Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Improving completion rates of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer clinical trials: Scoping review investigating the implications for trial designs.
van der Weijst, Lotte; Machingura, Abigirl; Alanya, Ahu; Lidington, Emma; Velikova, Galina; Flechtner, Hans-Henning; Schmidt, Heike; Lehmann, Jens; Ramage, John K; Ringash, Jolie; Wac, Katarzyna; Oliver, Kathy; Taylor, Katherine J; Wintner, Lisa; Senna, Lúcia P C; Koller, Michael; Husson, Olga; Bultijnck, Renée; Wilson, Roger; Singer, Susanne; Bjelic-Radisic, Vesna; van der Graaf, Winette T A; Pe, Madeline.
Afiliación
  • van der Weijst L; Quality of Life Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: lotte.vanderweijst@eortc.org.
  • Machingura A; Quality of Life Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Alanya A; Quality of Life Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Lidington E; Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Velikova G; Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
  • Flechtner HH; Clinic for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
  • Schmidt H; Department for Radiation Medicine and Institute of Health and Nursing Science Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
  • Lehmann J; University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
  • Ramage JK; Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, United Kingdom.
  • Ringash J; Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Wac K; Quality of Life Lab, Center for Informatics, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
  • Oliver K; International Brain Tumour Alliance, Surrey, United Kingdom.
  • Taylor KJ; Institute of Medical Biostatistics Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Centre Mainz, Mainz, Germany; University Cancer Centre, Mainz, Germany.
  • Wintner L; University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
  • Senna LPC; Quality of Life Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Koller M; Center for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
  • Husson O; Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Bultijnck R; Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
  • Wilson R; Cancer Research Advocates Forum UK, Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network (SPAGN), Shropshire UK.
  • Singer S; Institute of Medical Biostatistics Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Centre Mainz, Mainz, Germany; University Cancer Centre, Mainz, Germany.
  • Bjelic-Radisic V; Breast Unit, University Hospital Helios, University Witten Herdecke, Wuppertal, Germany.
  • van der Graaf WTA; Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Pe M; Quality of Life Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium.
Eur J Cancer ; 212: 114313, 2024 Nov.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39305741
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play a crucial role in cancer clinical trials. Despite the availability of validated PRO measures (PROMs), challenges related to low completion rates and missing data remain, potentially affecting the trial results' validity. This review explored strategies to improve and maintain high PROM completion rates in cancer clinical trials.

METHODOLOGY:

A scoping review was performed across Medline, Embase and Scopus and regulatory guidelines. Key recommendations were synthesized into categories such as stakeholder involvement, study design, PRO assessment, mode of assessment, participant support, and monitoring.

RESULTS:

The review identified 114 recommendations from 18 papers (16 peer-reviewed articles and 2 policy documents). The recommendations included integrating comprehensive PRO information into the study protocol, enhancing patient involvement during the protocol development phase and in education, and collecting relevant PRO data at clinically meaningful time points. Electronic data collection, effective monitoring systems, and sufficient time, capacity, workforce and financial resources were highlighted.

DISCUSSION:

Further research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies in various context and to tailor these recommendations into practical and effective strategies. This will enhance PRO completion rates and patient-centred care. However, obstacles such as patient burden, low health literacy, and conflicting recommendations may present challenges in application.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto / Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente / Neoplasias Idioma: En Revista: Eur J Cancer Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto / Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente / Neoplasias Idioma: En Revista: Eur J Cancer Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article