Recommendations on the use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome measurement in oncology trials: findings from an international, multidisciplinary working group.

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials.

Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI): stakeholder views, objectives, and procedures.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

Including the patient voice in the development and implementation of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials.

CONTEXT: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in parallel with clinical evidence to inform decisions made by industry, clinicians, regulators, health technology assessment bodies and other health-care decision-makers. In addition, PRO data can also guide shared decision making and individual patient choice. Yet, the quality of many PROs in cancer clinical trials is suboptimal and requires improvement to add value to health care and policy decision making. OBJECTIVE: To show how the integration of the patient and/or patient advocate at all stages of PRO development can help to realize the full potential of PROs. METHODS: We examined the literature to show that the patient voice is often absent from the planning and implementation of PROs in cancer clinical trials. Good practice examples from the literature were combined with guideline recommendations, training or educational resources, and our own experience to create detailed practical steps for the inclusion of patients and/or patient advocates throughout PRO development. RESULTS: Patient or patient advocates can play an active role in shaping PROs that are meaningful to the patient. They can contribute to content, choice of medium and implementation in a way that may support PRO completion and minimize missing data. Patients and their advocates can work to ensure PRO findings are disseminated appropriately in a way that is accessible to patients. CONCLUSION: This practical guidance aims to optimize PRO development and implementation in clinical trials, resulting in robust, relevant data that reflect the patient experience and that support decisions made by all stakeholders involved in research and health care.

Towards an evidence-informed value scale for surgical and radiation oncology: a multi-stakeholder perspective.

Surgery and radiotherapy, two locoregional cancer treatments, are essential to help improve cancer outcomes, control, and palliation. The continued evolution in treatment processes, techniques, and technologies-often at substantially increased costs-demands for direction on outcomes that are most valued by patients, and the evidence that is required before clinical adoption of these practices. Three recently introduced frameworks-the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Blocks-which all help define the value of oncology treatments, were appraised with a focus on their methods and definition of patient benefit. In this Review, we investigate the applicability of these frameworks to surgical and radiotherapy innovations. Findings show that these frameworks are not immediately transferable to locoregional cancer treatments. Moreover, the lack of emphasis on patient perspective and the reliance on traditional, trial-based endpoints such as survival, disease-free survival, and safety, calls for a new framework that includes real-world evidence with focus on the whole spectrum of patient-centred endpoints. Such an evidence-informed value scale would safeguard against the proliferation of low-value innovation while simultaneously increasing access to treatments that show significant improvements in the outcomes of cancer care.

Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review.

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, are important endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there is little consensus about the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of these data. We did a systematic review to assess the variability, quality, and standards of PRO data analyses in advanced breast cancer RCTs. We searched PubMed for English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2017. Eligible articles were those that reported PRO results from RCTs of adult patients with advanced breast cancer receiving anti-cancer treatments with reported sample sizes of at least 50 patients-66 RCTs met the selection criteria. Only eight (12%) RCTs reported a specific PRO research hypothesis. Heterogeneity in the statistical methods used to assess PRO data was observed, with a mixture of longitudinal and cross-sectional techniques. Not all articles addressed the problem of multiple testing. Fewer than half of RCTs (28 [42%]) reported the clinical significance of their findings. 48 (73%) did not report how missing data were handled. Our systematic review shows a need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs. Lack of standardisation makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions and compare findings across trials. The Setting International Standards in the Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data Consortium was set up to address this need and develop recommendations on the analysis of PRO data in RCTs.

Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including "missing data,""health-related quality of life," and "patient-reported outcome." Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. CONCLUSION: The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

Patient value: Perspectives from the advocacy community.

All health-care systems are under financial pressure and many have therefore developed value frameworks to assist decision making regarding access to treatment. Unfortunately, many frameworks simply reflect the clinically focused values held by health-care professionals rather than outcomes that also matter to patients. It is difficult to define one single homogeneous set of patient values as these are shaped by social, religious and cultural factors, and health-care environment, as well as many factors such as age, gender, education, family and friends and personal finances. Instead of focusing on an aggregated set of values, frameworks should attempt to incorporate the broader range of outcomes that patients may regard as more relevant. Patient advocates are well placed to advise assessment bodies on how particular therapies will impact the patient population under consideration and should be closely involved in developing value frameworks. In this paper, a group of patient advocates explore the varying definitions of patient value and make positive recommendations for working together to strengthen the patient voice in this area. The authors call on framework developers, the patient advocacy and research communities, the health-care industry and decision-makers to undertake specific actions to ensure patient value is included in current and future value frameworks. This is justified on compassionate and economic grounds: better health outcomes result when patients receive treatment tailored to individual needs. Paying attention to the patient perspective also results in better use of resources-a goal that should appeal to all stakeholders.

European Association for Neuro-Oncology (EANO) guidelines for palliative care in adults with glioma.

Patients with glioma present with complex palliative care needs throughout their disease trajectory. The life-limiting nature of gliomas and the presence of specific symptoms related to neurological deterioration necessitate an appropriate and early palliative care approach. The multidisciplinary palliative care task force of the European Association of Neuro-Oncology did a systematic review of the available scientific literature to formulate the best possible evidence-based recommendations for the palliative care of adult patients with glioma, with the aim to reduce symptom burden and improve the quality of life of patients and their caregivers, particularly in the end-of-life phase. When recommendations could not be made because of the scarcity of evidence, the task force either used evidence from studies of patients with systemic cancer or formulated expert opinion. Areas of palliative care that currently lack evidence and thus deserve attention for further research are fatigue, disorders of behaviour and mood, interventions for the needs of caregivers, and timing of advance care planning.

Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards.

Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes generate important data in cancer randomised trials to assist in assessing the risks and benefits of cancer therapies and fostering patient-centred cancer care. However, the various ways these measures are analysed and interpreted make it difficult to compare results across trials, and hinders the application of research findings to inform publications, product labelling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. To address these problems, the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data (SISAQOL) initiative has been established. This consortium, directed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was convened to provide recommendations on how to standardise the analysis of HRQOL and other patient-reported outcomes data in cancer randomised trials. This Personal View discusses the reasons why this project was initiated, the rationale for the planned work, and the expected benefits to cancer research, patient and provider decision making, care delivery, and policy making.

Implementing the European code of cancer practice in rural settings.

Existing evidence often indicates higher cancer incidence and mortality rates, later diagnosis, lower screening uptake and poorer long-term survival for people living in rural compared to more urbanised areas. Despite wide inequities and variation in cancer care and outcomes across Europe, much of the scientific literature explicitly exploring the impact of rurality on cancer continues to come from Australia and North America. The European Code of Cancer Practice or "The Code" is a citizen and patient-centred statement of the most salient requirements for good clinical cancer practice and has been extensively co-produced by cancer patients, cancer professionals and patient advocates. It contains 10 key overarching Rights that a cancer patient should expect from their healthcare system, regardless of where they live and has been strongly endorsed by professional and patient cancer organisations as well as the European Commission. In this article, we use these 10 fundamental Rights as a framework to argue that (i) the issues and needs identified in The Code are generally more profound for rural people with cancer; (ii) addressing these issues is also more challenging in rural contexts; (iii) interventions and support must explicitly account for the unique needs of rural residents living with and affected by cancer and (iv) new innovative approaches are urgently required to successfully overcome the challenges faced by rural people with cancer and their caregivers. Despite equitable healthcare being a key European policy focus, the needs of rural people living with cancer have largely been neglected.

Management of patients with rare adult solid cancers: objectives and evaluation of European reference networks (ERN) EURACAN.

About 500,000 patients with rare adult solid cancers (RASC) are diagnosed yearly in Europe. Delays and unequal quality of management impact negatively their survival. Since 2017, European reference networks (ERN) aim to improve the quality of care of patients with rare disease. The steering committee of EURACAN, including physicians, researchers and patients review here the previous actions, present objectives of the ERN EURACAN dedicated to RASC. EURACAN promoted management in reference centres, and equal implementation of excellence and innovation in Europe and developed 22 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Additionally, fourteen information brochures translated in 24 EU languages were developed in collaboration with patient advocacy groups (ePAGs) and seventeen training session were organized. Nevertheless, connections to national networks in the 26 participating countries (106 centres), simplification of cross-border healthcare, international multidisciplinary tumour boards, registries and monitoring of the quality of care are still required. In this Health Policy, evaluation criteria of the performances of the network and of health care providers are proposed.

The outcomes measured and reported in observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma: A systematic review.

Background: The clinical management of patients with incidental intracranial meningioma varies markedly and is often based on clinician choice and observational data. Heterogeneous outcome measurement has likely hampered knowledge progress by preventing comparative analysis of similar cohorts of patients. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in observational studies. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published full texts describing active monitoring of adult cohorts with incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL via EBSCO, completed January 24, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were de-duplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty-three published articles and 1 ongoing study were included describing 32 unique studies: study designs were retrospective n = 27 and prospective n = 5. In total, 268 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 77 were defined. Following de-duplication, 178 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 53 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 9 outcome domains and 3 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a Core Outcome Set for use in future observational studies.

The outcomes measured and reported in intracranial meningioma clinical trials: A systematic review.

Background: Meningioma clinical trials have assessed interventions including surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. However, agreement does not exist on what, how, and when outcomes of interest should be measured. To do so would allow comparative analysis of similar trials. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical trials. Methods: Systematic literature and trial registry searches were performed to identify published and ongoing intracranial meningioma clinical trials (PubMed, Embase, Medline, CINAHL via EBSCO, and Web of Science, completed January 22, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were deduplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty published articles and 18 ongoing studies were included, describing 47 unique clinical trials: Phase 2 n = 33, phase 3 n = 14. Common interventions included: Surgery n = 13, radiotherapy n = 8, and pharmacotherapy n = 20. In total, 659 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 84 were defined. Following de-duplication, 415 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 115 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 29 outcome domains and 5 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across meningioma clinical trials is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a core outcome set for use in future meningioma clinical trials.

Gender inequity in cancer research leadership in Europe: Time to act.

AIM: Cancer is one of Europe's key research missions, with gender equity a major policy pillar. To benchmark how well European countries perform for gender balance in cancer research, high quality intelligence is required. METHODS: For cancer research papers in Europe (EUR31; the 28 EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) from two specific years (2009 and 2019), we evaluated the numbers of female authors overall and then the female last-author presence, as a proxy of female cancer research leadership. RESULTS: Overall, female authorship increased from 42% to 49%. In 2009, females represented 50% or more of cancer research authors in only five EUR31 countries. By 2019, that number had risen to 17. In Eastern European (EE) countries, females were more likely to be in the majority. The presence of female cancer research authors in the last (senior) author position increased from 24% to 34%. Five of the top six countries for female authorship in 2019 were from EE, whereas disappointingly four central European countries (Austria (AT), Czechia (CZ), Germany (DE) and Switzerland (CH)) were below the 25th percentile. A number of European powerhouses of cancer research (UK, DE, CH) underperformed in terms of female cancer research leadership. However, when cancer researchers from these countries worked abroad (e.g. Scandinavia, USA) the percentage of females was similar to that of their host countries. A factor potentially influencing female cancer research participation was availability and relative cost of child-care, which is more favourable in Scandinavia and EE than in central/western Europe. CONCLUSION: Our data show that Horizon Europe's Cancer Mission must ensure gender equity in its future research programmes and support the enhancement of female cancer research leadership opportunities.

Cancer literacy - Informing patients and implementing shared decision making.

In order to tailor treatment to their needs, cancer patients are encouraged to be more active and engaged in their care decisions and to be autonomous yet collaborative with their healthcare professionals when it comes to aspects of their treatment in order to get better results. However, this can only happen after providing them with accurate information about cancer and the different treatment alternatives and their potential side effects. However, sharing robust data-based information is often hindered by exposure to misleading information through different media and online platform, where patients might come across unscientifically founded health practices. Increasing health literacy and cancer-specific literacy is essential to fight this negative trend. The idea is that more knowledgeable patients will be able to debunk more easily misinformation they encounter. This is also related to inequalities among cancer patients. Not only levels of cancer literacy within Europe are uneven across and within countries, but there are social groups that, due to specific social determinants, are systematically less informed and skilled regarding cancer care. In this paper an overview of gaps in addressing literacy issues, and the importance of health literacy to empower patients in their journey through treatment is delineated, concluding with some recommendations to improve cancer literacy in Europe.

A New Framework for Co-Creating Telehealth for Cancer Care with the Patient Community.

The increased use of telehealth in cancer care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has added to our knowledge and experience of the modality with benefits in terms of efficacy, cost, and patient and healthcare professional experience reported. However, telehealth has also been found not to be universally available to all patients with cancer, nor to be appropriate for every healthcare interaction; additionally, not all patients prefer it. Now that coronavirus disease restrictions have essentially ended and an opportunity to re-assess telehealth provision in cancer care presents, we offer a framework that aims to ensure that the needs and preferences of the patient community are included in the development of telehealth provision. Stakeholders in this process include patients, patient advocates, healthcare providers, healthcare services commissioners, managers, and policy makers. The framework outlines how patient advocates can work with other stakeholders as equal partners at all stages of telehealth service development. The patient advocate community has a unique understanding of the patient perspective as well as expertise in healthcare design and delivery. This enables advocates to contribute to shaping telehealth provision, from policy and guideline formulation to patient navigation. Appropriate resources, education and training may be needed for all stakeholders to support the development of an effective telehealth system. Together with other stakeholders, patient advocates can make an important contribution to optimizing appropriate patient-centred telehealth provision in cancer care.