Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36649275›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Using qualitative interviews to identify patient-reported clinical trial endpoints and analyses that are the most meaningful to patients with advanced breast cancer.

Emuella Flood, Anna Krasnow, Cecilia Orbegoso, Stella Karantzoulis, Julie Bailey, Solène Bayet, Arthur Elghouayel, Andrew Foxley, Roberto Sommavilla, Gaia Schiavon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Emuella FloodAstraZeneca plc, Patient-Centered Science, Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3526-9670
Anna KrasnowIQVIA Real World Solutions, Patient-Centered Solutions, London, United Kingdom.
Cecilia OrbegosoAstraZeneca plc, R&D Oncology, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Stella KarantzoulisIQVIA Real World Solutions, Patient-Centered Solutions, New York, New York, United States of America.
Julie BaileyIQVIA Real World Solutions, Patient-Centered Solutions, New York, New York, United States of America.
Solène BayetIQVIA Real World Solutions, Patient-Centered Solutions, Courbevoie, France.
Arthur ElghouayelIQVIA Real World Solutions, Patient-Centered Solutions, New York, New York, United States of America.
Andrew FoxleyAstraZeneca plc, R&D Oncology, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Roberto SommavillaAstraZeneca plc, R&D Oncology, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Gaia SchiavonAstraZeneca plc, R&D Oncology, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) · GBIQVIA (United States) · USAstraZeneca (United States) · USIQVIA (France) · FRIQVIA (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDesigning clinical trials with the emphasis on the patient-centered approach and focusing on clinical outcomes that are meaningful to patients is viewed as a priority by drug developers, regulatory agencies, payers, clinicians, and patients. This study aimed to capture information on clinical trial endpoints that would be most important and relevant for patients with advanced breast cancer, based on patient-reported outcomes.

methodsPatients with either advanced triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC] and a maximum of two lines of systemic therapy or hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative [HR+/HER2-] breast cancer and a maximum of three lines of systemic therapy, participated in semi-structured concept elicitation interviews. Concept saturation was assessed. A sign, symptom, or impact was defined as "salient" if mentioned by ≥ 60% of participants, with an average bother rating of ≥ 5 (0-10 Scale). Participants were also asked about treatment priorities and to evaluate hypothetical scenarios showing different health-related functioning and quality-of-life treatment outcomes, using graphical representations.

resultsThirty-two participants (97% women; aged 29+ years) with TNBC (n = 17) or HR+/HER2- breast cancer (n = 15) provided generally similar reports on symptom experience, with fatigue and pain being most salient, though importance of certain treatment-related symptoms varied between the two groups. Patients reported consistent perspectives on the importance of treatment outcomes: when considering a new treatment, they prioritized efficacy of the therapy, acceptable tolerability, stability, predictability of symptoms over time, and the duration of preserved health-related quality of life and physical functioning. The meaningful difference in preserved physical functioning was 2-3 months for 46% of participants with TNBC, whereas for most participants with HR+/HER2- breast cancer it started from 6-7 months. Both groups of participants found it easier to accept some toxicity at the beginning of therapy if it was followed by improvement, as opposed to improvement followed by deterioration.

conclusionThe results may help to inform the design of patient-centered clinical trials, to interpret health-related quality of life and/or patient-reported outcomes, and to optimize care for patients with advanced breast cancer.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsAdultAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine Kinases

Identifiers

PMID36649275
PMCPMC9844842
OpenAlexW4316927943

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.