Article Text
Abstract
Objective This systematic review aims to evaluate the proactive or real-time assessment of patient reported outcomes in studies involving patients with ovarian cancer undergoing systemic therapy.
Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (from database inception until February 2022), and prospective ovarian cancer studies (experimental or observational) that incorporated patient reported outcomes, including quality of life, were included. The primary objective was to assess the ratio of studies incorporating real-time use of patient reported outcomes among those studies performing patient reported outcomes. A secondary objective was to describe the patient reported outcome reporting. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist was followed. Descriptive statistics were used.
Results 3071 articles were screened, with 117 included in the final analysis. Studies were published between 1990 and 2022, and consisted of 35 735 patients (median 140 patients per study; interquartile range 58–415). Median time from patient enrollment initiation to study publication was 7 years (range 1–15). Most studies were experimental/clinical trials (n=93, 79%) followed by observational (n=23, 20%). Therapeutic strategies were assessed in 98% (91/93) of experimental studies, most frequently chemotherapy (n=53, 58%), followed by antiangiogenics or poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (n=8, 9%, each). Patient reported outcomes were the primary endpoint in 7.5% (7/93) and 83% (19/23) of experimental and observational studies, respectively. The ratio of real-time patient reported outcomes assessment/evaluation was 0.9% (1/117).
Conclusions Completion of patient reported outcome questionnaires involves time and effort for patients with ovarian cancer. Responses to these questionnaires were only assessed in real time in <1% of analyzed studies. Efforts should be made to incorporate proactive assessment of patient reported outcomes to optimize patient care and safety.
- Ovarian Cancer
- Quality of Life (PRO)/Palliative Care
- Quality of Life
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Not applicable.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Not applicable.
Footnotes
X @AinhoaMada, @LKasherman, @stephanielheur5
AM and RS-B contributed equally.
SL and AMO contributed equally.
Presented at The work was presented in the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2023 annual meeting.
Contributors Conceptualization: AM, AMO. Methodology: AM, RSB, LK. Data curation: AM, RSB, LK. Formal analysis: AM, RSB, LK, SL, AMO. Writing – original draft: AM, RSB. Writing – review and editing: all authors. Resources: all authors. Guarantor: AM, RSB.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests AM received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, PharmaMar. SL is principal investigator or co-investigator of different clinical trials with agents from AstraZeneca, Merck, Roche, GSK, Regeneron, Repare Therapeutics, Clovis. LK received honoraria from Eisai, Novartis, GSK. PT reports a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Adamed, Novartis and Seagen. Speakers’ bureaus for Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Esteve, Gilead, Reveal Genomics and Seagen. Travel grants from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Gilead. DV received honoraria from Abbie, Agios, Amgen, Astellas, BMS/Celgene, Gebro, Grifols, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kite/Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Sobi and Takeda. AMO declared uncompensated consulting or advisory role in AstraZeneca and GSK. He has uncompensated relationships with AstraZeneca and Clovis and research funding from AstraZeneca, GSK. SL declared consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck, Eisai, Shattuck laboratories, Repare and Seagen. The remaining authors declare no other competing interests.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.