Patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based symptom assessment in patients with advanced lung cancer receiving first-line combination immunotherapy: a protocol for a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is currently applied in the first-line treatment regimens for numerous advanced cancers, especially advanced lung cancer. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) resulting from immunotherapy can vary in severity and cause a substantial symptom burden to patients. However, there are limited data on symptom burden in patients with advanced lung cancer following immunotherapy. To address this deficit, this study aims to provide insight into the symptom burden and severity through patient-reported outcome measurements and conduct an analysis of temporal trends and clinical consequences of symptom burden in patients with advanced lung cancer receiving combination immunotherapy. METHODS: We will prospectively recruit 168 eligible patients from 14 hospitals in China. Eligible patients will be aged ≥ 18 years, pathologically diagnosed with locally advanced or stage IV primary lung cancer without surgical indications, and agreed to receive immunotherapy in combination with other therapies. The primary outcome of this study is the symptom burden of patients during the immunotherapy course. Longitudinal symptom data will be collected using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer module (MDASI-LC) and the symptomatic irAEs scale at baseline (once before treatment) and weekly after treatment, until 1 month after the last treatment cycle has been completed. The trajectory of symptom burden following combination immunotherapy will be depicted, and by linking it to clinical outcomes (the secondary outcome and exploratory outcome of this study), the consequence of symptom burden in patients with advanced lung cancer receiving combination immunotherapy will be examined further. DISCUSSION: This study intends to establish longitudinal symptom trajectories in patients with lung cancer receiving immunotherapy, and explore its association with clinical outcomes. These findings may serve as an important reference for clinicians in the symptomatic management of patients with lung cancer receiving immunotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2200061540. Registered on June 28, 2022.

Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews on COVID-19: A comparative study of previous coronavirus outbreaks.

Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted on the COVID-19 outbreak, which together with the SRs on previous coronavirus outbreaks, form important sources of evidence for clinical decision and policy making. Here, we investigated the methodological quality of SRs on COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Online searches were performed to obtain SRs on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. In total, of 49 SRs that were finally included in our study, 17, 16, and 16 SRs were specifically on COVID-19, MERS, and SARS, respectively. The growth rate of SRs on COVID-19 was the highest (4.54/month) presently. Of the included SRs, 6, 12, and 31 SRs were of moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. SRs on SARS showed the optimum quality among the SRs on the three diseases. Subgroup analyses showed that the SR topic (P < .001), the involvement of a methodologist (P < .001), and funding support (P = .046) were significantly associated with the methodological quality of the SR. According to the adherence scores, adherence to AMSTAR-2 items sequentially decreased in SRs on SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. The methodological quality of most SRs on coronavirus outbreaks is unsatisfactory, and those on COVID-19 have higher risks of poor quality, despite the rapid actions taken to conduct SRs. The quality of SRs should be improved in the future. Readers must exercise caution in accepting and using the results of these SRs.