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

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 624-630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Bottomley ◽  
Madeline Pe ◽  
Jeff Sloan ◽  
Ethan Basch ◽  
Franck Bonnetain ◽  
...  

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.

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 42-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard T. Meenan ◽  
David Feeny ◽  
David Labby ◽  
Mark Spofford ◽  
David Mosen ◽  
...  

CareOregon, an Oregon-based not-for-profit Medicaid health plan, successfully piloted a “CareSupport” model that identifies high-risk members and clinically stratifies them for intervention. Internal analyses indicate that CareSupport lowers utilization and cost; CareOregon, however, has lacked patient-reported outcome data on the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of CareSupport participants. Between September 2005 and November 2006, we conducted a pilot study in which the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), a generic preference-based measure of health status and HRQL, was integrated into CareOregon’s existing screening algorithm for possible admission into CareSupport. We obtained baseline data on 616 CareSupport candidates and 4-month HUI3 follow-up data on 143 candidates (104 CareSupport, 39 non-CareSupport). On a 0.00 (dead)-to-1.00 (perfect health) scale, the mean overall baseline HUI3 score for CareSupport patients was 0.18 (0.20 for non-CareSupport patients), comparable to baseline means reported elsewhere for much older patients immediately after suffering serious acute medical events, such as stroke or hip fracture. A 0.05 mean 4-month improvement in overall HRQL among CareSupport enrollees relative to non-CareSupport enrollees was clinically important but not statistically significant. A 0.10 improvement in HUI3 emotion was both statistically significant and clinically important. Study results provide good preliminary evidence of the value of patient-reported outcomes in clarifying individual illness burden and assessing intervention effectiveness.


2021 ◽  
Vol 264 ◽  
pp. 394-401
Author(s):  
Mary Kate Luddy ◽  
Rachel Vetter ◽  
Jessica Shank ◽  
Whitney Goldner ◽  
Anery Patel ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document