Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols

  • Review
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 22 April 2017

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide the patient’s perspective of the impact of treatment. Evidence suggests that PRO content of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) protocols is generally sub-optimal. This study aimed to describe and evaluate the PRO-specific content of ovarian cancer RCT protocols.

Methods

Published, phase III, ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified following a systematic search of Medline and Cochrane databases (Jan 2000 to Feb 2016). Corresponding RCT protocols were downloaded (if published) or obtained by contacting authors. Two investigators independently assessed adherence of PRO-specific content of included protocols to a checklist of 58 recommended PRO protocol items currently being developed by the International Society for Quality of Life Research. Discrepancies were resolved with a third investigator.

Results

Of 41 eligible trials identified, 26 protocols were assessed (developed 1995–2010). We were unable to obtain the remaining 15 protocols. Protocols addressed a mean of 28 % PRO checklist items (range 8–66 %). Fifteen (58 % of assessed protocols) provided a rationale for PRO assessment, 8 (31 %) described a PRO objective, 24 (92 %) included a PRO assessment schedule, but only 6 (23 %) justified timing of PRO assessments. Twelve protocols (46 %) provided staff data collection instructions, 4 (15 %) included plans for monitoring PRO compliance, and 16 (62 %) included a PRO analysis plan.

Conclusions

On average, protocols addressed less than one-third of PRO protocol checklist items. In some cases, key guidance regarding PRO administration was lacking, which may lead to inconsistent and sub-optimal PRO methodology. Efforts are needed to improve PRO protocol content in cancer trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. King, M. T., Stockler, M. R., Butow, P., O’Connell, R., Voysey, M., Oza, A. M., et al. (2014). Development of the measure of ovarian symptoms and treatment concerns: Aiming for optimal measurement of patient-reported symptom benefit with chemotherapy for symptomatic ovarian cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 24(5), 865–873.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2016). Cancer statistics, 2016. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 66(1), 7–30. doi:10.3322/caac.21332.

    Google Scholar 

  3. American Cancer Society (2013). Cancer facts & figures 2013. In American Cancer Society (Ed.). Atlanta.

  4. Friedlander, M. L., & King, M. T. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes in ovarian cancer clinical trials. Annals of Oncology, 24(suppl 10), x64–x68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hess, L. M., & Stehman, F. B. (2012). State of the science in ovarian cancer quality of life research: A systematic review. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 22(7), 1273–1280. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e318263f02e.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chan, A. W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Gotzsche, P. C., Altman, D. G., Mann, H., Berlin, J. A., et al. (2013). SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: Guidance for protocols of clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 8(346), e7586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Calvert, M., Kyte, D., von Hildebrand, M., King, M., & Moher, D. (2015). Putting patients at the heart of health-care research. The Lancet, 385(9973), 1073–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2016). Clinical Trial Registration. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html. Accessed 6 April 2016.

  9. Kyte, D., Duffy, H., Fletcher, B., Gheorghe, A., Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M., et al. (2014). Systematic evaluation of the patient reported outcome (PRO) content of clinical trial protocols. PLoS One, 9(10), e110229.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Duffy, H., Gheorghe, A., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Ives, J., et al. (2014). Patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment in clinical trials: A systematic review of guidance for trial protocol writers. PLoS One, 9(10), e110216.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Altman, D. G., Laupacis, A., Gøtzsche, P. C., Krleža-Jerić, K., et al. (2013). SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(3), 200–207.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. European Medicines Agency Oncology Working Party (2014). Draft Reflection Paper on the use of patient reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies.

  13. Food and Drug Administration (2009). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures—Use in medical product development to support labeling claims.

  14. Kyte, D., Reeve, B. B., Efficace, F., Haywood, K., Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M. T., et al. (2016). International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the draft European Medicines Agency reflection paper on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. Quality of Life Research, 25(2), 359–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Patrick, D. L., Guyatt, G. H., Acquadro, C., & Cochrane Patient Reported Outcomes Methods Group. (2011). Chapter 17: Patient-reported outcomes. In J. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 5.1.0.). London: The Cochrane Collaboration.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Aaronson, N. K. (1990). Quality of life research in cancer clinical trials: A need for common rules and language. Oncology, 4(5), 59–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kyte, D., Ives, J., Draper, H., Keeley, T., & Calvert, M. (2013). Inconsistencies in quality of life data collection in clinical trials: A potential source of bias? Interviews with research nurses and trialists. PLoS One, 8(10), e76625. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076625.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mercieca-Bebber, R., Palmer, M., Brundage, M., Calvert, M., Stockler, M., & King, M. (2015). Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: A systematic review. BMJO. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010938.

  19. Kyte, D., Draper, H., & Calvert, M. (2013). Patient-reported outcome alerts: Ethical and logistical considerations in clinical trials. JAMA, 310(12), 1229–1230.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kyte, D., Ives, J., Draper, H., & Calvert, M. (2016). Management of patient-reported outcome (PRO) alerts in clinical trials: A Cross sectional survey. PLoS One, 11(1), e0144658.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Skogvoll, E., & Kramer-Johansen, J. (2013). Publication of clinical trial protocols—what can we learn? Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 21, 12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Weston, J., Dwan, K., Altman, D., Clarke, M., Gamble, C., Groves, T., et al. (2015). Selective reporting in clinical trials—An examination of discrepancy rates in pre-specified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to the BMJ. Trials, 16(2), 1. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-16-s2-o72.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schandelmaier, S., Conen, K., von Elm, E., You, J. J., Blumle, A., Tomonaga, Y., et al. (2015). Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials. Annals of Oncology, 26(9), 1966–1973.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Glasziou, P., Altman, D. G., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Clarke, M., Julious, S., et al. (2014). Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. The Lancet, 383(9913), 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Friedlander, M., Mercieca-Bebber, R., & King, M. (2016). Patient reported outcomes in ovarian cancer clinical trials—Lost opportunities and lessons learned. Annals of Oncology, 27(S1), i66–i71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Gynaecologic Cancer Inter-Group (GCIG) Symptom Benefit Working Group (SBWG), ImPROVeD Contributor’s Group leaders Professors Michael Friedlander, Felix Hilpert and Florence Joly, and to RCT investigators for providing access to trial protocols; specifically (in alphabetical order), D.K. Armstrong, J. Berek, N. Colombo, M. Bookman, M. Brady, J. Bryce, A. du Bois, G. Elser, A. Harkin, S. Kaye, J. Ledermann, K. Lindemann, B. Monk, T. Perren, M. Piccart, S. Pignata, J. Pfisterer, E. Pujade-Lauraine, N. Reed, G. Rustin, J. Sehouli, P. Vasey, and I. Vergote. We also acknowledge F. Roncolato and A. Long for their assistance identifying eligible trials and the International Society for Quality of Life Research Best Practices for PROs Protocol Checklist Taskforce for their contribution to developing the PRO Protocol Checklist.

Funding

This project did not receive specific grant funding. RMB is supported by Sydney Catalyst courtesy of the Cancer Institute NSW. MK is supported by the Australian Government courtesy of Cancer Australia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Central Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber & Madeleine T. King

  2. Quality of Life Office, Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O’Brien Lifehouse C39Z, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber & Madeleine T. King

  3. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Michael Friedlander, Peey-Sei Kok & Martin Stockler

  4. Australian New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG), Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia

    Michael Friedlander, Peey-Sei Kok & Madeleine T. King

  5. Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Melanie Calvert & Derek Kyte

Authors
  1. Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Friedlander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peey-Sei Kok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Melanie Calvert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Derek Kyte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martin Stockler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Madeleine T. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethics

This article is an analysis of PRO-specific content of RCT protocols. It did not involve direct study of human participants, and therefore, human ethics approval was not required.

Informed consent

This article is an analysis of PRO-specific content of RCT protocols. It did not involve direct study of human participants, and therefore, informed consent was not required.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1578-5.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mercieca-Bebber, R., Friedlander, M., Kok, PS. et al. The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols. Qual Life Res 25, 2457–2465 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1339-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1339-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation