Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30991990›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2019

Health-related quality of life as an endpoint in oncology phase I trials: a systematic review.

Frédéric Fiteni, Isabelle Le Ray, Ahmad Ousmen, Nicolas Isambert, Amélie Anota, Franck Bonnetain

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Analysis of oncological drugs authorised in Spain in the last decade: association between clinical benefit and reimbursement.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Evaluation of supportive care needs, sexuality and quality of life in phase 1 trials: a prospective monocentric study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Frédéric FiteniDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Hospital of Nîmes, Rue du Pr Henri Pujol, 30029, Nîmes Cedex 9, France. fredericfiteni@gmail.com.
Isabelle Le RayDepartment of Neonatology, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France.
Ahmad OusmenMethodology and Quality of Life in Oncology Unit, INSERM UMR 1098, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.
Nicolas IsambertMedical Oncology Department, Centre GF Leclerq, Dijon, France.
Amélie AnotaMethodology and Quality of Life in Oncology Unit, INSERM UMR 1098, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.
Franck BonnetainMethodology and Quality of Life in Oncology Unit, INSERM UMR 1098, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhase I trials aim to identify the recommended dose for further development. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could be a complement to the usual National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) scale to detect adverse events and define the doses. The objective of this study is to review the phase I in oncology which used HRQoL as endpoint.

methodsA search in PubMed database identified phase I trials in oncology with HRQoL as endpoint, published between January 2012 to May 2016. Hematological and pediatric phase I were excluded.

resultsA total of 1333 phase I were identified and 15 trials were identified with HRQoL as endpoint (1.1%). The European Organisation for Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was the most frequently used instrument: 5 studies (33.3%). The targeted dimensions of HRQoL and the minimal clinically important difference were prespecified in 1 study (6.7%) and 2 studies (13.3%), respectively. Twelve studies (80%) described the statistical approach to analyze HRQoL data. Eight studies used the mean change from baseline (60%) to analyse longitudinal HRQoL data, two the mean score at certain times (13.3%), one the linear mixed model for repeated measures (6.7%), one the time to HRQoL score deterioration (6.7%), one percentage of patient-reported symptoms (6.7%). None of the studies used HRQoL to determine the recommended doses.

conclusionFew phase I studies used HRQoL as endpoint and among studies with HRQoL as endpoint, the methodology of HRQoL measurement and statistical analysis was heterogeneous. HRQoL. endpoint not used for assessing the recommended phase II doses.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicCombined Modality TherapyHumansNeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingOutcome Assessment, Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeEndpointHealth-related quality of lifePhase I trialRecommended phase II dose

Identifiers

PMID30991990
PMCPMC6469065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.