Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of colorectal cancer

an analysis determining the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making

Jonathan R. Rees* (Corresponding Author), Katie Whale, Daniel Fish, Peter Fayers, Valentina Cafaro, Andrea Pusic, Jane M. Blazeby, Fabio Efficace

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust study design measuring outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatments, but to influence clinical practice trial design and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) must be of high quality. Objectives of this study were as follows: to examine the quality of PRO reporting in RCTs of CRC treatment; to assess the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making; and to investigate whether quality of reporting improved over time. Methods: A systematic review from January 2004–February 2012 identified RCTs of CRC treatment describing PROs. Relevant abstracts were screened and manuscripts obtained. Methodological quality was assessed using International Society for Quality of Life Research—patient-reported outcome reporting standards. Changes in reporting quality over time were established by comparison with previous data, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Sixty-six RCTs were identified, seven studies (10 %) reported survival benefit favouring the experimental treatment, 35 trials (53 %) identified differences in PROs between treatment groups, and the clinical significance of these differences was discussed in 19 studies (29 %). The most commonly reported treatment type was chemotherapy (n = 45; 68 %). Improvements over time in key methodological issues including the documentation of missing data and the discussion of the clinical significance of PROs were found. Thirteen trials (20 %) had high-quality reporting. Conclusions: Whilst improvements in PRO quality reporting over time were found, several recent studies still fail to robustly inform clinical practice. Quality of PRO reporting must continue to improve to maximise the clinical impact of PRO findings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2181-2192
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
Volume141
Issue number12
Early online date25 Apr 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2015

Fingerprint

Colorectal Neoplasms
Randomized Controlled Trials
Therapeutics
Manuscripts
Clinical Decision-Making
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Documentation
Quality of Life
Clinical Trials
Drug Therapy

Keywords

  • Cancer
  • Colorectal
  • Health-related quality of life
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Randomised
  • Trails

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of colorectal cancer : an analysis determining the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making. / Rees, Jonathan R. (Corresponding Author); Whale, Katie; Fish, Daniel; Fayers, Peter; Cafaro, Valentina; Pusic, Andrea; Blazeby, Jane M.; Efficace, Fabio.

In: Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, Vol. 141, No. 12, 12.2015, p. 2181-2192.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Rees, Jonathan R. ; Whale, Katie ; Fish, Daniel ; Fayers, Peter ; Cafaro, Valentina ; Pusic, Andrea ; Blazeby, Jane M. ; Efficace, Fabio. / Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of colorectal cancer : an analysis determining the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making. In: Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology. 2015 ; Vol. 141, No. 12. pp. 2181-2192.
@article{807830d514984f7882f20c42e1c88cd2,
title = "Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of colorectal cancer: an analysis determining the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making",
abstract = "Purpose: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust study design measuring outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatments, but to influence clinical practice trial design and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) must be of high quality. Objectives of this study were as follows: to examine the quality of PRO reporting in RCTs of CRC treatment; to assess the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making; and to investigate whether quality of reporting improved over time. Methods: A systematic review from January 2004–February 2012 identified RCTs of CRC treatment describing PROs. Relevant abstracts were screened and manuscripts obtained. Methodological quality was assessed using International Society for Quality of Life Research—patient-reported outcome reporting standards. Changes in reporting quality over time were established by comparison with previous data, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Sixty-six RCTs were identified, seven studies (10 {\%}) reported survival benefit favouring the experimental treatment, 35 trials (53 {\%}) identified differences in PROs between treatment groups, and the clinical significance of these differences was discussed in 19 studies (29 {\%}). The most commonly reported treatment type was chemotherapy (n = 45; 68 {\%}). Improvements over time in key methodological issues including the documentation of missing data and the discussion of the clinical significance of PROs were found. Thirteen trials (20 {\%}) had high-quality reporting. Conclusions: Whilst improvements in PRO quality reporting over time were found, several recent studies still fail to robustly inform clinical practice. Quality of PRO reporting must continue to improve to maximise the clinical impact of PRO findings.",
keywords = "Cancer, Colorectal, Health-related quality of life, Patient-reported outcomes, Randomised, Trails",
author = "Rees, {Jonathan R.} and Katie Whale and Daniel Fish and Peter Fayers and Valentina Cafaro and Andrea Pusic and Blazeby, {Jane M.} and Fabio Efficace",
note = "Acknowledgments This paper forms part of a larger project, the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements Over Time In ONcology-PROMOTION Registry funded in part by a research grant from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group. Also, additional support for the conduct of the study was provided by the Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA) and the MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research in Bristol. We also acknowledge Alessandro Perreca and Salvatore Soldati, from the GIMEMA, for their contribution to data management. J.R. Rees is funded by the National Institute of Health Research Academic Clinical Lecturer programme.",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s00432-015-1970-x",
language = "English",
volume = "141",
pages = "2181--2192",
journal = "Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0171-5216",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of colorectal cancer

T2 - an analysis determining the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making

AU - Rees, Jonathan R.

AU - Whale, Katie

AU - Fish, Daniel

AU - Fayers, Peter

AU - Cafaro, Valentina

AU - Pusic, Andrea

AU - Blazeby, Jane M.

AU - Efficace, Fabio

N1 - Acknowledgments This paper forms part of a larger project, the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements Over Time In ONcology-PROMOTION Registry funded in part by a research grant from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group. Also, additional support for the conduct of the study was provided by the Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA) and the MRC ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research in Bristol. We also acknowledge Alessandro Perreca and Salvatore Soldati, from the GIMEMA, for their contribution to data management. J.R. Rees is funded by the National Institute of Health Research Academic Clinical Lecturer programme.

PY - 2015/12

Y1 - 2015/12

N2 - Purpose: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust study design measuring outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatments, but to influence clinical practice trial design and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) must be of high quality. Objectives of this study were as follows: to examine the quality of PRO reporting in RCTs of CRC treatment; to assess the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making; and to investigate whether quality of reporting improved over time. Methods: A systematic review from January 2004–February 2012 identified RCTs of CRC treatment describing PROs. Relevant abstracts were screened and manuscripts obtained. Methodological quality was assessed using International Society for Quality of Life Research—patient-reported outcome reporting standards. Changes in reporting quality over time were established by comparison with previous data, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Sixty-six RCTs were identified, seven studies (10 %) reported survival benefit favouring the experimental treatment, 35 trials (53 %) identified differences in PROs between treatment groups, and the clinical significance of these differences was discussed in 19 studies (29 %). The most commonly reported treatment type was chemotherapy (n = 45; 68 %). Improvements over time in key methodological issues including the documentation of missing data and the discussion of the clinical significance of PROs were found. Thirteen trials (20 %) had high-quality reporting. Conclusions: Whilst improvements in PRO quality reporting over time were found, several recent studies still fail to robustly inform clinical practice. Quality of PRO reporting must continue to improve to maximise the clinical impact of PRO findings.

AB - Purpose: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust study design measuring outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatments, but to influence clinical practice trial design and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) must be of high quality. Objectives of this study were as follows: to examine the quality of PRO reporting in RCTs of CRC treatment; to assess the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making; and to investigate whether quality of reporting improved over time. Methods: A systematic review from January 2004–February 2012 identified RCTs of CRC treatment describing PROs. Relevant abstracts were screened and manuscripts obtained. Methodological quality was assessed using International Society for Quality of Life Research—patient-reported outcome reporting standards. Changes in reporting quality over time were established by comparison with previous data, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Sixty-six RCTs were identified, seven studies (10 %) reported survival benefit favouring the experimental treatment, 35 trials (53 %) identified differences in PROs between treatment groups, and the clinical significance of these differences was discussed in 19 studies (29 %). The most commonly reported treatment type was chemotherapy (n = 45; 68 %). Improvements over time in key methodological issues including the documentation of missing data and the discussion of the clinical significance of PROs were found. Thirteen trials (20 %) had high-quality reporting. Conclusions: Whilst improvements in PRO quality reporting over time were found, several recent studies still fail to robustly inform clinical practice. Quality of PRO reporting must continue to improve to maximise the clinical impact of PRO findings.

KW - Cancer

KW - Colorectal

KW - Health-related quality of life

KW - Patient-reported outcomes

KW - Randomised

KW - Trails

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946480799&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00432-015-1970-x

DO - 10.1007/s00432-015-1970-x

M3 - Review article

VL - 141

SP - 2181

EP - 2192

JO - Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology

SN - 0171-5216

IS - 12

ER -