Estimating survival scenarios in advanced or metastatic gastric and oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review of randomised-controlled trials.

Background: We aimed to summarize survival data from RCTs in patients with GO adenocarcinoma; estimate and explain worst-, typical- and best-case-scenarios of survival time; and determine if simple multiples of median overall survival (mOS) could estimate these percentiles.Methods: We systematically searched RCTs of systemic therapies for GO adenocarcinoma published 2000-2022. The following key percentiles were extracted from overall survival curves: 90th (worst-case), 75th (lower-typical), 25th (upper-typical), and 10th (best-case). We tested if these percentiles could be estimated by simple multiples of mOS: 0.25 of the median for the 90th percentile, 0.5 for 75th, 2 for 25th, and 3 for 10th.Results: We identified 44 trials (22,447 participants). For first line chemotherapy and immunotherapy combined (CI) trials (n = 3) worst-to-best case survival time ranged from 4 months to not reached, compared to 3-30 months for other trials (n = 27) and 1-23 months for subsequent line (n = 14). Simple multiples of mOS accurately estimated the following survival percentiles: 90th (n = 3/3 trials), 75th (n = 3/3) and 25th (n = 2/3) in first line CI trials. In other first line trials, the mOS accurately estimated the 90th survival percentile in n = 22/27 trials, 75th percentile in n = 26/27, 25th percentile 27/27 and 10th percentile in 22/27. Simple multiples of the mOS accurately predicted the 90th, 75th, 25th and 10th survival percentiles in majority of trials of second and subsequent line apart from chemotherapy and immunotherapy only trials.Conclusion: We provide realistic, evidence-based prognostic information as scenarios for survival time which can inform clinical decision-making. Simple multiples of the mOS accurately estimated the percentiles for most groups.

A systematic review of the patient reported outcomes that affect patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion.

Objectives: To determine the functional domains and symptom scales that affect patients most following radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary diversion (UD), and if a single instrument (or combination) adequately captures these bothersome symptoms. It is unclear whether current patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments that have been used to assess quality of life in patients following RC and UD adequately cover the most bothersome symptoms affecting patients. Materials and methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cinahl and Cochrane was conducted from January 2000 to May 2023 for original articles of patients who had RC and UD since 2000 for muscle invasive bladder cancer. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) process was followed. Extracted data included the PRO measures used, domains reported and scores in the first 12 months post-surgery (short-term) and after 12 months (long-term). A conservative threshold of <70 for functional domains and >30 for symptom domains was used to determine which PRO domains were potentially concerning to patients in each study. Quality assessment was performed using the QUALSYST appraisal tool. Results: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of eight unique PRO instruments. The main findings indicated that physical function was the most concerning PRO for patients with both neobladder (NB) and ileal conduit (IC) in the short and long term. Additionally, bowel, urinary and sexual bother were concerning symptoms for patients with NB in the long-term, but only in the short-term for those with IC. Conclusions: The main issues are adequately addressed using the combination of EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BLM30 instruments.

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.

Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

Prognostic value of patient reported outcomes in advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer: a systematic review.

To summarise the prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in advanced gastro-oesophageal (GO) cancer. We systematically searched multiple databases using search terms related to advanced GO cancer, PRO and prognosis. Studies examining the relationship between baseline PROs and prognosis were included. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data on study design, survival and associations between PROs and survival, in both univariable and multivariable analyses. QUIPS was used for quality assessment. From 3004 studies screened, seven studies were eligible, comprising PRO data from 2761 of 3408 (81%) participants. Median survival times ranged from 4.5 to 9.5 months. Among participants with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), physical functioning, social functioning and fatigue (QLQ-C30) were associated with overall survival (OS) in one univariable analysis. Among three studies of participants with adenocarcinoma, univariable analyses revealed associations between OS and global quality of life (QOL), physical functioning, role functioning and social functioning; two studies showed association with pain. There was an association between emotional functioning, fatigue, lack of mobility, lack of self-care, appetite loss/anorexia and OS in one study. One multivariable analysis among participants with oesophageal SCC showed physical and social functioning was associated with OS. Among participants with adenocarcinoma, multivariable analyses showed associations between OS and physical functioning/lack of mobility, appetite loss/anorexia (three studies), global QOL, role functioning/lack of self-care, pain (two studies) and social functioning (one study). Physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, pain, anorexia and global QOL were associated with OS in advanced GO cancer.

Relationship between survivorship care plans and unmet information needs, quality of life, satisfaction with care, and propensity to engage with, and attend, follow-up care.

BACKGROUND: The impact of survivorship care plans (SCPs) on the proximal and distal outcomes of adult and childhood cancer survivors, and parent proxies, is unclear. This study aimed to determine the relationship between SCP receipt and these outcomes. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of adult and childhood cancer survivors (and parent proxies for survivors aged younger than 16 years) across Australia and New Zealand was conducted. Multivariate regression models were fitted to measure the impact of SCP receipt on proximal (unmet information needs and propensity to engage with, and attend, cancer-related follow-up care) and distal outcomes (quality of life and satisfaction with cancer-related follow-up care) with control for cancer history and sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Of 1123 respondents, 499 were adult cancer survivors and 624 were childhood cancer survivors (including 222 parent proxies). We found that SCP receipt was predictive of greater attendance at, and awareness of, cancer-related follow-up care (adult: odds ratio [OR], 2.46; 95% CI, 1.18-5.12; OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.07-5.29; child/parent: OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.63-4.17; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.06-2.50; respectively). SCP receipt also predicted fewer unmet information needs related to "follow-up care required" and "possible late effects" (adult: OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.96; OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.64; child/parent: OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.72; OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.85; respectively). In terms of distal outcomes, SCP receipt predicted a better global quality of life for adult cancer survivors (ß, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.01-7.93), proxy-reported health-related quality of life (ß, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.44-7.12), and satisfaction with follow-up care for childhood cancer survivors (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.64-5.23). CONCLUSIONS: Previous studies have shown little impact of SCPs on distal end points. Results suggest that SCPs may be beneficial to cancer survivors' proximal and distal outcomes.

Development of consensus-based considerations for use of adult proxy reporting: an ISOQOL task force initiative.

AIMS: Many large-scale population-based surveys, research studies, and clinical care allow for inclusion of proxy reporting as a strategy to collect outcomes when patients are unavailable or unable to provide reliable self-report. Prior work identified an absence of methodological guidelines regarding proxy reporting in adult populations, including who can serve as a proxy, and considerations for data collection, analysis, and reporting. The primary objective of this work by the ISOQOL Proxy Task Force was to review documents and clinical outcome assessment measures with respect to proxy reporting and to develop, through consensus, considerations for proxy reporting. METHODS: We assembled an international group with clinically relevant and/or methodological expertise on proxy use in adult populations. We conducted a targeted review of documentation based on regulatory, non-regulatory, professional society, and individual measure sources. Using a standardized collection form, proxy-related information was extracted from each source including definitions of a proxy, characteristics of a proxy, domains addressable or addressed by a proxy, and observer-reporting. RESULTS: The definition of proxy was inconsistent across 39 sources, except regulatory documents which defined a proxy as a person other than the patient who reports on an outcome as if she/he were the patient. While proxy report was discouraged in regulatory documentation, it was acknowledged there were instances where self-report was impossible. Many documentation sources indicated proxies would be well-justified in certain contexts, but did not indicate who could act as a proxy, when proxies could be used, what domains of patient health they could report on, or how data should be reported. Observer-reported outcomes were typically defined as those based on observed behaviors, however there was not a consistent differentiation between proxy and observer reporting. Based on information extracted from these resources, we developed a checklist of considerations when including proxy-reported measures or using proxies in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting of proxy reported data. CONCLUSION: Our targeted review highlights a lack of clarity in capturing, interpreting and reporting data from proxies in adult populations. We provide a checklist of considerations to assist researchers and clinicians with including proxies in research studies and clinical care. Lastly, our review identified areas where further guidance and future research are necessary.

Patient-Reported Bowel, Urinary, and Sexual Outcomes After Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection or Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: The Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Randomized Clinical Trial (ALaCart).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual functioning of ALaCaRT Trial participants randomized to open or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The primary endpoint, noninferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection adequacy, was not established. METHODS: Participants completed QLQ-CR29 at baseline, 3, and 12 months post-surgery. Additionally, women completed Rosen's Female Sexual Functioning Index (FSFI). Men completed the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and QLQ-PR25. We compared the proportions of participants in each group who experienced moderate/severe symptoms/dysfunction at each time-point and compared mean difference scores from baseline to 12 months between groups. All analyses were intention-to-treat. Sexual functioning analyses included only the participants who expressed sexual interest at baseline. RESULTS: Baseline PRO compliance of 475 randomized participants was 88%. At 12 months, a lower proportion of open surgery participants experienced moderate-severe fecal incontinence and sore skin, compared to Laparoscopic participants, and a lower proportion of men randomized to open surgery experienced moderate-severe urinary symptoms. There were no differences at 3 months for bowel or urinary symptoms. Sexual functioning among sexually interested participants was similar between groups at 3 and 12 months; however, a lower proportion of women reported moderate to severe sexual dissatisfaction at 3 months in the open as compared to the laparoscopic group, (Rebecca.mercieca@sydney.edu.au., 95% CI 0.03-0.39). DISCUSSION: Despite the slightly lower proportions of open surgery participants self-reporting moderate-severe symptoms for 3 of 16 urinary/bowel domains, and lack of differences in sexual domains, it remains difficult to recommend one surgical approach over another for rectal resection.

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.

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.

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines.

Importance: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research. Evidence Review: The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance. Findings: Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans. Conclusions and Relevance: The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

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.

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.

Clinical Trial Protocol for HyNOVA: Hyperthermic and Normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy following interval cytoreductive surgery for stage III epithelial OVArian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer (ANZGOG1901/2020).

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecological cancer, causing over 200,000 deaths worldwide in 2020. Initial standard treatment for primary ovarian cancer is optimal cytoreductive surgery (CRS) preceded and/or followed by intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy. However, most women develop recurrence within the peritoneal cavity and die of disease. Results of the OVIHIPEC 1 trial (2018) showed improved survival of 34% when hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) was given immediately following interval-CRS in women with stage III disease. However, it is unknown if the effect of HIPEC is due to hyperthermia, one extra cycle of intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy, or other factors. There is also concern that hyperthermia might be associated with an increase in adverse events (AEs) due to a heightened systemic inflammatory response. HyNOVA is a seamless, multi-stage randomized study that attempts to answer these questions by comparing HIPEC to normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC), focusing on safety (stage 1), then assessing activity (stage 2) and effectiveness (stage 3). In this initial study, we hypothesize that NIPEC will result in a lower rate of severe AEs compared to HIPEC. METHODS: This initial stage of HyNOVA is a phase II study of 80 women with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage III epithelial ovarian cancer, with at least stable disease following 3-4 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, achieving interval-CRS to <2.5 mm residual disease. Participants are randomized 1:1 to receive IP cisplatin 100 mg/m² for 90 minutes either as HIPEC, heated to 42°C (41.5°C-42.5°C), or NIPEC, at 37°C (36.5°C-37.5°C). The primary outcome is the proportion of AEs ≥ grade 3 occurring within 90 days. Secondary outcomes are AE of interest, surgical morbidity, patient reported outcomes, resource allocation, feasibility, progression-free survival and overall survival. AEs are measured using both CTCAE v5.0 and Clavien-Dindo classification, particularly infection, pain, bowel dysfunction, and anemia. Tertiary outcomes are potential predictive biomarkers measured before and after HIPEC/NIPEC including circulating cell-free tumor DNA, tissue factors, and systemic inflammatory markers. There are 4 participating Australian sites with experience in CRS and HIPEC for peritoneal malignancy. HyNOVA is funded by an MRFF grant (APP1199155). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12621000269831.

International perspectives on suboptimal patient-reported outcome trial design and reporting in cancer clinical trials: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of cancer trial protocols is frequently inadequate and non-reporting of PRO findings is widespread. This qualitative study examined the factors influencing suboptimal PRO protocol content, implementation, and reporting, and use of PRO data during clinical interactions. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four stakeholder groups: (1) trialists and chief investigators; (2) people with lived experience of cancer; (3) international experts in PRO cancer trial design; (4) journal editors, funding panelists, and regulatory agencies. Data were analyzed using directed thematic analysis with an iterative coding frame. RESULTS: Forty-four interviews were undertaken. Several factors were identified that could influenced effective integration of PROs into trials and subsequent findings. Participants described (1) late inclusion of PROs in trial design; (2) PROs being considered a lower priority outcome compared to survival; (3) trialists' reluctance to collect or report PROs due to participant burden, missing data, and perceived reticence of journals to publish; (4) lack of staff training. Strategies to address these included training research personnel and improved communication with site staff and patients regarding the value of PROs. Examples of good practice were identified. CONCLUSION: Misconceptions relating to PRO methodology and its use may undermine their planning, collection, and reporting. There is a role for funding, regulatory, methodological, and journalistic institutions to address perceptions around the value of PROs, their position within the trial outcomes hierarchy, that PRO training and guidance is available, signposted, and readily accessible, with accompanying measures to ensure compliance with international best practice guidelines.

SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

'Give Us The Tools!': development of knowledge transfer tools to support the involvement of patient partners in the development of clinical trial protocols with patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in accordance with SPIRIT-PRO Extension.

OBJECTIVES: (a) To adapt the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-patient-reported outcome (PRO) Extension guidance to a user-friendly format for patient partners and (b) to codesign a web-based tool to support the dissemination and uptake of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension by patient partners. DESIGN: A 1-day patient and public involvement session. PARTICIPANTS: Seven patient partners. METHODS: A patient partner produced an initial lay summary of the SPIRIT-PRO guideline and a glossary. We held a 1-day PPI session in November 2019 at the University of Birmingham. Five patient partners discussed the draft lay summary, agreed on the final wording, codesigned and agreed the final content for both tools. Two additional patient partners were involved in writing the manuscript. The study compiled with INVOLVE guidelines and was reported according to the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 checklist. RESULTS: Two user-friendly tools were developed to help patients and members of the public be involved in the codesign of clinical trials collecting PROs. The first tool presents a lay version of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension guidance. The second depicts the most relevant points, identified by the patient partners, of the guidance through an interactive flow diagram. CONCLUSIONS: These tools have the potential to support the involvement of patient partners in making informed contributions to the development of PRO aspects of clinical trial protocols, in accordance with the SPIRIT-PRO Extension guidelines. The involvement of patient partners ensured the tools focused on issues most relevant to them.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Associated with Treatments for Testicular Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Testicular cancer and its treatment can have major short- and long-term effects on the health-related quality of life of those affected. This systematic review aims to summarise patient-reported outcome (PRO) data concerning health-related quality of life, functional impacts and common side-effects of treatments for testicular cancer. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline OVID, CINAHL, PubMed, Embase and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Over Time In Oncology (PROMOTION) databases from inception to 25 March 2020, using "testicular cancer" and "PRO" search terms developed in conjunction with a medical librarian. Two authors screened abstracts and full-text articles for studies that reported primary PRO data related to the treatment of testicular cancer including at least 50 participants. We excluded psychosocial data as this was included in our companion review. Data were extracted by three reviewers, and quality was assessed by two reviewers using QUAL-SYST. Studies with a quality of score over 65% were included in our narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 1831 records were identified via our database searches and 41 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 35 included participants who had chemotherapy. Twenty-eight different PRO measures were used across the 41 studies. Of the 41 studies, 29 had quality scores over 65% and were included in our narrative synthesis. We found that chemotherapy was generally associated with a higher side-effect burden than other treatments, and higher burden was associated with higher doses of chemotherapy. Hearing problems, peripheral neuropathy, and Raynaud's phenomena were particularly common side-effects. Problems with sexual functioning were associated with chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. DISCUSSION: While many studies found that between-treatment differences resolved within the first 12 months since diagnosis, there were many long-term and dose-dependent impacts associated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy across PRO domains. Offering information about these aspects, and information about expected survival outcomes, will help inform, prepare, and empower patients to make decisions about treatment aligned with their preferences and personal situations.

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension (FACT-8D), a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived From the Cancer-Specific FACT-General (FACT-G) Quality of Life Questionnaire: Development and Australian Value Set.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaire. METHODS: We derived a descriptive system based on a subset of the 27-item FACT-G. Item selection was informed by psychometric analyses of existing FACT-G data (n = 6912) and by patient input (n = 82). We then conducted an online valuation survey, with participants recruited via an Australian general population online panel. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used, with attributes being the HRQL dimensions of the descriptive system and survival duration, and 16 choice-pairs per participant. Utility decrements were estimated with conditional logit and mixed logit modeling. RESULTS: Eight HRQL dimensions were included in the descriptive system: pain, fatigue, nausea, sleep, work, social support, sadness, and future health worry; each with 5 levels. Of 1737 panel members who accessed the valuation survey, 1644 (95%) completed 1 or more DCE choice-pairs and were included in analyses. Utility decrements were generally monotonic; within each dimension, poorer HRQL levels generally had larger utility decrements. The largest utility decrements were for the highest levels of pain (-0.40) and nausea (-0.28). The worst health state had a utility of -0.54, considerably worse than dead. CONCLUSIONS: A descriptive system and preference-based scoring approach were developed for the FACT-8D, a new cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the FACT-G. The Australian value set is the first of a series of country-specific value sets planned that can facilitate cost-utility analyses based on items from the FACT-G and related FACIT questionnaires containing FACT-G items.

An Updated Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies Assessing Anxiety, Depression, Fear of Cancer Recurrence or Psychological Distress in Testicular Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: A diagnosis of testicular cancer (TC) at a relatively young age can have a dramatic impact on the psychological well-being of those affected. The aim of this review was to synthesize recent evidence to provide an updated account of the prevalence, severity and correlates of anxiety, depression, fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and distress in TC survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted from September 2017 until June 2020 using electronic databases including Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. Study eligibility and quality were independently assessed by two reviewers. Narrative synthesis was used to depict the severity (mean/median scores), prevalence (proportions above standard clinical thresholds) and correlates of study outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 988 articles were identified for screening after duplicate removal. Fifty-six full-text articles were screened, and eight articles met the inclusion criteria. The reported prevalence of the outcomes varied across studies (clinical levels of anxiety ranged from 6.9% to 21.1%, depression varied from 4.7% to 7%, distress was found between 25% and 41.4%, prevalence of FCR was not reported). Few studies compared TC survivors with other populations. Correlates of poorer psychological outcomes included younger age, relationship status, employment status, poorer sexual functioning, impaired masculinity and coping strategies. CONCLUSION: Anxiety seems to be the most common issue for TC survivors. Men who are single or unemployed appear most at risk of poorer psychological outcomes, which seem associated with impaired masculinity and sexual function. More research is needed to identify TC survivors most likely to need one of the increasing number of psychological interventions being developed for TC survivors.