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
  • [31] Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Breast Cancer Care: A Systematic Review
    van Egdom, Laurentine S. E.
    Oemrawsingh, Arvind
    Verweij, Lisanne M.
    Lingsma, Hester F.
    Koppert, Linetta B.
    Verhoef, Cornelis
    Klazinga, Niek S.
    Hazelzet, Jan A.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2019, 22 (10) : 1197 - 1226
  • [32] Measurement properties of selected patient-reported outcome measures for use in randomised controlled trials in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review
    Strand, Vibeke
    Simon, Lee S.
    Meara, Alexa Simon
    Touma, Zahi
    LUPUS SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2020, 7 (01):
  • [33] Patient-reported outcomes in head and neck and thyroid cancer randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of completeness of reporting and impact on interpretation
    Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca L.
    Perreca, Alessandro
    King, Madeleine
    Macann, Andrew
    Whale, Katie
    Soldati, Salvatore
    Jacobs, Marc
    Efficace, Fabio
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2016, 56 : 144 - 161
  • [34] Patient-reported outcome measures for cancer caregivers: a systematic review
    Valerie Shilling
    Lucy Matthews
    Valerie Jenkins
    Lesley Fallowfield
    Quality of Life Research, 2016, 25 : 1859 - 1876
  • [35] Patient-reported outcome measures for cancer caregivers: a systematic review
    Shilling, Valerie
    Matthews, Lucy
    Jenkins, Valerie
    Fallowfield, Lesley
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2016, 25 (08) : 1859 - 1876
  • [36] A systematic evaluation of compliance and reporting of patient-reported outcome endpoints in ovarian cancer randomised controlled trials: Implications for generalisability and clinical practice
    Mercieca-Bebber R.
    Friedlander M.
    Calvert M.
    Stockler M.
    Kyte D.
    Kok P.-S.
    King M.T.
    Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 1 (1)
  • [37] The use of patient-reported outcomes in advanced breast cancer clinical trials: a review of the published literature
    Turner-Bowker, Diane M.
    Hao, Yanni
    Foley, Catherine
    Galipeau, Nina
    Mazar, Iyar
    Krohe, Meaghan
    Globe, Denise
    Shields, Alan L.
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2016, 32 (10) : 1709 - 1717
  • [38] Considerations when introducing electronic patient-reported outcome data capture in multicentre oncology randomised controlled trials
    Lara Philipps
    Stephanie Foster
    Deborah Gardiner
    Alexa Gillman
    Joanne Haviland
    Elizabeth Hill
    Georgina Manning
    Morgaine Stiles
    Emma Hall
    Rebecca Lewis
    Trials, 23
  • [39] A systematic review on patient-reported outcomes in cancer survivors of randomised clinical trials: direction for future research
    Li, Qiuping
    Lin, Yi
    Liu, Xiwen
    Xu, Yongyong
    PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2014, 23 (07) : 721 - 730
  • [40] Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes from international randomised clinical trials on cancer: a systematic review
    Mierzynska, Justyna
    Piccinin, Claire
    Pe, Madeline
    Martinelli, Francesca
    Gotay, Carolyn
    Coens, Corneel
    Mauer, Murielle
    Eggermont, Alexander
    Groenvold, Mogens
    Bjordal, Kristin
    Reijneveld, Jaap
    Velikova, Galina
    Bottomley, Andrew
    LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2019, 20 (12): : E685 - E698