Time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer clinical trials: targeted literature review and best practice recommendations.

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kim Cocks, Bellinda L King-Kallimanis, Joel Sims, Gill Worthy, Julia Stein, Lara Ayala-Nunes, Monika Achra, Zhanglin Lin Cui, Nalin Payakachat
{"title":"Time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer clinical trials: targeted literature review and best practice recommendations.","authors":"Kim Cocks, Bellinda L King-Kallimanis, Joel Sims, Gill Worthy, Julia Stein, Lara Ayala-Nunes, Monika Achra, Zhanglin Lin Cui, Nalin Payakachat","doi":"10.1186/s41687-024-00824-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Time to deterioration (TTD) endpoints are often utilized in the analysis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in oncology clinical trials but different endpoint definitions and analysis frameworks exist that can impact result interpretation. This review examined the analysis, reporting and heterogeneity of TTD endpoints in the literature, the impact of analysis methods on results, and provides recommendations for future trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A targeted literature review of articles published between 2017 and 2022 was performed to collate TTD endpoints reported in oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Details of endpoints and results were extracted including; deterioration definition, PRO assessment schedule, methods for handling intercurrent events, statistical analysis methods, main trial results (overall survival and/or progression-free survival) and TTD endpoint results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy RCTs were included covering 849 individual TTD endpoints. There were 17 primary cancer types, with lung (26%), breast (11%), and prostate (7%) cancers the most common. Most trials (71%) were for people with advanced cancer. Full definitions of TTD endpoints were often missing. There were no clear trends for a specific TTD definition within cancer types or stages. However, statistical analysis methods were consistent among trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The TTD definition can vary and is ultimately driven by the research question. Points to consider for successfully implementing PRO TTD endpoints in oncology include consideration of the trial setting (e.g., early vs. advanced cancer), expected treatment effect (e.g., improvement vs. worsening), likely adverse event profile (including early vs. delayed) and PRO data collection frequency in order to improve utility of these endpoints.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"8 1","pages":"150"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11655910/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00824-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Time to deterioration (TTD) endpoints are often utilized in the analysis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in oncology clinical trials but different endpoint definitions and analysis frameworks exist that can impact result interpretation. This review examined the analysis, reporting and heterogeneity of TTD endpoints in the literature, the impact of analysis methods on results, and provides recommendations for future trials.

Methods: A targeted literature review of articles published between 2017 and 2022 was performed to collate TTD endpoints reported in oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Details of endpoints and results were extracted including; deterioration definition, PRO assessment schedule, methods for handling intercurrent events, statistical analysis methods, main trial results (overall survival and/or progression-free survival) and TTD endpoint results.

Results: Seventy RCTs were included covering 849 individual TTD endpoints. There were 17 primary cancer types, with lung (26%), breast (11%), and prostate (7%) cancers the most common. Most trials (71%) were for people with advanced cancer. Full definitions of TTD endpoints were often missing. There were no clear trends for a specific TTD definition within cancer types or stages. However, statistical analysis methods were consistent among trials.

Conclusion: The TTD definition can vary and is ultimately driven by the research question. Points to consider for successfully implementing PRO TTD endpoints in oncology include consideration of the trial setting (e.g., early vs. advanced cancer), expected treatment effect (e.g., improvement vs. worsening), likely adverse event profile (including early vs. delayed) and PRO data collection frequency in order to improve utility of these endpoints.

癌症临床试验中患者报告的结局终点恶化的时间:有针对性的文献回顾和最佳实践建议。
背景:肿瘤临床试验中,恶化时间(TTD)终点常用于分析患者报告的结果(PRO)数据,但不同的终点定义和分析框架可能会影响结果的解释。本综述检查了文献中TTD终点的分析、报告和异质性,分析方法对结果的影响,并为未来的试验提供建议。方法:对2017年至2022年发表的文章进行针对性文献综述,整理肿瘤学随机对照试验(rct)中报道的TTD终点。提取的终点和结果细节包括;恶化定义、PRO评估时间表、处理并发事件的方法、统计分析方法、主要试验结果(总生存期和/或无进展生存期)和TTD终点结果。结果:纳入70项随机对照试验,涵盖849个个体TTD终点。原发癌症有17种,其中肺癌(26%)、乳腺癌(11%)和前列腺癌(7%)最为常见。大多数试验(71%)是针对晚期癌症患者的。TTD终点的完整定义经常缺失。在癌症类型或分期中没有明确的TTD定义趋势。然而,各试验的统计分析方法是一致的。结论:TTD的定义可以变化,最终由研究问题驱动。在肿瘤学中成功实施PRO TTD终点需要考虑的要点包括考虑试验环境(例如,早期与晚期癌症)、预期治疗效果(例如,改善与恶化)、可能的不良事件特征(包括早期与延迟)和PRO数据收集频率,以提高这些终点的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信