Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes from international randomised clinical trials on cancer: a systematic review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes from international randomised clinical trials on cancer

T2 - a systematic review

AU - Mierzynska, Justyna

AU - Piccinin, Claire

AU - Pe, Madeline

AU - Martinelli, Francesca

AU - Gotay, Carolyn

AU - Coens, Corneel

AU - Mauer, Murielle

AU - Eggermont, Alexander

AU - Grønvold, Mogens

AU - Bjordal, Kristin

AU - Reijneveld, Jaap

AU - Velikova, Galina

AU - Bottomley, Andrew

N1 - Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PY - 2019/12

Y1 - 2019/12

N2 - A previous review published in 2008 highlighted the prognostic significance of baseline patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as independent predictors of the overall survival of patients with cancer in clinical studies. In response to the methodological limitations of studies included in the previous review, recommendations were subsequently published in the same year to promote a higher level of methodological rigour in studies of prognostic factors. Our systematic review aimed to provide an update on progress with the implementation of these recommendations and to assess whether the methodological quality of prognostic factor analyses has changed over time. Of the 44 studies published between 2006 and 2018 that were included in our review, more standardisation and rigour of the methods used for prognostic factor analysis was found compared with the previous review. 41 (93%) of the trials reported at least one PRO domain as independently prognostic. The most common significant prognostic factors reported were physical functioning (17 [39%] studies) and global health or quality of life (15 [34%] studies). These findings highlight the value of PROs as prognostic or stratification factors in research across most types of cancer.

AB - A previous review published in 2008 highlighted the prognostic significance of baseline patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as independent predictors of the overall survival of patients with cancer in clinical studies. In response to the methodological limitations of studies included in the previous review, recommendations were subsequently published in the same year to promote a higher level of methodological rigour in studies of prognostic factors. Our systematic review aimed to provide an update on progress with the implementation of these recommendations and to assess whether the methodological quality of prognostic factor analyses has changed over time. Of the 44 studies published between 2006 and 2018 that were included in our review, more standardisation and rigour of the methods used for prognostic factor analysis was found compared with the previous review. 41 (93%) of the trials reported at least one PRO domain as independently prognostic. The most common significant prognostic factors reported were physical functioning (17 [39%] studies) and global health or quality of life (15 [34%] studies). These findings highlight the value of PROs as prognostic or stratification factors in research across most types of cancer.

U2 - 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30656-4

DO - 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30656-4

M3 - Review

C2 - 31797795

SN - 1470-2045

VL - 20

SP - e685-e698

JO - Lancet Oncology

JF - Lancet Oncology

IS - 12

ER -