Hidden in plain sight - Survival consequences of baseline symptom burden in women with recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the baseline symptom burden(SB) experienced by patients(pts) with recurrent ovarian cancer(ROC) prior and associations with progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: We analysed baseline SB reported by pts. with platinum resistant/refractory ROC (PRR-ROC) or potentially­platinum sensitive ROC receiving their third or greater line of chemotherapy (PPS-ROC≥3) enrolled in the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup - Symptom Benefit Study (GCIG-SBS) using the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST). The severity of baseline symptoms was correlated with PFS and OS. RESULTS: The 948 pts. reported substantial baseline SB. Almost 80% reported mild to severe pain, and 75% abdominal symptoms. Shortness of breath was reported by 60% and 90% reported fatigue. About 50% reported moderate to severe anxiety, and 35% moderate to severe depression. Most (89%) reported 1 or more symptoms as moderate or severe, 59% scored 6 or more symptoms moderate or severe, and 46% scored 9 or more symptoms as moderate or severe. Higher SB was associated with significantly shortened PFS and OS; five symptoms had OS hazard ratios larger than 2 for both moderate and severe symptom cut-offs (trouble eating, vomiting, indigestion, loss of appetite, and nausea; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pts with ROC reported high SB prior to starting palliative chemotherapy, similar among PRR-ROC and PPS-ROC≥3. High SB was strongly associated with early progression and death. SB should be actively managed and used to stratify patients in clinical trials. Clinical trials should measure and report symptom burden and the impact of treatment on symptom control.

Danish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument.

PURPOSE: In this study, we developed Danish utility weights for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. METHODS: Following a standardized methodology, 1001 adult participants from the Danish general population were quota-sampled and completed a cross-sectional web-based survey and discrete choice experiment (DCE). In the DCE, participants considered 16 choice sets constructed from the key 10 dimensions of the QLU-C10D and chose their preferred health state for each one. Utility weights were calculated using conditional logistic regression with correction for non-monotonicity. RESULTS: The sample (n = 1001) was representative of the Danish general population with regard to age and gender. The domains with the largest utility decrements, i.e., the domains with the biggest impact on health utility, were physical functioning (- 0.224), pain (- 0.160), and role functioning (- 0.136). The smallest utility decrements were observed for the domains lack of appetite (- 0.024), sleep disorders (- 0.057), and fatigue (- 0.064). Non-monotonicity of severity levels was observed for the domains sleep disturbances, lack of appetite, and bowel problems. Deviations from monotonicity were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The EORTC QLU-C10D is a relatively new multi-attribute utility instrument and is a promising cancer-specific health technology assessment candidate measure. The country-specific Danish utility weights from this study can be used for cost-utility analyses in Danish patients and for comparison with other country-specific utility data.

Relationship between reasons for intermittent missing patient-reported outcomes data and missing data mechanisms.

PURPOSE: Non-response (NR) to patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires may cause bias if not handled appropriately. Collecting reasons for NR is recommended, but how reasons for NR are related to missing data mechanisms remains unexplored. We aimed to explore this relationship for intermittent NRs. METHODS: Patients with multiple myeloma completed validated PRO questionnaires at enrolment and 12 follow-up time-points. NR was defined as non-completion of a follow-up assessment within seven days, which triggered contact with the patient, recording the reason for missingness and an invitation to complete the questionnaire (denoted "salvage response"). Mean differences between salvage and previous on-time scores were estimated for groups defined by reasons for NR using linear regression with clustered standard errors. Statistically significant mean differences larger than minimal important difference thresholds were interpreted as "missing not at random" (MNAR) mechanism (i.e. assumed to be related to declining health), and the remainder interpreted as aligned with "missing completely at random" (MCAR) mechanism (i.e. assumed unrelated to changes in health). RESULTS: Most (7228/7534 (96%)) follow-up questionnaires were completed; 11% (802/7534) were salvage responses. Mean salvage scores were compared to previous on-time scores by reason: those due to hospital admission, mental or physical reasons were worse in 10/22 PRO domains; those due to technical difficulties/procedural errors were no different in 21/22 PRO domains; and those due to overlooked/forgotten or other/unspecified reasons were no different in any domains. CONCLUSION: Intermittent NRs due to hospital admission, mental or physical reasons were aligned with MNAR mechanism for nearly half of PRO domains, while intermittent NRs due to technical difficulties/procedural errors or other/unspecified reasons generally were aligned with MCAR mechanism.

Adjuvant chemotherapy following chemoradiotherapy as primary treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer versus chemoradiotherapy alone (OUTBACK): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer is chemoradiotherapy, but many patients relapse and die of metastatic disease. We aimed to determine the effects on survival of adjuvant chemotherapy after chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: The OUTBACK trial was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 157 hospitals in Australia, China, Canada, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and the USA. Eligible participants were aged 18 year or older with histologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous cell carcinoma, or adenocarcinoma of the cervix (FIGO 2008 stage IB1 disease with nodal involvement, or stage IB2, II, IIIB, or IVA disease), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate bone marrow and organ function. Participants were randomly assigned centrally (1:1) using a minimisation approach and stratified by pelvic or common iliac nodal involvement, requirement for extended-field radiotherapy, FIGO 2008 stage, age, and site to receive standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (40 mg/m2 cisplatin intravenously once-a-week for 5 weeks, during radiotherapy with 45·0-50·4 Gy external beam radiotherapy delivered in fractions of 1·8 Gy to the whole pelvis plus brachytherapy; chemoradiotherapy only group) or standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with four cycles of carboplatin (area under the receiver operator curve 5) and paclitaxel (155 mg/m2) given intravenously on day 1 of a 21 day cycle (adjuvant chemotherapy group). The primary endpoint was overall survival at 5 years, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all eligible patients who were randomly assigned). Safety was assessed in all patients in the chemoradiotherapy only group who started chemoradiotherapy and all patients in the adjuvant chemotherapy group who received at least one dose of adjuvant chemotherapy. The OUTBACK trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01414608, and the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12610000732088. FINDINGS: Between April 15, 2011, and June 26, 2017, 926 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the chemoradiotherapy only group (n=461) or the adjuvant chemotherapy group (n=465), of whom 919 were eligible (456 in the chemoradiotherapy only group and 463 in the adjuvant chemotherapy group; median age 46 years [IQR 37 to 55]; 663 [72%] were White, 121 [13%] were Black or African American, 53 [6%] were Asian, 24 [3%] were Aboriginal or Pacific islander, and 57 [6%] were other races) and included in the analysis. As of data cutoff (April 12, 2021), median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 45 to 65). 5-year overall survival was 72% (95% CI 67 to 76) in the adjuvant chemotherapy group (105 deaths) and 71% (66 to 75) in the chemoradiotherapy only group (116 deaths; difference 1% [95% CI -6 to 7]; hazard ratio 0·90 [95% CI 0·70 to 1·17]; p=0·81). In the safety population, the most common clinically significant grade 3-4 adverse events were decreased neutrophils (71 [20%] in the adjuvant chemotherapy group vs 34 [8%] in the chemoradiotherapy only group), and anaemia (66 [18%] vs 34 [8%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 107 (30%) in the adjuvant chemotherapy group versus 98 (22%) in the chemoradiotherapy only group, most commonly due to infectious complications. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy given after standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy for unselected locally advanced cervical cancer increased short-term toxicity and did not improve overall survival; therefore, it should not be given in this setting. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council and National Cancer Institute.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neurotoxicity: Defining Minimal and Clinically Important Changes.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) is a common complication of cancer treatment that produces functional disability. Increasingly, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to assess CIPN, providing a broader symptom perspective than clinician-graded scales. Understanding when a reported change in CIPN symptoms meets the threshold for clinical significance is challenging. This study aimed to provide interpretation guidelines for validated CIPN PROMs, and thereby enable estimation of thresholds to identify clinically relevant symptoms. METHODS: Patients commencing neurotoxic cancer treatments were assessed at 3 timepoints: baseline, midtreatment, and end-of-treatment. Trajectory of CIPN development was assessed by means of CIPN PROMs, EORTC Quality of Life - Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy questionnaire (QLQ-CIPN20), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group - Neurotoxicity questionnaire (FACT/GOG-NTX). Thresholds were estimated for CIPN PROMs using the NCI CTCAE sensory neuropathy scale as the clinical anchor by midtreatment and end-of-treatment. Patients were assigned to a clinical change group according to CIPN development: either no development; grade 1 neuropathy (minimally important difference [MID]); or grade 2 neuropathy (clinically important difference). Distribution-based estimates (SD, 0.5) were also evaluated as supportive evidence. RESULTS: In total, 406 patients were recruited to the study, of whom 62% (n=199/320) developed CIPN by midtreatment and 80% (n=274/343) by end-of-treatment. Anchor-based MID estimates by midtreatment were 5.06 (95% CI, 4.26-5.86) for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 3.54 (95% CI, 2.87-4.20) for the FACT/GOG-NTX. End-of-treatment MIDs were estimated to be 7.32 (95% CI, 6.23-8.40) for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 4.84 (95% CI, 3.98-5.70) for the FACT/GOG-NTX. Distribution-based MID estimations yielded lower values than anchor-based methods, at 3.73 for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 2.64 for the FACT/GOG-NTX at midtreatment and 5.52 for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 3.64 for the FACT/GOG-NTX at end-of-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the present series aid meaningful interpretation for commonly used validated CIPN PROMs and provide thresholds that serve as guidance on how to interpret score changes, which will be useful for design and evaluation of clinical trials and clinical practice.

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimensions: Development and Investigation of General Population Utility Norms for Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimensions (EORTC QLU-C10D) is a cancer-specific preference-based measure, providing health utilities for use in economic evaluations derived from the widely used health-related quality of life measure, EORTC QLQ-C30. Several EORTC QLU-C10D country-specific value sets are available. This article aimed to provide EORTC QLU-C10D general population utility norms for Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom, to aid interpretability of obtained utilities in these countries. METHODS: Data were collected in aforementioned countries via a quota-sampled, cross-sectional online survey (n = 100/age-sex group; N = approximately 1000/country). Participants were asked to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30 and provide sociodemographic data. Country-specific utility norms were calculated using the respective country tariff on the country's EORTC QLQ-C30 data after weighting to achieve population representativeness for age and sex. Norm values are provided as means (SDs) by country, age, and sex groups. Tukey's multiple comparison test investigated mean differences among countries. The impact of country, age, and sex on utility values was investigated with a multiple linear regression model. RESULTS: Country-specific mean utilities range from 0.724 (United Kingdom) to 0.843 (Italy). Country-, sex-, and age-specific mean utilities range from 0.664 for 30- to 39-year-old male Canadians to 0.899 for > 70-year-old male Italians. Utilities were lower in females in 4 of 6 countries, and the impact of age differed among countries. Independent of the impact of age and sex, between-country differences were found (P ≤ .05). CONCLUSION: Results showed a varying impact of age and sex on EORTC QLU-C10D utilities and significant between-country differences. Using national utility norms and utility decrements is recommended.

Health-related quality of life of Australians during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: a comparison with pre-pandemic data and factors associated with poor outcomes.

PURPOSE: Compare the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of the Australian general population during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) with pre-pandemic data (2015-2016) and identify pandemic-related and demographic factors associated with poorer HRQL. METHODS: Participants were quota sampled from an online panel by four regions (defined by active COVID-19 case numbers); then by age and sex. Participants completed an online survey about their HRQL [EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and General Health Question (GHQ)], demographic characteristics, and the impact of the pandemic on daily life. HRQL scores were compared to a 2015-2016 reference sample using independent t-tests, adjusted for multiple testing. Associations between 22 pre-specified factors (pandemic-related and demographic) and 15 QLQ-C30 domains and GHQ, were assessed with multiple regressions. RESULTS: Most domains were statistically significantly worse for the 2020 sample (n = 1898) compared to the reference sample (n = 1979), except fatigue and pain. Differences were largest for the youngest group (18-29 years) for cognitive functioning, nausea, diarrhoea, and financial difficulties. Emotional functioning was worse for 2020 participants aged 18-59, but not for those 60 +. All models were statistically significant at p < .001; the most variance was explained for emotional functioning, QLQ-C30 global health/QOL, nausea/vomiting, GHQ, and financial difficulties. Generally, increased workload, negative COVID-19 impacts, COVID-19-related worries, and negative attitudes towards public health order compliance were associated with poorer HRQL outcomes. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Australians reported poorer HRQL relative to a pre-pandemic sample. Risk factors for poor HRQL outcomes included greater negative pandemic-related impacts, poorer compliance attitudes, and younger age. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR number is: ACTRN12621001240831. Web address of your trial: https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12621001240831.aspx . Date submitted: 26/08/2021 2:56:53 PM. Date registered: 14/09/2021 9:40:31 AM. Registered by: Margaret-Ann Tait. Principal Investigator: Madeleine King.

Evaluating patient-reported symptoms and late adverse effects following completion of first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer using the MOST (Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns).

OBJECTIVES: Knowledge on the course of symptoms patients with ovarian cancer experience is limited. We documented the prevalence and trajectories of symptoms after first-line chemotherapy using the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST). METHODS: A total of 726 patients who received platinum-based chemotherapy for ovarian cancer were asked to complete the MOST every 3 months, beginning 6 months post-diagnosis and continuing for up to 4 years. We used descriptive statistics to examine temporal changes in MOST-S26 index scores for disease or treatment-related (MOST-DorT), neurotoxicity (MOST-NTx), abdominal (MOST-Abdo), and psychological (MOST-Psych) symptoms, and wellbeing (MOST-Wellbeing) and selected individual symptoms. We used group-based trajectory models to identify groups with persistently poor symptoms. RESULTS: The median MOST-Abdo, MOST-DorT and MOST-Wellbeing score were worst at chemotherapy-end but improved and stabilised by 1, 3 and 12 months after treatment, respectively. The median MOST-NTx score peaked at 1 month after treatment before improving, while the median MOST-Psych score did not change substantially over time. Long-term moderate-to-severe fatigue (32%), trouble sleeping (31%), sore hands and feet (21%), pins and needles (20%) and anxiety (18%) were common. Trajectory models revealed groups of patients with persistent symptoms had MOST-DorT scores above 30 and MOST-NTx scores above 40 at treatment-end. CONCLUSIONS: Although many patients report improvements in symptoms by 3 months after first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer, patients who score > 30/100 on MOST-S26-DorT or > 40/100 on MOST-S26-NTx at the end of chemotherapy are likely to have persistent symptoms. The MOST could triage this at-risk subset for early intervention.

Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST) indexes and their associations with health-related quality of life in recurrent ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: The Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) concerns is a validated patient-reported symptom assessment tool for assessing symptom benefit and adverse effects of palliative chemotherapy in women with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). We aimed to examine (i) how symptoms within MOST symptom indexes track together (i.e. co-occur) and (ii) the association between MOST symptom indexes and key aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL). METHOD: A prospective cohort of women with ROC completed the MOST-T35, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OV28 at baseline and before each cycle of chemotherapy. Analyses were conducted on baseline and end-of-treatment data. Exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis identified groups of co-occurring symptoms. Path models examined associations between MOST symptom indexes and HRQL. RESULTS: Data from 762 women at baseline and 681 at treatment-end who completed all 22 symptom-specific MOST items and at least one HRQL measure were analysed. Four symptom clusters emerged at baseline and treatment-end: abdominal symptoms, symptoms associated with peripheral neuropathy, nausea and vomiting, and psychological symptoms. Psychological symptoms (MOST-Psych) and symptoms due to disease (ovarian cancer) or treatment (MOST-DorT) were associated with poorer scores on QLQ-C30 and OV28 functioning domains and worse overall health at both time points. CONCLUSION: Four MOST symptom clusters were consistent across statistical methods and time points. These findings suggest that routine standardized assessment of psychological and physical symptoms in clinical practice with MOST plus appropriate symptom management referral pathways is an intervention for improving HRQL that warrants further research.

The role of breast reconstruction choice on body image patient-reported outcomes at four years post-mastectomy for breast cancer: A longitudinal prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of breast reconstruction on women's perceptions of body image over time and to assess the influence of sociodemographic variables on body image. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal cohort study, using validated breast cancer-specific questionnaires, to compare patient-reported outcomes in women choosing immediate (n = 61), delayed (n = 16) or no (n = 23) breast reconstruction. RESULTS: One hundred women completed baseline questionnaires that included items on body image; 30 women completed all four annual follow-up sets, while 20 women completed baseline only. The three groups were well matched at baseline and similar trajectories in body image measures were identified over 48 months in all groups. At 12 months post-mastectomy, significant changes were seen in eight of the 10 subscales; this reduced to seven subscales at 24 months and four at 36 months. By 48 months, only three subscales remained significantly different to baseline scores: women remained less vulnerable and had fewer limitations (improved outcomes); the one worse outcome was persistently higher levels of arm concern. Three of the sociodemographic variables (health insurance, age and employment status) showed significant inter-group differences at some time points. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest women recover from the negative impact of mastectomy on body image within four years of surgery, whether they have immediate, delayed or no reconstruction. Our results provide some indirect evidence that having a choice of BR options is important, regardless of the choice made. Four years appears to be a suitable follow-up period for future studies in this area.

The FACT-8D, a new cancer-specific utility algorithm based on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies-General (FACT-G): a Canadian valuation study.

INTRODUCTION: Utility instruments are used to assess patients' health-related quality of life for cost-utility analysis (CUA). However, for cancer patients, the dimensions of generic utility instruments may not capture all the information relevant to the impact of cancer. Cancer-specific utilities provide a useful alternative. Under the auspices of the Multi-Attribute Utility in Cancer Consortium, a cancer-specific utility algorithm was derived from the FACT-G. The new FACT-8D contains eight dimensions: pain, fatigue, nausea, sleep, work, support from family/friends, sadness, and worry health will get worse. The aim of the study was to obtain a Canadian value set for the FACT-8D. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was administered to a Canadian general population online panel, quota sampled by age, sex, and province/territory of residence. Respondents provided responses to 16 choice sets. Each choice set consisted of two health states described by the FACT-8D dimensions plus an attribute representing survival duration. Sample weights were applied and the responses were analyzed using conditional logistic regression, parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life year framework. The results were converted into utility weights by evaluating the marginal rate of substitution between each level of each FACT-8D dimension with respect to duration. RESULTS: 2228 individuals were recruited. The analysis dataset included n = 1582 individuals, who completed at least one choice set; of which, n = 1501 completed all choice sets. After constraining to ensure monotonicity in the utility function, the largest decrements were for the highest levels of pain (- 0.38), nausea (- 0.30), and problems doing work (- 0.23). The decrements of the remaining dimensions ranged from - 0.08 to - 0.18 for their highest levels. The utility of the worst possible health state was defined as - 0.65, considerably worse than dead. CONCLUSIONS: The largest impacts on utility included three generic dimensions (i.e., pain, support, and work) and nausea, a symptom caused by cancer (e.g., brain tumours, gastrointestinal tumours, malignant bowel obstruction) and by common treatments (e.g., chemotherapy, radiotherapy, opioid analgesics). This may make the FACT-8D more informative for CUA evaluating in many cancer contexts, an assertion that must now be tested empirically in head-to-head comparisons with generic utility measures.

Getting the MOST out of follow-up: a randomized controlled trial comparing 3 monthly nurse led follow-up via telehealth, including monitoring CA125 and patient reported outcomes using the MOST (Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns) with routine clinic based or telehealth follow-up, after completion of first line chemotherapy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Physical symptoms, anxiety, depression, fear of recurrence, sexual dysfunction, and social withdrawal are common in women after treatment for ovarian cancer. Most patients would like and need help dealing with these symptoms. The traditional model of follow-up care is unstructured and largely focused on diagnosing recurrent disease, and most oncologists lack skills to identify and manage psychosocial issues. No high quality prospective clinical trials have been conducted to determine the optimal follow-up regimen or the cost effectiveness of ovarian cancer surveillance strategies. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To assess emotional wellbeing, acceptability, safety, and cost effectiveness of nurse led follow-up via telehealth for women with ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that compared with routine clinic based follow-up, nurse led follow-up via telehealth, including serum CA125 monitoring and completion of a patient reported outcome instrument, the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns-Surveillance (MOST-S26), will improve emotional wellbeing in women with ovarian cancer; be feasible, safe, acceptable, and not delay the time to diagnosis of recurrent disease; will result in greater patient satisfaction; will identify more patients with psychological distress, lead to better care, and improved psychological outcomes; and be cost-effective. TRIAL DESIGN: Phase II multicenter randomized trial comparing 3 monthly nurse led telehealth consultations that include serum CA125 monitoring and completion of the MOST-S26, with routine clinic based follow-up. The allocation ratio will be 1:1. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible patients will be women with high grade epithelial ovarian cancer who have normalized serum CA125 (to <35 kU/L) at completion of first line chemotherapy. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: Emotional wellbeing at 12 months. SAMPLE SIZE: 150 patients. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: July 2023. Results expected in 2025, 24 months after the last participant is enrolled. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12620000332921.

Symptom burden and quality of life with chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer: the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup-Symptom Benefit Study.

OBJECTIVE: The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG)-Symptom Benefit Study was designed to evaluate the effects of chemotherapy on symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in women having chemotherapy for platinum resistant/refractory recurrent ovarian cancer (PRR-ROC) and potentially platinum sensitive with ≥3 lines of chemotherapy (PPS-ROC ≥3). METHODS: Participants completed the Measure of Ovarian Cancer Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire QLQ-C30 questionnaires at baseline and every 3-4 weeks until progression. Participants were classified symptomatic if they rated ≥4 of 10 in at least one-third of symptoms in the MOST index. Improvement in MOST was defined as two consecutive scores of ≤3 in at least half of the symptomatic items at baseline. Improvement in HRQL was defined as two consecutive scores ≥10 points above baseline in the QLQ-C30 summary score scale (range 0-100). RESULTS: Of 948 participants enrolled, 910 (96%) completed baseline questionnaires: 546 with PRR-ROC and 364 with PPS-ROC ≥3. The proportions of participants symptomatic at baseline as per MOST indexes were: abdominal 54%, psychological 53%, and disease- or treatment-related 35%. Improvement was reported in MOST indexes: abdominal 40%, psychological 35%, and disease- or treatment-related 38%. Median time to improvement in abdominal symptoms occurred earlier for PRR-ROC than for PPS-ROC ≥3 (4 vs 6 weeks, p=0.044); median duration of improvement was also similar (9.0 vs 11.7 weeks, p=0.65). Progression-free survival was longer among those with improvement in abdominal symptoms than in those without (median 7.2 vs 2.5 months, p<0.0001). Improvements in HRQL were reported by 77/448 (17%) with PRR-ROC and 61/301 (20%) with PPS-ROC ≥3 (p=0.29), and 102/481 (21%) of those with abdominal symptoms at baseline. CONCLUSION: Over 50% of participants reported abdominal and psychological symptoms at baseline. Of those, 40% reported an improvement within 2 months of starting chemotherapy. Approximately one in six participants reported an improvement in HRQL. Symptom monitoring and supportive care is important as chemotherapy palliated less than half of symptomatic participants.

Perceived benefits and limitations of using patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice with individual patients: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings to inform individual patient care. In-depth understanding of end-users' experiences may help identify factors that promote or hinder their use in clinical decision-making. We aimed to examine stakeholder perceptions of the utility of using PROMs in clinical practice based on real-life experience. METHODS: Systematic review searching Medline, Embase and PsychINFO from inception to May 2021. Qualitative studies examining patients' and/or clinicians' experiences of using PROMs in clinical settings were included. Study screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative data from included studies was analysed thematically. RESULTS: Of 2388 abstracts retrieved, 52 articles reporting 50 studies met eligibility. Five key benefits were identified: (1) promotes active patient involvement (enables goal setting and discussion of sensitive topics); (2) enhances the focus of consultations (prioritizes patient needs); (3) improves quality of care (enables tailored, holistic care and prompts action); (4) enables standardized monitoring of patient outcomes; and (5) enhances the patient-clinician relationship (provides reassurance). Perceived limitations included the capacity of PROMs to shift the focus of consultations; inaccurately estimate problems; raise unrealistic expectations for care; inhibit patient-clinician interaction; lack clinically meaningful information; and not be suitable for all patients. CONCLUSION: Both patients and clinicians reported benefits of using PROMs across diverse health conditions and clinical settings, but also highlighted several limitations. These limitations shed some light on why PROM use may not always improve patient outcomes and provide considerations for the design and implementation of future PROM initiatives.

Assessing chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy with patient reported outcome measures: a systematic review of measurement properties and considerations for future use.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common toxicity of cancer treatment, with potential to significantly impact cancer survivors' long-term quality of life. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly utilised to evaluate CIPN. However, guidance remains lacking on how to identify fit for purpose PROMs with considerations necessarily differing when used in various research and in-clinic contexts. This study aimed to evaluate evidence about CIPN PROMs measurement properties and propose considerations to optimize CIPN PROM selection for each purpose. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify literature assessing measurement properties of CIPN PROMs. These were evaluated against Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria and International Society for Quality of Life minimum standards. Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the COSMIN RoB checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-nine papers evaluating measurement properties of 13 PROMs were included. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Questionnaire (QLQ-CIPN20) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-Ntx) were the most commonly investigated PROMs and had the most measurement properties meeting established criteria. CONCLUSION: The use of the QLQ-CIPN20 and FACT/GOG-Ntx to assess CIPN in research settings has the most supporting evidence. However other considerations including study aims, endpoints and target population also factor into PROM selection and need to be considered more often when determining the most suitable outcome measure. Evidence of CIPN PROMs use in clinical practice is limited and their adoption to individual-patient level management requires more evaluation.

Knowledge translation concerns for the CONSORT-PRO extension reporting guidance: a review of reviews.

This review of reviews aimed to appraise the use of the CONSORT-PRO Extension as an evaluation tool for assessing the reporting of patient-reported outcome (PROs) in publications, and to describe the reporting of PRO research across reviews. We also outlined how variation in such evaluations impacts knowledge translation and may lead to potential misuse of the CONSORT-PRO Extension. We systematically searched Medline, Pubmed and CINAHL from 2013 to 2025 March 2021 for reviews of the completeness of reporting of PRO endpoints according to CONSORT-PRO criteria. Two reviewers extracted details of each review, the percentage of included studies that addressed each CONSORT-PRO item, and key recommendations from each review. Fourteen reviews met inclusion criteria, and only six of these used the full CONSORT-PRO checklist with minimal justified modifications. The remaining eight studies made significant or unjustified adjustments to the CONSORT-PRO Extension. Review studies also varied in how they scored multi-component CONSORT-PRO items. CONSORT-PRO items were often unreported in trial reports, and certain CONSORT-PRO items were reported less often than others. The reporting of statistical approaches to dealing with missing PRO data were poor in RCTs included in all 14 review articles. Studies reviewing PRO publications often omitted recommended CONSORT-PRO items from their evaluations, which may cause confusion among readers regarding how best to report their PRO research according to the CONSORT-PRO extension. Many trials published since CONSORT-PRO's release did not report recommended CONSORT-PRO items, which may lead to misinterpretation and consequently to research waste.

Improving the patient-reported outcome sections of clinical trial protocols: a mixed methods evaluation of educational workshops.

INTRODUCTION: Failure to incorporate key patient-reported outcome (PRO) content in trial protocols affects the quality and interpretability of the collected data, contributing to research waste. Our group developed evidence-based training specifically addressing PRO components of protocols. We aimed to assess whether 2-day educational workshops improved the PRO completeness of protocols against consensus-based minimum standards provided in the SPIRIT-PRO Extension in 2018. METHOD: Annual workshops were conducted 2011-2017. Participants were investigators/trialists from cancer clinical trials groups. Although developed before 2018, workshops covered 15/16 SPIRIT-PRO items. Participant feedback immediately post-workshop and, retrospectively, in November 2017 was summarised descriptively. Protocols were evaluated against SPIRIT-PRO by two independent raters for workshop protocols (developed post-workshop by participants) and control protocols (contemporaneous non-workshop protocols). SPIRIT-PRO items were assessed for completeness (0 = not addressed, 10 = fully addressed). Mann-Whitney U tests assessed whether workshop protocols scored higher than controls by item and overall. RESULTS: Participants (n = 107) evaluated the workshop positively. In 2017, 16/41 survey responders (39%) reported never applying in practice; barriers included role restrictions (14/41, 34%) and lack of time (5/41, 12%). SPIRIT-PRO overall scores did not differ between workshop (n = 13, median = 3.81/10, interquartile range = 3.24) and control protocols (n = 9, 3.51/10 (2.14)), (p = 0.35). Workshop protocols scored higher than controls on two items: 'specify PRO concepts/domains' (p = 0.05); 'methods for handling missing data' (p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: Although participants were highly satisfied with these workshops, the completeness of PRO protocol content generally did not improve. Additional knowledge translation efforts are needed to assist protocol writers address SPIRIT-PRO guidance and avoid research waste that may eventuate from sub-optimal PRO protocol content.

The use of proxies and proxy-reported measures: a report of the international society for quality of life research (ISOQOL) proxy task force.

AIMS: Proxy reports are often used when patients are unable to self-report. It is unclear how proxy measures are currently in use in adult health care and research settings. We aimed to describe how proxy reports are used in these settings, including the use of measures developed specifically for proxy reporting in adult health populations. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, PsycINFO, PsycTESTS, CINAHL and EMBASE from database inception to February 2018. Search terms included a combination of terms for quality of life and health outcomes, proxy-reporters, and health condition terms. The data extracted included clinical context, the name of the proxy measure(s) used and other descriptive data. We determined whether the measures were developed specifically for proxy use or were existing measures adapted for proxy use. RESULTS: The database search identified 17,677 possible articles, from which 14,098 abstracts were reviewed. Of these, 11,763 were excluded and 2335 articles were reviewed in full, with 880 included for data extraction. The most common clinical settings were dementia (30%), geriatrics (15%) and cancer (13%). A majority of articles (51%) were paired studies with proxy and patient responses for the same person on the same measure. Most paired studies (77%) were concordance studies comparing patient and proxy responses on these measures. DISCUSSION: Most published research using proxies has focused on proxy-patient concordance. Relatively few measures used in research with proxies were specifically developed for proxy use. Future work is needed to examine the performance of measures specifically developed for proxies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO No. CRD42018103179.

The PROTEUS-Trials Consortium: Optimizing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials has enormous potential to promote patient-centred care, but for this potential to be realized, the patient-reported outcomes must be captured effectively and communicated clearly. Over the past decade, methodologic tools have been developed to inform the design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials. We formed the PROTEUS-Trials Consortium (Patient-Reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users and Stakeholders) to disseminate and implement these methodologic tools. METHODS: PROTEUS-Trials are engaging with patient, clinician, research, and regulatory stakeholders from 27 organizations in the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Europe to develop both organization-specific and cross-cutting strategies for implementing and disseminating the methodologic tools. Guided by the Knowledge-to-Action framework, we conducted consortium-wide webinars and meetings, as well as individual calls with participating organizations, to develop a workplan, which we are currently executing. RESULTS: Six methodologic tools serve as the foundation for PROTEUS-Trials dissemination and implementation efforts: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-patient-reported outcome extension for writing protocols with patient-reported outcomes, the International Society for Quality of Life Research Minimum Standards for selecting a patient-reported outcome measure, Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium recommendations for patient-reported outcome data analysis, the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials-patient-reported outcome extension for reporting clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes, recommendations for the graphic display of patient-reported outcome data, and a Clinician's Checklist for reading and using an article about patient-reported outcomes. The PROTEUS-Trials website (www.TheProteusConsortium.org) serves as a central repository for the methodologic tools and associated resources. To date, we have developed (1) a roadmap to visually display where each of the six methodologic tools applies along the clinical trial trajectory, (2) web tutorials that provide guidance on the methodologic tools at different levels of detail, (3) checklists to provide brief summaries of each tool's recommendations, (4) a handbook to provide a self-guided approach to learning about the tools and recommendations, and (5) publications that address key topics related to patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials. We are also conducting organization-specific activities, including meetings, presentations, workshops, and webinars to publicize the existence of the methodologic tools and the PROTEUS-Trials resources. Work to develop communications strategies to ensure that PROTEUS-Trials reach key audiences with relevant information about patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and PROTEUS-Trials is ongoing. DISCUSSION: The PROTEUS-Trials Consortium aims to help researchers generate patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials to (1) enable investigators, regulators, and policy-makers to take the patient perspective into account when conducting research and making decisions; (2) help patients understand treatment options and make treatment decisions; and (3) inform clinicians' discussions with patients regarding treatment options. In these ways, the PROTEUS Consortium promotes patient-centred research and care.

Incorporation of novel therapies for the management of sickle cell disease: A pharmacist's perspective.

Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) experience significant disease-related morbidity including multiorgan damage, chronic anemia, and debilitating pain crises. While hydroxyurea has been the primary disease modifying modality in SCD, novel therapies with unique mechanism of action have recently been approved. This review article examines the evidence surrounding the available SCD therapies to guide pharmacists on potential treatment selection and management strategies for patients with SCD. A systematic search of online databases was performed to identify literature on the management of SCD. While the newly approved novel agents have demonstrated clinical benefit it remains unclear how these agents fit into the treatment paradigm. Pharmacists should be aware of the data supporting the use of these novel agents to optimize use on a patient-specific basis.