Back to Authors

Campbell, Alicyn

Mayo Clinic

Genentech

Citations 2

Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: Methods for item selection in industry-sponsored oncology clinical trials
Trask, Peter C., Dueck, Amylou C. , Piault, Elisabeth , Campbell, Alicyn, Dueck, A. C.

Clinical Trials | September 19, 2018 | Volume: 15 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 616-623

10.1177/1740774518799985 Get It

As new cancer treatment regimens demonstrate increased potential to improve patients’ survival, more focus is directed toward the quality of that extension of life and to obtaining additional information from patients regarding their experience with treatment. The utility of capturing patient-reported treatment-related symptoms to complement traditional clinician-rated symptomatic adverse event reporting is well-documented. The National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library aimed at capturing patient-reported symptoms to inform the patient perspective on a treatment’s tolerability. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in clinical trials. A practical guideline is needed to inform a priori selection of specific Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events items for use in any given industry-sponsored oncology clinical trial. Standardizing this selection process will foster systematic and consistent data collection as part of drug development and enhance our knowledge on how to use patient-relevant information as part of a treatment’s risk/benefit assessment. This article presents methods and consensus recommendations for selecting specific Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events items to include in early-phase and late-phase oncology clinical trials.
Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials
Bottomley, Andrew , Pe, Madeline , Sloan, Jeff A. , Basch, Ethan , Bonnetain, Franck, Calvert, Melanie , Campbell, Alicyn, Cleeland, Charles S. , Cocks, Kim , Collette, Laurence , Dueck, Amylou C. , Flechtner, Hans‐Henning , Gotay, Carolyn , Greimel, Eva , Griebsch, Ingolf , Grøenvold, Mogens , Hamel, Jean-François, King, Madeleine , Koller, Michael , Malone, Daniel C. , Martinelli, Francesca , Moinpour, Carol M. , Musoro, Jammbe , O’Connor, Daniel , Oliver, Kathy , Piault‐Louis, Elisabeth, Piccart, Martine , Pimentel, Francisco , Quinten, Chantal , Reijneveld, Jaap C. , Soltys, Katherine M, Sridhara, Rajeshwari , Taphoorn, Martin , Velikova, Galina , Coens, Corneel , Sloan, Jeff, Flechtner, Hans-Henning , Dueck, A. C. , Basch, Ethan , Devlin, Nancy J. , Kluetz, Paul Gustav , Mitchell, Sandra A , Schürmann, Christoph, Smith, Ashley Wilder

Clinical Trials | August 24, 2018 | Volume: 15 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 624-630

10.1177/1740774518795637 Get It

Background There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. Methods and Results Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including “missing data,”“health-related quality of life,” and “patient-reported outcome.” Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. Conclusion The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.