A novel patient-reported outcomes instrument assessing the side effects of peanut oral immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) may experience adverse reactions, particularly during up-dosing. OBJECTIVE: To develop the Side Effects of Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Diary (SEPOD), an electronic questionnaire assessing the daily side effects of peanut OIT in clinical trials. METHODS: Content and design of the SEPOD were informed by empirical literature review and meetings with 3 allergy-immunology experts. Interviews to confirm content and inform revisions were conducted in 24 pediatric patients with peanut allergy (14 treated with peanut OIT) aged 6 to 17 years; children aged 6 to 11 years were interviewed with their caregiver. RESULTS: The SEPOD was drafted after literature review and expert interviews; the initial measurement approach comprised 2 SEPOD versions, a patient-reported outcome (PRO) version for children aged 12 to 17 years, and a caregiver-administered PRO version for children aged 6 to 11 years with instructions for caregiver questionnaire administration. Pediatric patients were expected to respond independently on both versions. Patient interviews indicated that some younger children (ie, aged 6-8 years) had difficulty understanding questions, even when reading aloud; therefore, a caregiver-administered outcome version, identical in content to the caregiver-administered PRO version, was developed for this age group. The final electronic SEPOD covered 23 peanut OIT side effects within the following 7 domains: gastrointestinal, dermatologic, itching, nasal, and respiratory, swelling (eyelid or periorbital, lip, tongue, and throat), pain (tongue, mouth, and throat), and dizziness. CONCLUSION: This study yielded the SEPOD, a new clinical outcome assessment instrument with various methods of administration that can be used to assess the side effects of peanut OIT experienced by pediatric patients in a clinical trial setting.

Reliability, validity and important difference estimates for the NCCN-FACT Ovarian Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18).

Objective: To evaluate psychometric performance of the NCCN-FACT Ovarian Cancer Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18) in advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: Cross-sectional, observational data from patients receiving treatment for ovarian cancer. Other measures included European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core (EORTC QLQ-C30) and associated ovarian cancer module (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment. Internal consistency reliability, construct validity and anchor-based clinically important differences were assessed. Results: 897 patients were analyzed. Reliability was acceptable for all NFOSI-18 scores; construct validity was supported. Twelve anchors sufficiently correlated with NFOSI-18 scores and suggested clinically important differences: NFOSI-18 total score (5-7), disease-related symptoms - physical (3-4), disease-related symptoms - emotional (1), treatment side effects (2) and functional well-being (1-2). Conclusions: Results provide evidence of reliability and validity of NFOSI-18 scores. Generated CIDs will help improve interpretation of between-group treatment differences in clinical trials.

Lay abstract The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy ­ Ovarian Cancer Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18) is a questionnaire assessing the health of patients with ovarian cancer. When using such questionnaires, it is important to evidence that they produce consistent scores (referred to as reliability) and are aligned with other assessments of health (referred to as construct validity). It is also important to set guidelines on what constitutes a clinically important difference in scores, so clinicians and researchers can judge how effective new treatments are. This study analyzed data from 897 patients with advanced ovarian cancer, providing evidence of reliability and construct validity. Guidelines for clinically important differences were also provided. The findings support continued use of the NFOSI-18.

Content validity of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network - Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form with advanced breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the content validity of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network - Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10b among patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer. METHODS: Cognitive debriefing interviews sought to evaluate patients' ability to read, understand, and meaningfully respond to the questionnaires, as well as to evaluate the questionnaires' relevance in the target patient population. Interviews were conducted by telephone and lasted approximately 90 min. Audio recordings were transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed using qualitative data analysis software. RESULTS: Fifteen cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with women (mean age 66.0 years [standard deviation = 12.4]). Patients reported metastases in the bone (86.7%), liver (20.0%), lung (13.3%), skin (6.7%), and lymph node (6.7%) (not mutually exclusive). All patients for whom data were available demonstrated understanding of the instructions and the recall period of the NFBSI-16 (n = 14/14, 100.0%) and the PROMIS (n = 14/14, 100.0%). Greater than 90% of patients demonstrated understanding of each of the items in the NFBSI-16 and the PROMIS. Greater than 70% of patients demonstrated understanding of the response options of the NFBSI-16, > 90% understood response options of PROMIS Items 1-6, and ≥ 50% understood response options of PROMIS Items 7-10. Conceptual relevance was supported for most items in both questionnaires based on patients' reports of experiencing the concepts as part of their breast cancer experience. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the cognitive debriefing interviews provide evidence that the NFBSI-16 and PROMIS Physical Function Short Form 10b have content validity in the HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer patient population. Patients may benefit from additional instructions at the point the response options reverse direction in the PROMIS.

Development of a symptom assessment in patients with myelofibrosis: qualitative study findings.

BACKGROUND: The goal of the research reported here was to understand the patient experience of living with myelofibrosis (MF) and establish content validity of the Modified Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Diary (MPN-SD). METHODS: Qualitative interviews were performed in patients with MF, including both concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing. Patients with MF were asked to spontaneously report on their signs, symptoms, and impacts of MF, as well as their understanding of the MPN-SD content, and use of the tool on an electronic platform. A supplementary literature review and meetings with MF experts were also performed. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients with MF participated in qualitative interviews. Signs and symptoms most commonly reported by ruxolitinib-experienced patients (n = 16) were: fatigue and/or tiredness (n = 16, 100%), shortness of breath (n = 11, 69%), pain below the ribs on the left side and/or stomach pain and/or abdominal pain (n = 9, 56%), and enlarged spleen (n = 9, 56%) and for ruxolitinib-naïve patients (n = 7) were: fatigue and/or tiredness (n = 6, 86%), pain below the ribs on the left side (n = 6, 86%), enlarged spleen (n = 4, 57%), full quickly/filling up quickly (n = 4, 57%), night sweats and/or general sweats (n = 4, 57%), and itching (n = 4, 57%). Patients demonstrated that they were able to read, understand, and provide meaningful responses to the MPN-SD. The final version of the MPN-SD includes the 10 most commonly reported concepts from the MF patient interviews. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate the comprehensiveness of the MPN-SD in assessing MF symptoms in both ruxolitinib-experienced and ruxolitinib-naïve patients, while remaining easy for patients to understand and complete.

Understanding polycystic ovary syndrome from the patient perspective: a concept elicitation patient interview study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore the need for a new disease-specific patient reported outcome (PRO) measure for use in clinical trials of drugs designed to target the underlying causes of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and in the process contribute to our understanding of the symptoms and impacts that define the patient experience with PCOS. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 20 women diagnosed with PCOS according to the Rotterdam criteria who had not menstruated in the previous month. The relative importance of PCOS symptoms and impact concepts to patients was determined by analyzing the frequency of their expression in the interview transcripts. These insights were compared to clinicians' perceptions of PCOS. RESULTS: Pain- and discomfort-related symptoms accounted for the highest proportion (27.6%) of the 735 patient expressions, although clinicians did not consider pain to be important to patients with PCOS. The most frequently expressed individual symptoms were cramping (70% of patients; 14.7% of concepts), irregular menstruation (95% of patients; 12.2% of concepts), facial hair growth (75% of patients; 10.6% of concepts), heavy bleeding (70% of patients; 8.8% of concepts), infertility (70% of patients; 5.4% of concepts), and bloating (60% of patients; 5.2% of concepts). Cramping, heavy bleeding, and bloating were not identified by clinicians as being important to patients with PCOS. The impacts most frequently reported by patients with PCOS related to emotional well-being (e.g. anxiety/stress) and coping behaviors (e.g. acne medication, hair removal). CONCLUSIONS: The only validated PCOS-specific PRO, the PCOSQ, does not capture some key PCOS symptoms and impacts expressed by patients with PCOS, most notably those related to pain and discomfort, bleeding intensity and coping behaviours. Furthermore, some key PCOS symptoms may be under-recognized in the clinic.

Novel Questionnaires for Assessing Signs and Symptoms of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Children.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) experience heterogeneous symptoms and the patient's age may preclude reliable self-report of symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to develop a patient-reported outcome and an observer-reported outcome questionnaire to evaluate the signs and symptoms of EoE in pediatric patients (≥1 to <12 y of age) in a clinical trial setting. METHODS: A concept-focused literature review, expert advice meetings, and concept elicitation interviews with pediatric EoE patients and their caregivers were conducted to identify disease-related signs and symptoms. Instructions, items, and response options were drafted. Cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted to evaluate children's and caregivers' ability to understand and respond to the questionnaires and to evaluate the comprehensiveness of the concepts measured. RESULTS: Results from the literature review, expert advice meetings (n = 6), and concept elicitation interviews (n = 24) informed the development of the Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis Sign/Symptom Questionnaire intended for use by patients (PESQ-P) with EoE 8 years or older to younger than 12 years and an observer-reported outcome questionnaire planned for use by caregivers of patients (PESQ-C) 1 year old or older to younger than 12 years. Both questionnaires measure the same concepts; the PESQ-P assesses the frequency, duration, and/or severity of symptoms and the PESQ-C assesses the presence/absence of the signs/symptoms. The cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 17) demonstrated that participants were able to comprehend and complete the questionnaires as intended. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of the content validity of 2 novel questionnaires, PESQ-P and PESQ-C, designed to evaluate the symptom experience of pediatric EoE patients in a clinical trial setting.

Exploring and Leveraging Known Resources to Support Pediatric Clinical Outcomes Assessment (COA) Development.

BACKGROUND: Best practices for pediatric clinical outcomes assessment (COA) development rely on guidelines that have been developed for adult populations. While some useful resources are available to support pediatric COA development, this information has primarily come from within the measurement development field. To our knowledge, no research has explored the experiences of professionals from other disciplines who interact with children on a routine basis. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The goal of this research was to explore the experiences of professionals from outside of the measurement science field, who work closely with children every day, in settings relevant to the context of concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews for pediatric COA development. The objectives were to 1) learn new ways to engage children in conversations regarding their health state; 2) understand how methods used in other disciplines can be used to improve the amount and quality of data emerging from pediatric qualitative interviews; and 3) generate a list of references to support pediatric COA development. METHODS: Individual, one-to-one expert advice meetings were conducted over the phone or in person and lasted approximately 60 minutes in duration. One child life specialist, one speech/language pathologist, and three reading specialists were consulted, given their role in evaluating children's comprehensive abilities as well as their daily interactions with children. Two experienced COA researchers conducted the expert advice meetings using a semi-structured interview guide to provide a framework for discussion. RESULTS: These experts reported that factors such as interview setting, time taken to build rapport with the child, the child's comfort level, presence or absence of caregiver during the interview, the child's communication style, disease-related factors, and the child's developmental age may influence the amount and type of information that is possible to elicit during qualitative interviews. Several of these factors are also important for cognitive debriefing interviews. In addition, experts provided input that may improve the debriefing procedure, such as having the child read the text aloud in small increments, re-read text, and highlight text that they do not understand. Best practice tips from the experts were consolidated into a set of references for use by those conducting pediatric COA development research. CONCLUSION: Incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives into pediatric COA development may improve both the methods used to elicit information from children and the quality of the resulting questionnaires.

Development and content validation of the Pediatric Oral Medicines Acceptability Questionnaires (P-OMAQ): patient-reported and caregiver-reported outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: Evolving regulatory guidelines recommend routine assessment of the acceptability of pediatric oral medicines throughout clinical development processes. However, such assessment is problematic owing to a lack of standard methods or criteria that define acceptability for children and their caregivers. This research aimed to identify the attributes of acceptability for targeted oral formulation types that are important to children, and to develop content-valid patient- and caregiver-reported outcome acceptability measures for use in the context of clinical drug development. METHODS: A concept-focused literature review and two advisory panel meetings involving researchers, clinicians, and measurement scientists were conducted to identify acceptability attributes that may be relevant to children taking targeted oral medicine formulations. The Pediatric Oral Medicines Acceptability Questionnaires (P-OMAQs), including patient (P-OMAQ-P) and caregiver (P-OMAQ-C) versions, were drafted to assess these attributes. Qualitative concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive debriefing (CD) patient and caregiver interviews were conducted to confirm key acceptability attribute concepts for measurement and to evaluate patient and caregiver ability to understand and respond to the questions. RESULTS: A full-text review of 40 articles identified 24 acceptability attributes that were categorized into 10 overarching domains and organized into a preliminary conceptual model. Feedback from the advisory panel refined the preliminary model. In total, 14 attributes were reported during the CE phase of the interviews (n = 23 pediatric patients, n = 13 caregivers); six attributes were included in the final model. The draft P-OMAQ was refined over four waves of CD interviews (n = 31 pediatric patients, n = 48 caregivers). The final version of the P-OMAQ-P is a 12-item questionnaire designed for young people aged 8-17 years. The P-OMAQ-C is a 19-item questionnaire designed for adult caregivers of young people aged 6 months to 17 years. There are two versions of each questionnaire: one with a 24-h recall period and one with a 7-day recall period. All items are answered on a 5-point numerical rating scale. CONCLUSIONS: This research supports the content validity of the patient and caregiver versions of the P-OMAQ. Both questionnaires appropriately assess the acceptability of oral medicine formulations from the perspective of pediatric patients and their caregivers.

Understanding key symptoms, side effects, and impacts of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: qualitative study findings.

BACKGROUND: Patients with breast cancer experience a variety of disease symptoms and treatment-related side effects that can adversely affect functioning. The breast cancer experience may differ across disease stages and biomarker subtypes. This study identified relevant disease symptoms, treatment-related side effects, and physical functioning impacts in women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer. METHODS: One-on-one concept elicitation interviews were conducted with 15 patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. Open-ended questions about patient experience with breast cancer and its treatment were drawn from a semi-structured interview guide. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and codes were used to document and organize patient descriptions of their experiences. Coded concepts were defined, supported by exemplary patient quotes, and analyzed for frequency of mention and saturation. Five interviews with experienced oncologists were conducted to supplement the concept elicitation interviews. RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 66 years. Most (53%) self-identified as White/Caucasian; 40%, as Black/African American. Patients were reported to have metastases to bone (87%), liver (20%), lung (13%), skin (7%), and lymph nodes (7%). The most frequently reported disease-related concepts were fatigue and lump in breast (47% each) and pain (40%), while the most frequently reported treatment-related side effects were hair loss (67%), fatigue/tiredness (47%), and nausea (40%). Patients identified 10 concepts associated with both breast cancer and its treatment, including fatigue/tiredness, shortness of breath, weakness, and nausea. The most frequently reported impacts on physical function included working around home (73%), walking (73%), and cooking (53%). The most frequently reported symptoms and side effects from the expert perspective included fatigue, pain, and hot flashes (n = 5 each, 100%), while the ability to work (n = 5, 100%) and walk (n = 3, 60%) were reported impacts, aligning with those concepts reported by patients. The resulting concepts were organized into a patient-based conceptual model. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have varied experiences due to HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer and its treatment, and commonly experience fatigue/tiredness, hair loss, general pain, lump in breast, and nausea, as well as impacts to physical functioning (specifically, activities of daily living and mobility).

Symptoms and Functional Limitations in the First Year Following a Myocardial Infarction: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This qualitative interview study was designed to highlight the symptoms and functional limitations experienced by patients in the year following a myocardial infarction (MI). This information can support the use or development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments in the post-MI population. METHODS: Individual face-to-face interviews were conducted with 38 participants who had experienced an MI (with or without ST segment elevation) within the past month to <6 months (n = 17), or 6 months to ≤12 months (n = 21). Using content and thematic analysis, patient reports of symptoms and functional limitations were coded and then grouped into categories. The specific content and frequency of the symptom and functional limitation reports were summarized. RESULTS: Nearly half of all symptom expressions were related to fatigue. Within this fatigue category, patients reported experiencing general tiredness, as well as a loss of physical energy, mental energy, and/or motivation. Chest pain and discomfort, sleep disruption, and shortness of breath were also frequently reported. Additionally, patients reported emotional effects, including worry and depression, as well as a negative impact on relationships and social activities. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported a wide variety of symptoms and functional limitations after an MI. Fatigue was the most commonly reported symptom and included several specific dimensions related to tiredness. Consideration of these concepts associated with the patient's experience following an MI may yield novel endpoints for use in clinical trials and better therapies.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Oncology Drug Labeling in the United States: A Framework for Navigating Early Challenges.

BACKGROUND: Despite an increased use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical trials, integrating the patient perspective into drug approval decisions and documentation has been challenging. OBJECTIVES: To review important regulatory and measurement terminology, and to provide oncology outcomes researchers and those involved with building oncology programs with tools to plan PRO data collection, particularly in relation to drug efficacy claims for drug labeling in the United States. DISCUSSION: When contemplating a PRO measurement strategy for oncology clinical trials, outcomes researchers are challenged in several ways. First, given multiple stakeholders, researchers must communicate with their scientific, commercial, and regulatory colleagues using often misunderstood terms, such as "label," "claim," "end point," "outcome," and "concept." Second, because stakeholders do not always have access to data from early-stage clinical trials and do not contribute to the target drug's profile in early development, researchers are often unable to address the most important question in building a measurement strategy: What do we want to say about our drug? To overcome these challenges, researchers can systematically develop an end point model to facilitate communication among drug development stakeholders using a common language and to link the building blocks of a PRO measurement strategy, including claims, concepts, questionnaires, and end points. We developed a model that characterizes a disease by its proximal signs and/or symptoms and increasingly distal health outcomes to provide researchers potential measurement concepts that can be instrumental in selecting PRO questionnaires for use in studies. CONCLUSION: PRO data collected in clinical trials should be used in drug development to evaluate the drug's efficacy; it is encouraging that US regulators are willing to work with drug sponsors to overcome the challenges associated with the development, implementation, and interpretation of PROs. The tools discussed in this article can facilitate the planning process for oncology researchers, as well as assist in communicating with US regulators.

Clinical Trial Patient-reported Outcomes Data: Going Beyond the Label in Oncology.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are increasingly being implemented in oncology clinical trial research to evaluate treatment benefit, such as disease-related symptoms, treatment-related adverse events, and health-related quality of life impacts. However, only a small amount of PRO data collected is used to support labeling claims, leaving a substantial amount of data that could be shared by sponsors to further convey treatment benefit from the patient perspective. METHODS: This paper describes how pharmaceutical sponsors can realize the value of PRO data derived from oncology trials with regard to the following stakeholders: payers, health care providers (HCPs), and patient advocacy groups. Further, ideas are presented for integrating PRO data and implementing PRO assessments within oncology, by stakeholder type. Finally, a summary is provided to describe how PRO data can benefit the patient by facilitating better, more symptom-focused care and enhancing treatment decisions. FINDINGS: With the goal of motivating further use of PRO assessments in oncology, we present examples of how payers utilize PRO data to inform reimbursement decisions (eg, PRO data inform decisions made by Germany׳s Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care and the United Kingdom׳s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence); how communication of results with patient advocacy groups can lead to a better understanding of what is important to patients; and how HCPs can use PRO instruments to inform patient treatment decisions through real-world application. IMPLICATIONS: Integrating PRO data can enhance health care by allowing the patient's voice to carry beyond regulatory decisions and into those made by payers and HCPs, which are crucial to quality care and assessing the value of care. Utilizing PRO assessments and communicating results to key stakeholders in the oncology space can allow sponsors to report treatment benefit and, more importantly, can provide valuable insight into the patient treatment experience.

Patient-reported preferences for oral versus intravenous administration for the treatment of cancer: a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The emergence of various modes of administration for cancer treatment, including oral administration, brings into focus the importance of patient preference for administration. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the administration preferences of cancer patients, specifically between oral and intravenous (IV) treatment, as well as the factors contributing to preference. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in OvidSP to identify research in which the preferences of cancer patients for oral or IV treatment have been evaluated. Data were analyzed in two stages: 1) those articles that directly compared preference between modes of administration were tallied to determine explicit preference for oral or IV treatment; and 2) all attributes associated with patient preference were documented. RESULTS: Of the 48 abstracts identified as part of the initial OvidSP search, eight articles were selected for full-text review. One article was removed following full-text review, and seven additional articles were identified through a gray literature search, yielding a total of 14 articles for evaluation. In Stage 1, 13 of the 14 articles compared preference, of which eleven articles (84.6%) reported that patients preferred oral treatment over IV, while two (15.4%) stated that cancer patients preferred IV treatment over oral. In Stage 2, the most frequently reported attributes contributing to preference included convenience, ability to receive treatment at home, treatment schedule, and side effects. DISCUSSION: Evidence suggests that oncology patients prefer oral treatment to IV. Rationale for preference was due to a number of factors, including convenience, perception of efficacy, and past experience. Further evaluation should be conducted, given the limited data on patient preference in oncology.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Review of Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures serve to capture vital patient information not otherwise obtained by primary study endpoints. This paper examines how PROs are utilized as endpoints in industry-sponsored metastatic breast cancer clinical trials. METHODS: A search was conducted in the clinicaltrials.gov web site for trials involving common treatments for metastatic breast cancer. Thirty-eight clinical trials were identified which included a PRO endpoint in the study, and data were extracted and summarized. RESULTS: Overall, 17 unique PRO questionnaires and 14 concepts of measurement were identified as secondary or exploratory endpoints. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast was the most frequently utilized questionnaire, commonly implemented to assess quality of life. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was also frequently used to measure quality of life or pain. CONCLUSION: This review shares insights into the role of PROs in trials for metastatic breast cancer from which treatment developers and other stakeholders can enhance successful implementation of the patient voice into future trials.

The use of patient-reported outcomes in advanced breast cancer clinical trials: a review of the published literature.

OBJECTIVE: As a means to measure quantifiable signs, symptoms, and impacts of a disease or its treatment, patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments can be applied to numerous settings, including use in drug development to support labeling claims. This research summarizes the use of PROs in trials for 16 commonly used regulatory approved treatments for advanced or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: For each treatment (n = 16), a literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. The primary criterion for selection was the report of studies that used PROs to evaluate treatment benefit and/or toxicity in advanced or metastatic breast cancer. From this, a sub-set of articles for each treatment were selected for full-text review where PRO-related information was extracted and summarized. RESULTS: The searches yielded 1727 publications. Following abstract review, 1702 were excluded because they failed to meet criteria, or were duplicates or less relevant for PRO information reported. Thus, 25 articles were reviewed in detail for this evaluation. Eleven PRO instruments were identified from these publications. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core (EORTC QLQ-C30) was utilized the most frequently (n = 13, 52.0%). Most publications reported PROs positioned as secondary endpoints (n = 20, 80.0%); described some of the statistical analyses applied to PRO data (n = 21, 84.0%); and specified PRO results (n = 23, 92.0%). CONCLUSIONS: While several of the publications provided some information on how PROs were utilized, many did not describe details for PRO administration, scoring, analyses, and results interpretation. While it is encouraging that PROs are often used in clinical trials for patients with metastatic breast cancer, they are not commonly used to support endpoints that establish the basis for label claims. Because they yield direct insight into the patient experience of a condition, PROs may be used to provide a more comprehensive perspective of the benefits and risks from treatment.

Patient-reported outcomes for US oncology labeling: review and discussion of score interpretation and analysis methods.

This paper describes ways to approach the conceptual and practical challenges associated with interpreting the clinical meaning of scores produced by patient reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, particularly when used to inform efficacy decisions for regulatory approval for oncology products. Score interpretation estimates are not inherent to PRO questionnaires per se, instead, vary dependent upon sample and study design characteristics. Scores from PRO measures can be interpreted at the individual and group level, and each carries its own set of statistics for evaluating differences. Oncology researchers have a variety of methods and data analytic strategies available to support their score interpretation needs, which should be considered in the context of their a priori knowledge of the target patient population, the hypothesized effects of treatment, the study design and assessment schedule, and the inferences and decisions to be made from the PRO data.