TY - JOUR
T1 - Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer
T2 - a systematic review
AU - Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium (SISAQOL)
AU - Pe, Madeline
AU - Dorme, Lien
AU - Coens, Corneel
AU - Basch, Ethan
AU - Calvert, Melanie
AU - Campbell, Alicyn
AU - Cleeland, Charles
AU - Cocks, Kim
AU - Collette, Laurence
AU - Dirven, Linda
AU - Dueck, Amylou C
AU - Devlin, Nancy
AU - Flechtner, Hans-Henning
AU - Gotay, Carolyn
AU - Griebsch, Ingolf
AU - Groenvold, Mogens
AU - King, Madeleine
AU - Koller, Michael
AU - Malone, Daniel C
AU - Martinelli, Francesca
AU - Mitchell, Sandra A
AU - Musoro, Jammbe
AU - Oliver, Kathy
AU - Piault-Louis, Elisabeth
AU - Piccart, Martine
AU - Pimentel, Francisco L
AU - Quinten, Chantal
AU - Reijneveld, Jaap C
AU - Sloan, Jeff
AU - Velikova, Galina
AU - Bottomley, Andrew
PY - 2018/9
Y1 - 2018/9
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - health-related quality of life
KW - advanced breast cancer
KW - systematic review
KW - randomized controlled trials
KW - statistical methodology
KW - patient reported outcomes
U2 - 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30418-2
DO - 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30418-2
M3 - Article
SN - 1470-2045
VL - 19
SP - e459-e469
JO - The Lancet Oncology
JF - The Lancet Oncology
IS - 9
ER -