Single-arm studies involving patient-reported outcome data in oncology: a literature review on current practice
- PMID: 37142381
- DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00110-9
Single-arm studies involving patient-reported outcome data in oncology: a literature review on current practice
Abstract
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in single-arm cancer studies. We reviewed 60 papers published between 2018 and 2021 of single-arm studies of cancer treatment with PRO data for current practice on design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation. We further examined the studies' handling of potential bias and how they informed decision making. Most studies (58; 97%) analysed PROs without stating a predefined research hypothesis. 13 (22%) of the 60 studies used a PRO as a primary or co-primary endpoint. Definitions of PRO objectives, study population, endpoints, and missing data strategies varied widely. 23 studies (38%) compared the PRO data with external information, most often by using a clinically important difference value; one study used a historical control group. Appropriateness of methods to handle missing data and intercurrent events (including death) were seldom discussed. Most studies (51; 85%) concluded that PRO results supported treatment. Conducting and reporting of PROs in cancer single-arm studies need standards and a critical discussion of statistical methods and possible biases. These findings will guide the Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) in developing recommendations for the use of PRO-measures in single-arm studies.
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of interests This publication reflects the views of the individual authors and should not be construed to represent official views or policies of the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, US National Cancer Institute, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Health Canada, the Norwegian Medicines Agency, the American Society of Clinical Oncology or the European Society for Medical Oncology, or any other institution, organisation, or entity. This publication reflects the authors’ view and neither Innovative Medicines Initiative nor the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations are responsible for any use that might be made of the information contained therein. JCR reports payments for clinical lessons for neurologists by IMeedu Het Centrale Brein, support for attending the European Epilepsy Congress (Geneva; July, 2022) by Arvelle Therapeutics, and is an unpaid chair of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Quality of Life Group, and unpaid member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Dutch Epilepsy Foundation. AR is currently an employee of Modus Outcomes. SR is a current employee of Pfizer and a previous employee of Novartis Pharma. RS is a current employee of Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous