Measuring patient-reported outcomes in advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC), one of the most common cancers in the world, is often diagnosed at an advanced stage and associated with a poor prognosis. Quality of life and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important considerations when treating GC patients. The aim of this study was to identify existing PRO instruments that would be appropriate for use in GC trials. METHODS: Data were obtained from a systematic literature review and interviews with clinical experts. A literature search was conducted using OVID (EMBASE and MEDLINE) and yielded 1,008 abstracts; 92 assessed PROs in an advanced GC. RESULTS: Key symptoms and functional impacts identified through the literature and expert input included abdominal pain or pain at the site of distant metastases, dysphagia and other symptoms related to eating, and digestive symptoms. The liver and lungs were the most frequent locations of metastases, leading to dyspnea, abdominal fullness, and jaundice. Symptoms related to changes in bowel habits appeared to be more frequent and pronounced in Asian patients, possibly due to the higher prevalence of GC in the body of the stomach in this population. The five most commonly used PRO instruments were identified, but their validity in advanced-stage GC patients remains unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The symptoms and functional impacts identified here should be confirmed with robust input from advanced-stage GC patients. Optimal measurement of PROs in GC should account for patient burden and possible differences between Asian and non-Asian patients.

A review and characterization of the various perceptions of quality cancer care.

BACKGROUND: It is important to maintain high-quality cancer care while reducing spending. This requires an understanding of how stakeholders define "quality." The objective of this literature review was to understand the perceptions patients, physicians, and managed care professionals have about quality cancer care, especially chemotherapy. METHODS: A computerized literature search was conducted for articles concerning quality cancer care in patients who received chemotherapy. Among >1100 identified sources, 25 presented interviews/survey results from stakeholders. RESULTS: Patients defined quality cancer care as being treated well by providers, having multiple treatment options, and being part of the decision-making process. Waiting to see providers, having problems with referrals, going to different locations for treatment, experiencing billing inaccuracies, and navigating managed care reimbursement negatively affected patients' quality-of-care perceptions. Providers perceived quality cancer care as making decisions based on the risks-benefits of specific chemotherapy regimens and patients' health status rather than costs. Providers objected to spending substantial time interacting with payers instead of delivering care to patients. Payers must control the costs of cancer care but do not want an adversarial relationship with providers and patients. Payers' methods of managing cancer more efficiently involved working with providers to develop assessment and decision-assist tools. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering quality cancer care is increasingly difficult because of the shortage of oncologists and rising costs of chemotherapy agents, radiation therapy, and imaging tests. The definition of quality cancer care differed among stakeholders, and healthcare reform must reflect these various needs to maintain and improve quality while controlling costs.

Item reduction and psychometric validation of the Oily Skin Self Assessment Scale (OSSAS) and the Oily Skin Impact Scale (OSIS).

INTRODUCTION: Developed using focus groups, the Oily Skin Self Assessment Scale (OSSAS) and Oily Skin Impact Scale (OSIS) are patient-reported outcome measures of oily facial skin. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to finalize the item-scale structure of the instruments and perform psychometric validation in adults with self-reported oily facial skin. METHODS: The OSSAS and OSIS were administered to 202 adult subjects with oily facial skin in the United States. A subgroup of 152 subjects returned, 4 to 10 days later, for test­retest reliability evaluation. RESULTS: Of the 202 participants, 72.8% were female; 64.4% had self-reported nonsevere acne. Item reduction resulted in a 14-item OSSAS with Sensation (five items), Tactile (four items) and Visual (four items) domains, a single blotting item, and an overall oiliness item. The OSIS was reduced to two three-item domains assessing Annoyance and Self-Image. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the construct validity of the final item-scale structures. The OSSAS and OSIS scales had acceptable item convergent validity (item-scale correlations >0.40) and floor and ceiling effects (<20%). Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.83 to 0.89 for the OSSAS and 0.82 to 0.87 for the OSIS, demonstrating excellent internal consistency. The a priori test­retest reliability criterion (intraclass correlation [ICC] ≥0.7) was met for one of the three OSSAS domains and one of the two OSIS domains. OSSAS and OSIS domains distinguished among groups that differed in patient-reported facial oily skin severity (P < 0.0001), and bother associated with oily skin (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The OSSAS and OSIS versions tested in this study have been found to have strong psychometric properties in this patient sample (adults with self-reported oily facial skin), as assessments of self-reported oily facial skin severity and its emotional impact, respectively.

Patient experiences with oily skin: the qualitative development of content for two new patient reported outcome questionnaires.

OBJECTIVE: To develop the content for two new patient reported outcome (PRO) measures to: a) assess the severity of symptoms; and b) the impact of facial skin oiliness on emotional wellbeing using qualitative data from face to face, and internet focus groups in Germany and the US. METHODS: Using input from initial treatment satisfaction focus groups (n = 42), a review of relevant literature and expert clinicians (n = 3), a discussion guide was developed to guide qualitative inquiry using Internet focus groups (IFGs). IFGs were conducted with German (n = 26) and US (n = 28) sufferers of oily skin. Questionnaire items were generated using coded transcript data from the focus groups. Cognitive debriefing was conducted online with 42 participants and face to face with an additional five participants to assess the comprehension of the items. RESULTS: There were equal numbers of male and female participants; mean age was 35.4 (SD 9.3) years. On average, participants had had oily skin for 15.2 years, and 74% (n = 40) reported having mild-moderate acne. Participants reported using visual, tactile and sensory (feel without touching their face) methods to evaluate the severity of facial oiliness. Oily facial skin had both an emotional and social impact, and was associated with feelings of unattractiveness, self-consciousness, embarrassment, irritation and frustration. Items were generated for a measure of oily skin severity (Oily Skin Self-Assessment Scale) and a measure of the impact of oily skin on emotional well-being (Oily Skin Impact Scale). Cognitive debriefing resulted in minor changes to the draft items and confirmed their face and content validity. CONCLUSION: The research provides insight into the experience of having oily skin and illustrates significant difficulties associated with the condition. Item content was developed for early versions of two PRO measures of the symptoms and emotional impact of oily facial skin. The psychometric validation of these measures reported elsewhere.

Development of the cancer therapy satisfaction questionnaire: item generation and content validity testing.

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to develop a new questionnaire, the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ), to focus on the issues oncology patients consider when evaluating chemotherapy in terms of expectations and satisfaction. METHODS: Items of the CTSQ were generated through the review of responses from interviews with oncology patients, physicians, and nurses. Analysis of the data was stratified by disease stage, disease type, and country to explore potential differences between these groups. Two rounds of face and content validity testing were then conducted. RESULTS: Patients explained their hopes for efficacy and factors related to treatment satisfaction. Content validity testing in 30 patients, followed by additional testing in 10 patients on oral therapy, suggested that patients felt the questionnaire was clear, comprehensive, relevant, and easy to complete. Minor revisions were implemented to improve clarity, resulting in deletion of 12 items, modification of 17 items and the rewording of "chemotherapy" to "cancer therapy" to ensure patients on oral therapy were able to respond. The CTSQ contains 21 items and assesses seven domains: Expectations of cancer therapy, Feelings about side effects, Oral cancer therapy adherence, Convenience, Satisfaction with cancer therapy, Stopping cancer therapy, and Reasons for nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: The CTSQ was designed for adults with a wide range of cancer types and stages, receiving a variety of cancer treatment formulations. A validation study is currently underway to examine the psychometric properties, further refine the questionnaire and develop scoring methods for the CTSQ.

Quality of life terminology included in package inserts for US approved medications.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and review prescription drugs approved in the US containing quality of life (QoL) terminology within the package inserts (PIs). METHODS: The electronic Physician Desk Reference (PDR) was searched for the terminology 'Quality of Life' or 'QoL' as of December 2000. Summary basis of approvals (SBAs) served as the primary data sources were retrieved. The two categories evaluated within the SBAs were QoL components (year submitted, trials, efficacy, statistics, type of submission) and QoL instruments utilized within clinical studies. RESULTS: Eighteen medications comprising 20 indications with QoL claims were documented in the PIs. The first approved QoL claim was submitted in 1989 and the most recent was in 1998. Eight (40%) of the drug indications had QoL measures included in two trials. One quarter of the PI listings used QoL measures as primary efficacy endpoints. Many sponsors provided detailed information on the types or categories of QoL data collected. CONCLUSION: Many drug development programs incorporate QoL measures into clinical studies however only a few are accepted into the PI. Despite this study finding, the increased interest in assessing the value and full impact of new therapies has led to greater inclusion of all types of patient assessments in clinical trials.

Regulatory issues for health-related quality of life--PhRMA Health Outcomes Committee workshop, 1999.

INTRODUCTION: Health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) can be defined as the impact of disease and treatment across the physical, psychological, social and somatic domains of functioning and well-being. Health-related quality-of-life measures are included in clinical trials of drug treatment to assess the impact of therapy on the patient's functioning. HRQL guidance could allow for use of this data in drug labeling and promotion. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to provide recommendations with respect to regulatory issues important to the development of guidelines for HRQL research. METHODS: The HRQL workshop was planned jointly by members of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Health Outcomes Committee and the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications of the Food and Drug Administration. The workshop was limited to six regulatory issues related to HRQL research in clinical trials of pharmaceutical therapies. These six issues were: instrument selection and validation, study design, data analysis, HRQL and safety, clinical meaning, and promotional use. Before the meeting, a consensus was reached that HRQL does not measure, nor should it be used to measure, safety. Therefore, five work groups discussed HRQL issues and made recommendations. RESULTS: Overall, the workshop recommended that HRQL measures be treated as any other clinical end point. The workshop recognized that research in HRQL methods is ongoing and that any guidance should be flexible to allow for changes in this developing research area. CONCLUSIONS: HRQL provides a patient perspective on the impact of disease and therapy on patients' daily life and functioning. Including HRQL information in promotion could be beneficial to decision making on the use of therapies. HRQL is a measure of effectiveness, not safety, and should be treated as any other clinical end point.