Assessing the collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome data in interventional cancer trials: a single institution, retrospective systematic evaluation

Emma Lidington; Holly Hogan; Ann Gandolfi; Jane Lawrence; Eugenie Younger; Helena Cho; Clare Peckitt; Kabir Mohammed; Sheila Matharu; Lisa Scerri; Olga Husson; Susanne Cruickshank; Rachel Turner; Linda Wedlake

doi:10.1186/s41687-022-00529-9

Assessing the collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome data in interventional cancer trials: a single institution, retrospective systematic evaluation

J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022 Dec 22;6(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s41687-022-00529-9.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ PROFILES Team, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. emma.lidington@kcl.ac.uk.
² PROFILES Team, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
³ Research & Development, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
⁴ Sarcoma Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
⁵ Digital Services, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
⁶ Division of Clinical Studies, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
⁷ Applied Health Research, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Abstract

Background: To understand our performance with respect to the collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure (PROM) data, we examined the protocol content, data completeness and publication of PROs from interventional trials conducted at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (RM) and explored factors associated with data missingness and PRO publication.

Design: From local records, we identified closed, intervention trials sponsored by RM that opened after 1995 and collected PROMs as primary, secondary or exploratory outcomes. Protocol data were extracted by two researchers and scored against the SPIRIT-PRO (PRO protocol content checklist; score 0-100, higher scores indicate better completeness). For studies with locally held datasets, the information team summarized for each study, PRO completion defined as the number of expected (as per protocol) PRO measurements versus the number of actual (i.e. completed) PRO measurements captured in the study data set. Relevant publications were identified by searching three online databases and chief investigator request. Data were extracted and each publication scored against the CONSORT-PRO (PRO manuscript content checklist; scored as SPIRIT-PRO above). Descriptive statistics are presented with exploratory comparisons of point estimates and 95% confidence intervals.

Results: Twenty-six of 65 studies were included in the review. Nineteen studies had accessible datasets and 18 studies published at least one article. Fourteen studies published PRO results. Most studies had a clinical (rather than PRO) primary outcome (16/26). Across all studies, responses in respect of 35 of 69 PROMs were published. Trial protocols scored on average 46.7 (range 7.1-92.9) on the SPIRIT-PRO. Among studies with accessible data, half (10/19) had less than 25% missing measurements. Publications scored on average 80.9 (range 36-100%) on the CONSORT-PRO. Studies that published PRO results had somewhat fewer missing measurements (19% [7-32%] vs 60% [- 26 to 146%]). For individual PROMs within studies, missing measurements were lower for those that were published (17% [10-24%] vs 41% [18-63%]). Studies with higher SPIRIT-PRO scores and PROs as primary endpoints (13% [4-22%] vs 39% [10-58%]) had fewer missing measurements.

Conclusions: Missing data may affect publication of PROs. Extent of inclusion of SPIRIT-PRO protocol items and PROs as primary endpoints may improve data completeness. Preliminary evidence from the study suggests a future larger study examining the relationship between PRO completion and publication is warranted.

Keywords: CONSORT-PRO; Data completeness; Missing data; PREMs; PROMs; PROs; SPIRIT-PRO.