiveness of the new therapy. Some of these RCTs have generated high quality PRO evidence forming the basis for approval (or support to approval) of drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, a consistent strategy to determine the quality of patient centered evidence presented in RCTs has until recently been lacking. O...
2020
PURPOSE Medical records are a relevant source for real-world evidence. We introduced patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice, demonstrating a significant quality-of-life improvement, compared to usual visit. In this secondary analysis, we describe the agreement between patients' and physicians' reports of 5 symptoms. Our hypothesis was that adoption of PROs questionnaire could significantly improve the agreement. METHODS Eligible patients were receiving active anti-cancer treatment. Patients in the control group underwent usual visits (group A), while patients of group B, before each visit, filled a PROs paper questionnaire, to provide information about symptoms and toxicities. No specific instructions were provided to physicians to integrate such information in medical records. Agreement between patient and physician evaluations was assessed by Cohen's κ, calculating under-reporting as proportion of toxicities reported by patients but not recorded by physi...
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO, 2015
This review focused on the identification of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in routine cancer clinical practice, the impact on patient, provider and system outcomes and the implementation factors influencing uptake. A scoping review of the published health literature was conducted using empirical databases, namely, Ovid Medline (2003 to September 2013), CINAHL (2003-2013) and PsycINFO (2003-2013). Scoping reviews are systematic literature reviews in a broad topic area that provide relevant and quantified results about the knowledge available on a particular topic and aim to rapidly map and synthesize the evidence to highlight what is known. From a total of 2447 unique publications, 30 articles that met eligibility criteria were reviewed. PRO use appears to be acceptable to patients, enables earlier detection of symptoms and may improve communication between clinicians and patients. However, the impact of routine PROMs collection on health outcomes is less clear and h...
Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2019
Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice. Methods: We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored. Results: Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range ¼ 2-19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval ¼ 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range ¼ 0-11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5-8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years. Conclusions: PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly captured within cancer trials to provide the patient perspective on the physical, functional, psychological, and social consequences of disease and treatment (1). This information is important in supporting patients to make more informed treatment decisions at the point of cancer diagnosis and beyond (2,3). The utility of such data has been recognized by patients, clinicians, funders, regulators, and policy makers (4-8). Despite this, emerging evidence suggests that important PRO information may be omitted from protocols (9,10), potentially impairing data collection (11,12), and that PRO results are poorly reported in trial publications (5,13-21) or may not be reported at all (22). This represents a waste of limited health-care and research
Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2011
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is developing a patientreported version of its Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, called the "PRO-CTCAE." The PRO-CTCAE consists of a library of patient-reported items which can be administered in clinical trials to directly capture the patient experience of adverse events during cancer treatment, as well as a software platform for administering these items via computer or telephone. In order to better understand the impressions of stakeholders involved in cancer clinical research about the potential value of the PRO-CTCAE approach to capturing adverse event information in clinical research, as well as their perspectives about barriers and strategies for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in NCI-sponsored cancer trials, a survey was conducted. A survey including structured and open-ended questions was developed to elicit perceptions about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for adverse event reporting, and to explore logistical considerations for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in cancer trials. The survey was distributed electronically and by paper to a convenience sample of leadership and committee members in the NCI's cooperative group network, including principal investigators, clinical investigators, research nurses, data managers, patient advocates, and representatives of the NCI and Food and Drug Administration. Between October, 2008 through February, 2009, 727 surveys were collected. Most respondents (93%) agreed that patient reporting of adverse symptoms would be useful for improving understanding of the patient experience with treatment in cancer trials, and 88%, 80%, and 76%, respectively, endorsed that administration of PRO-CTCAE items in clinical trials would improve the completeness, accuracy, and efficiency of symptom data collection. More than three fourths believed that patient reports would be useful for informing treatment dose modifications and towards FDA regulatory evaluation of drugs. Eighty-eight percent felt that patients in clinical trials would be willing to self-report adverse symptoms at clinic visits via computer, and 68% felt patients would self-report weekly from home via the internet or an automated telephone system. Lack of computers and limited space and personnel were seen as potential barriers to in-clinic selfreporting, but these were judged to be surmountable with adequate funding. The PRO-CTCAE items and software are viewed by a majority of survey respondents as a means to improve adverse event data quality and comprehensiveness, enhance clinical decision-making, and foster patient-clinician communication. Research is ongoing to assess the measurement properties and feasibility of implementing this measure in cancer clinical trials.