TY - JOUR
T1 - International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials
T2 - recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium
AU - Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium
AU - Coens, Corneel
AU - Pe, Madeline
AU - Dueck, Amylou C.
AU - Sloan, Jeff
AU - Basch, Ethan
AU - Calvert, Melanie
AU - Campbell, Alicyn
AU - Cleeland, Charles
AU - Cocks, Kim
AU - Collette, Laurence
AU - Devlin, Nancy
AU - Dorme, Lien
AU - Flechtner, Hans Henning
AU - Gotay, Carolyn
AU - Griebsch, Ingolf
AU - Groenvold, Mogens
AU - King, Madeleine
AU - Kluetz, Paul G.
AU - Koller, Michael
AU - Malone, Daniel C.
AU - Martinelli, Francesca
AU - Mitchell, Sandra A.
AU - Musoro, Jammbe Z.
AU - O'Connor, Daniel
AU - Oliver, Kathy
AU - Piault-Louis, Elisabeth
AU - Piccart, Martine
AU - Quinten, Chantal
AU - Reijneveld, Jaap C.
AU - Schürmann, Christoph
AU - Smith, Ashley Wilder
AU - Soltys, Katherine M.
AU - Taphoorn, Martin J.B.
AU - Velikova, Galina
AU - Bottomley, Andrew
N1 - Funding Information:
The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer received an unrestricted education grant from Boehringer Ingelheim to initiate this work and from Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, for continuity funding. We thank the International Society for Quality of Life Research and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research for their support and review of the final manuscript and we thank Gina Mazza for the help with the survey research in the missing data part. This publication reflects the views of the individual authors and should not be construed to represent official views or policies of 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 UK National Health Service, the National Institute for Health Research, or the UK Department of Health. This study received no funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). AWS and SAM are employed by NIH. No other authors were fully or partly NIH funded, employed by NIH, or are in receipt of an NIH grant.
Funding Information:
The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer received an unrestricted education grant from Boehringer Ingelheim to initiate this work and from Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, for continuity funding. We thank the International Society for Quality of Life Research and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research for their support and review of the final manuscript and we thank Gina Mazza for the help with the survey research in the missing data part. This publication reflects the views of the individual authors and should not be construed to represent official views or policies of 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 UK National Health Service, the National Institute for Health Research, or the UK Department of Health. This study received no funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). AWS and SAM are employed by NIH. No other authors were fully or partly NIH funded, employed by NIH, or are in receipt of an NIH grant.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2020/2
Y1 - 2020/2
N2 - Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.
AB - Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078657870&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85078657870&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30790-9
DO - 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30790-9
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32007209
AN - SCOPUS:85078657870
SN - 1470-2045
VL - 21
SP - e83-e96
JO - The Lancet Oncology
JF - The Lancet Oncology
IS - 2
ER -