Ovarian cancer study dropouts had worse health-related quality of life and psychosocial symptoms at baseline and over time.

AIMS: Participant drop out is a major barrier to high-quality patient-reported outcome (PRO) data analysis in cancer research as patients with worsening health are more likely to dropout. To test the hypothesis that ovarian cancer patients with worse PROs would drop out earlier, we examined how patients differed by time of dropout on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), anxiety, depression, optimism and insomnia. METHODS: This analysis included 619 participants, stratified by time of dropout, from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study - Quality of Life substudy, in which participants completed PRO questionnaires at three-monthly intervals for 21 months. Trends in PROs over time were examined. Pearson correlations examined the relationship between time of dropout and baseline PROs. Multiple linear regression models including age, disease stage and time since diagnosis examined relationships between baseline and final PRO scores, and final PRO scores and dropout group. RESULTS: Participants who dropped out earlier had significantly worse baseline HRQOL (p < 0.0001) and higher depression (p < 0.0001). For all five PROs, final scores were significantly associated with baseline scores (p < 0.0001). Time of dropout was significantly associated with final HRQOL (p = 0.003), anxiety (p = 0.05), depression (p = 0.02) and optimism (p = 0.02) scores. Depression, HRQOL and anxiety worsened at a faster rate overtime in dropouts than study completers. CONCLUSIONS: Poorer HRQOL and higher depression at baseline, and final HRQOL, anxiety, depression and optimism scores were predictive of time of dropout. These results highlight the importance of collecting auxiliary data to inform careful and considered handling of missing PRO data during analysis, interpretation and reporting.

Patient-reported outcomes in head and neck and thyroid cancer randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of completeness of reporting and impact on interpretation.

AIM: To determine the completeness of reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of head and neck cancer (HNC) and thyroid cancer randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) and identify PRO measures used. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for HNC and thyroid cancer RCTs with PRO end-points (January 2004-June 2015). Two investigators independently extracted data, assessed adherence to the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) PRO reporting standards and concordance between hypotheses and PRO measures used. Data were entered into the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurements Over Time in Oncology (PROMOTION) Registry. RESULTS: Sixty-six RCTs were included, 56 (85%) HNC and 10 (15%) thyroid cancer. Twenty-two (33%) included a primary and 44 (67%) included a secondary PRO end-point. A total of 40 unique PRO measures were used. Adherence to the ISOQOL PRO reporting standards was higher for RCTs with primary PRO end-points than for secondary PRO end-points: (mean adherence of 43% and 29% respectively). Completeness of PRO reporting did not improve with time: r = .13, p = .31. ISOQOL checklist items poorly reported included: PRO hypothesis (reported for eight RCTs, 12%), justification chosen of PRO measures (n = 16, 24%), rates of missing PRO data (n = 19, 29%), and generalisability of results (n = 12, 18%). Encouragingly, PROs were identified in 55 RCT abstracts (83%) and PRO results interpreted for 30 RCTs (45%). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of PRO end-points was more comprehensive in RCTs with primary rather than secondary PRO end-points. Improvement is needed in the transparent reporting of PRO studies, particularly regarding data collection, analyses and generalisability of PRO results.