Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review

被引:65
|
作者
Pe, Madeline [1 ]
Dorme, Lien [1 ]
Coens, Corneel [1 ]
Basch, Ethan [2 ]
Calvert, Melanie [3 ]
Campbell, Alicyn [4 ]
Cleeland, Charles [5 ]
Cocks, Kim [6 ]
Collette, Laurence [1 ]
Dirven, Linda [7 ,8 ]
Dueck, Amylou C. [9 ]
Devlin, Nancy [10 ]
Flechtner, Hans-Henning [11 ]
Gotay, Carolyn [12 ]
Griebsch, Ingolf [13 ]
Groenvold, Mogens [14 ,15 ]
King, Madeleine [16 ,17 ]
Koller, Michael [18 ]
Malone, Daniel C. [19 ]
Martinelli, Francesca [1 ]
Mitchell, Sandra A. [20 ]
Musoro, Jammbe Z. [1 ]
Oliver, Kathy [21 ]
Piault-Louis, Elisabeth [4 ]
Piccart, Martine [22 ]
Pimentel, Francisco L. [23 ,24 ]
Quinten, Chantal [25 ]
Reijneveld, Jaap C. [26 ,27 ]
Sloan, Jeff [28 ]
Velikova, Galina [29 ]
Bottomley, Andrew [1 ]
机构
[1] European Org Res Treatment Canc, B-1200 Brussels, Belgium
[2] Univ N Carolina, Lineberger Comprehens Canc Ctr, Chapel Hill, NC 27515 USA
[3] Univ Birmingham, Coll Med & Dent Sci, Inst Appl Hlth Res, Ctr Patient Reported Outcomes Res, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[4] Genentech Inc, San Francisco, CA USA
[5] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Symptom Res, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[6] Adelphi Values, Bollington, Cheshire, England
[7] Leiden Univ, Med Ctr, Leiden, Netherlands
[8] Haaglanden Med Ctr, The Hague, Netherlands
[9] Mayo Clin, Alliance Stat & Data Ctr, Scottsdale, AZ USA
[10] Off Hlth Econ, London, England
[11] Univ Magdeburg, Clin Child & Adolescent Psychiat & Psychotherapy, Magdeburg, Germany
[12] Univ British Columbia, Sch Populat & Publ Hlth, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[13] Boehringer Ingelheim Int GmBH, Ingelheim, Germany
[14] Univ Copenhagen, Dept Publ Hlth, Copenhagen, Denmark
[15] Univ Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Hosp, Copenhagen, Denmark
[16] Univ Sydney, Sch Psychol, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[17] Univ Sydney, Sydney Med Sch, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[18] Univ Hosp Regensburg, Ctr Clin Studies, Regensburg, Germany
[19] Univ Arizona, Coll Pharm, Tucson, AZ 85721 USA
[20] NCI, Outcomes Res Branch, Healthcare Delivery Res Program, Div Canc Control & Populat Sci, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[21] Int Brain Tumour Alliance, Tadworth, Surrey, England
[22] Univ Libre Bruxelles, Inst Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium
[23] Blueclin Phase I, Porto, Portugal
[24] Univ Coimbra, Ctr Estudos & Invest Saude, Coimbra, Portugal
[25] European Ctr Dis Prevent & Control, Surveillance & Response Support Unit, Epidemiol Methods Sect, Stockholm, Sweden
[26] Vrije Univ Amsterdam Med Ctr, Dept Neurol, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[27] Vrije Univ Amsterdam Med Ctr, Brain Tumor Ctr, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[28] Mayo Clin, Alliance Stat & Data Ctr, Rochester, MN USA
[29] Univ Leeds, St Jamess Hosp, Leeds Inst Canc & Pathol, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
来源
LANCET ONCOLOGY | 2018年 / 19卷 / 09期
关键词
QUALITY-OF-LIFE; PHASE-III TRIAL; CAPECITABINE PLUS DOCETAXEL; ANTHRACYCLINE-PRETREATED PATIENTS; POSTMENOPAUSAL WOMEN; 1ST-LINE TREATMENT; CLINICAL-TRIALS; DOUBLE-BLIND; TRASTUZUMAB EMTANSINE; AROMATASE INHIBITOR;
D O I
10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30418-2
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:E459 / E469
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)
    S. Ishaque
    J. Karnon
    G. Chen
    R. Nair
    A. B. Salter
    Quality of Life Research, 2019, 28 : 567 - 592
  • [2] A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)
    Ishaque, S.
    Karnon, J.
    Chen, G.
    Nair, R.
    Salter, A. B.
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2019, 28 (03) : 567 - 592
  • [3] Inclusion of older patients with cancer in randomised controlled trials with patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review
    Sparano, Francesco
    Aaronson, Neil K.
    Sprangers, Mirjam A. G.
    Fayers, Peter
    Pusic, Andrea
    Kieffer, Jacobien M.
    Cottone, Francesco
    Rees, Jonathan
    Pezold, Mike
    Anota, Amelie
    Charton, Emilie
    Vignetti, Marco
    Wan, Chonghua
    Blazeby, Jane
    Efficace, Fabio
    BMJ SUPPORTIVE & PALLIATIVE CARE, 2019, 9 (04) : 451 - 463
  • [4] The level of patient-reported outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of brain tumour patients: A systematic review
    Dirven, Linda
    Taphoorn, Martin J. B.
    Reijneveld, Jaap C.
    Blazeby, Jane
    Jacobs, Marc
    Pusic, Andrea
    La Sala, Edoardo
    Stupp, Roger
    Fayers, Peter
    Efficace, Fabio
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2014, 50 (14) : 2432 - 2448
  • [5] Data collection methods for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a rapid scoping review
    Lehmann, Jens
    Krepper, Daniela
    Pe, Madeline
    Kulis, Dagmara
    Giesinger, Johannes M.
    Sztankay, Monika
    Kern, Scottie
    Fitzsimmons, Deborah
    Holzner, Bernhard
    BMJ OPEN, 2024, 14 (09):
  • [6] Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer
    Niamh McKigney
    Fergus Houston
    Ellen Ross
    Galina Velikova
    Julia Brown
    Deena Pravin Harji
    Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2023, 30 : 3969 - 3986
  • [7] Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer
    McKigney, Niamh
    Houston, Fergus
    Ross, Ellen
    Velikova, Galina
    Brown, Julia
    Harji, Deena Pravin
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2023, 30 (7) : 3969 - 3986
  • [8] Statistical Analysis Methods and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials for Cancer Conducted in Japan: A Systematic Review
    Mizusawa, Junki
    Ogawa, Gakuto
    Terada, Mitsumi
    Ishiki, Hiroto
    Kikawa, Yuichiro
    Kiyota, Naomi
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 16 (05)
  • [9] Patient experiences with patient-reported outcome measures in metastatic breast cancer trials: qualitative interviews
    Carla Romano
    Nimanee Harris
    Ari Gnanasakthy
    Denise D’Alessio
    David Chandiwana
    Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 6
  • [10] Patient experiences with patient-reported outcome measures in metastatic breast cancer trials: qualitative interviews
    Romano, Carla
    Harris, Nimanee
    Gnanasakthy, Ari
    D'Alessio, Denise
    Chandiwana, David
    JOURNAL OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES, 2022, 6 (01)