ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) is a rapidly evolving field. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow patients to report the impact of treatment on their quality of life during and after treatment. The systematic review aims to characterise the breadth of PROs utilised in ACT cancer care and provide guidance for the use of PROs in this patient population in the future. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL) in August 2021 by two reviewers. Search terms covered the following: "adoptive cell therapy", "patient-reported outcomes" and "cancer". Studies were included if they used a PRO measure to report the impact of ACT. The methodological quality of PROs was assessed. Forward and backward reference searching was conducted of any relevant papers. A quality grading scale was applied based on Cochrane and Revenson criteria for classification of high-quality studies. Key data from the studies and the included PROs was extracted by two researchers and tabulated. RESULTS: One-hundred nine papers were identified; 11 papers were included. The majority of studies were single-arm trials or observational studies. Twenty-two different PROs were identified; none was ACT specific. The PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D were most commonly used. Few studies collected PRO data in the first 1-2 weeks. Four studies followed patients up for over a year, and a further four studies followed patients for approximately 3 months. DISCUSSION: None of the PROs identified have been designed specifically for ACT. Appropriateness of existing instruments should be considered. It should be considered whether it is appropriate to collect data more frequently in the acute stage and then less frequently during follow-up. It should be considered if one tool is suitable at all time points or if the tool should be adapted depending on time since treatment. More research is needed to identify the exact timings of PRO assessments, and qualitative work with patients is needed to determine the most important issues for them throughout the treatment and follow-up.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Quality of Life , Humans , Immunotherapy, Adoptive , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Updated, robust estimates of the incidence and prevalence of rare long-term neurological conditions in the UK are not available. Global estimates may be misrepresentative as disease aetiology may vary by location. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the incidence and prevalence of long-term neurological conditions in the UK since 1988. SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline (January 1988 to January 2009), Embase (January 1988 to January 2009), CINAHL (January 1988 to January 2009) and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: UK population-based incidence/prevalence studies of long-term neurological conditions since 1988. Exclusion criteria included inappropriate diagnoses and incomprehensive case ascertainment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Articles were included based on the selection criteria. Data were extracted from articles with ranges of incidence and prevalence reported. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies met the criteria (3 on motor neurone disease; 4 on Huntington's disease; 1 on progressive supranuclear palsy). The incidence of motor neurone disease ranged from 1.06 to 2.4/100,000 person-years. The prevalence ranged from 4.02 to 4.91/100,000. The prevalence of Huntington's disease ranged from 4.0 to 9.94/100,000. The prevalence of progressive supranuclear palsy ranged from 3.1 to 6.5/100,000. CONCLUSIONS: The review updates the incidence/prevalence of long-term neurological conditions. Future epidemiological studies must incorporate comprehensive case ascertainment methods and strict diagnostic criteria.
