Improving the patient-reported outcome sections of clinical trial protocols: a mixed methods evaluation of educational workshops.

INTRODUCTION: Failure to incorporate key patient-reported outcome (PRO) content in trial protocols affects the quality and interpretability of the collected data, contributing to research waste. Our group developed evidence-based training specifically addressing PRO components of protocols. We aimed to assess whether 2-day educational workshops improved the PRO completeness of protocols against consensus-based minimum standards provided in the SPIRIT-PRO Extension in 2018. METHOD: Annual workshops were conducted 2011-2017. Participants were investigators/trialists from cancer clinical trials groups. Although developed before 2018, workshops covered 15/16 SPIRIT-PRO items. Participant feedback immediately post-workshop and, retrospectively, in November 2017 was summarised descriptively. Protocols were evaluated against SPIRIT-PRO by two independent raters for workshop protocols (developed post-workshop by participants) and control protocols (contemporaneous non-workshop protocols). SPIRIT-PRO items were assessed for completeness (0 = not addressed, 10 = fully addressed). Mann-Whitney U tests assessed whether workshop protocols scored higher than controls by item and overall. RESULTS: Participants (n = 107) evaluated the workshop positively. In 2017, 16/41 survey responders (39%) reported never applying in practice; barriers included role restrictions (14/41, 34%) and lack of time (5/41, 12%). SPIRIT-PRO overall scores did not differ between workshop (n = 13, median = 3.81/10, interquartile range = 3.24) and control protocols (n = 9, 3.51/10 (2.14)), (p = 0.35). Workshop protocols scored higher than controls on two items: 'specify PRO concepts/domains' (p = 0.05); 'methods for handling missing data' (p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: Although participants were highly satisfied with these workshops, the completeness of PRO protocol content generally did not improve. Additional knowledge translation efforts are needed to assist protocol writers address SPIRIT-PRO guidance and avoid research waste that may eventuate from sub-optimal PRO protocol content.

Patient-reported outcomes with neoadjuvant vs adjuvant systemic therapy for operable breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) is used for large operable or highly proliferative breast cancers. It is not known whether psychological outcomes differ according to the treatment sequence (chemotherapy or surgery first) or tumour response. METHODS: This was a planned analysis of a multi-institutional single arm longitudinal study of patients considering NAST for operable breast cancer. Participants completed patient reported outcome questionnaires before and after the decision about NAST, between chemotherapy and surgery, and 12 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Fifty-nine women enrolled. Fourteen of 51 (28%) who received NAST experienced pathological complete response (pCR). Patients who had surgery first (n = 7) had higher baseline anxiety, and a greater decrease in anxiety at 12 months follow up, compared with patients who received NAST (n = 50) (a decrease from baseline of 34 pts vs 17 points; p = 0.033). Distress declined at a similar rate in surgery first and NAST groups. Mean satisfaction with decision score post-decision was significantly lower in the adjuvant group compared with NAST (22 vs 26, p = 0.02). No differences were seen between patients with pCR vs residual cancer in: distress, anxiety, satisfaction with decision, fear of progression, and decision regret. CONCLUSION: Most patients in this study proceeded with NAST when their surgeon offered it as an option. This exploratory analysis suggests that patients who chose surgery first tended to be more anxious, and had lower satisfaction with their decision, than those who had NAST. In patients who had NAST, lack of pCR does not appear to correlate with adverse psychological outcomes.

Single-Arm Longitudinal Study to Evaluate a Decision Aid for Women Offered Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Operable Breast Cancer.

Background: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) is an increasingly used treatment option for women with large operable or highly proliferative breast cancer. With equivalent survival outcomes between NAST and up-front surgery, the situation-specific preference-sensitive nature of the decision makes it suitable for a decision aid (DA). This study aimed to develop and evaluate a DA for this population. Methods: A DA booklet was developed according to international standards, including information about adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment, outcome probabilities, and a values clarification exercise. Eligible women, considered by investigators as candidates for NAST, were enrolled in a multi-institutional, single-arm, longitudinal study. Patient-reported outcome measure questionnaires were completed pre- and post-DA, between chemotherapy and surgery, and at 12 months. Outcomes were feasibility (percentage of eligible patients accessing the DA); acceptability to patients (percentage who would recommend it to others) and clinicians (percentage who would use the DA in routine practice); and decision-related outcomes. Results: From 77 eligible women, 59 were enrolled, of whom 47 (79.7%; 95% CI, 69.4-89.9) reported having read the DA; 51 completed the first post-DA questionnaire. Of these 51, 41 participants (80.4%; 95% CI, 69.5-91.3) found the DA useful for their decision about NAST. Of 18 responding investigators, 16 (88.9%; 95% CI, 74.4-103.4) indicated they would continue to use the DA in routine practice. Post-DA, decisional conflict decreased significantly (P<.01); anxiety and distress decreased significantly; and 86.3% (95% CI, 73.7-94.3) achieved at least as much decisional control as they desired. Conclusions: This DA was feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians, and improvement in decision-related outcomes was demonstrated when used in combination with clinical consultations. This DA could safely be implemented into routine practice for women considering NAST for operable breast cancer.

Aromatase inhibitor induced musculoskeletal syndrome: a significant problem with limited treatment options.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitor induced musculoskeletal syndrome is experienced by approximately half of women taking aromatase inhibitors, impairing quality of life and leading some to discontinue treatment. Evidence for effective treatments is lacking. We aimed to understand the manifestations and impact of this syndrome in the Australian breast cancer community, and strategies used for its management. METHODS: A survey invitation was sent to 2390 members of the Breast Cancer Network Australia Review and Survey Group in April 2014. The online questionnaire included 45 questions covering demographics, aromatase inhibitor use, clinical manifestations and risk factors for the aromatase inhibitor musculoskeletal syndrome, reasons for treatment discontinuation and efficacy of interventions used. RESULTS: Aromatase inhibitor induced musculoskeletal syndrome was reported by 302 (82 %) of 370 respondents. Twenty-seven percent had discontinued treatment for any reason and of these, 68 % discontinued because of the musculoskeletal syndrome. Eighty-one percent had used at least one intervention from the following three categories to manage the syndrome: doctor prescribed medications, over-the-counter/complementary medicines or alternative/non-drug therapies. Anti-inflammatories, paracetamol (acetaminophen) and yoga were most successful in relieving symptoms in each of the respective categories. Almost a third of respondents reported that one or more interventions helped prevent aromatase inhibitor discontinuation. However, approximately 20 % of respondents found no intervention effective in any category. CONCLUSION: We conclude that aromatase inhibitor induced musculoskeletal syndrome is a significant issue for Australian women and is an important reason for treatment discontinuation. Women use a variety of interventions to manage this syndrome; however, their efficacy appears limited.