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
  • [21] The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis
    Samantha Cruz Rivera
    Derek G. Kyte
    Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
    Anita L. Slade
    Christel McMullan
    Melanie J. Calvert
    Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 17
  • [22] The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis
    Rivera, Samantha Cruz
    Kyte, Derek
    Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee
    Slade, Anita
    McMullan, Christel
    Calvert, Melanie
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2019, 28 : S112 - S113
  • [23] Systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures used in randomised clinical trials testing checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy for cancer
    Peters, Michele
    Wiltshire, Rebecca
    Lavender, Verna
    Middleton, Mark
    Peters, Michele
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2018, 27 : S117 - S118
  • [24] Missing data handling and sensitivity analyses for patient-reported outcome endpoints in breast cancer randomized controlled trials: a systematic scoping review on current reporting practice
    Krepper, Daniela
    Giesinger, Johannes M.
    Dirven, Linda
    Efficace, Fabio
    Martini, Caroline
    Sztankay, Monika
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2022, 31 : S158 - S159
  • [25] Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of haematological malignancies according to international quality standards: a systematic review
    Chakraborty, Rajshekhar
    Cannella, Laura
    Cottone, Francesco
    Efficace, Fabio
    LANCET HAEMATOLOGY, 2020, 7 (12): : 892 - 901
  • [26] A comparison of statistical approaches for analysing missing longitudinal patient reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials
    Rombach, Ines
    Gray, Alastair
    Jenkinson, Crispin
    Rivero-Arias, Oliver
    TRIALS, 2017, 18
  • [27] Information about missing patient-reported outcome data in breast cancer trials is frequently not documented: a scoping review
    Krepper, Daniela
    Giesinger, Johannes Maria
    Dirven, Linda
    Efficace, Fabio
    Martini, Caroline
    Thurner, Anna Margarete Maria
    Al-Naesan, Imad
    Gross, Franziska
    Sztankay, Monika Judith
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2023, 162 : 1 - 9
  • [28] Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting across cancer randomized controlled trials according to the CONSORT patient-reported outcome extension: A pooled analysis of 557 trials
    Efficace, Fabio
    Fayers, Peter
    Pusic, Andrea
    Cemal, Yeliz
    Yanagawa, Jane
    Jacobs, Marc
    la Sala, Andrea
    Cafaro, Valentina
    Whale, Katie
    Rees, Jonathan
    Blazeby, Jane
    CANCER, 2015, 121 (18) : 3335 - 3342
  • [29] Comparison of statistical approaches for analyzing incomplete longitudinal patient-reported outcome data in randomized controlled trials
    Rombach, Ines
    Jenkinson, Crispin
    Gray, Alastair M.
    Murray, David W.
    Rivero-Arias, Oliver
    PATIENT-RELATED OUTCOME MEASURES, 2018, 9 : 197 - 209
  • [30] Patient-Reported Outcomes in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Review of Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials
    Krohe, Meaghan
    Hao, Yanni
    Lamoureux, Roger E.
    Galipeau, Nina
    Globe, Denise
    Foley, Catherine
    Mazar, Iyar
    Solomon, Jeffrey
    Shields, Alan L.
    BREAST CANCER-BASIC AND CLINICAL RESEARCH, 2016, 10 : 93 - 102