Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37679204›Full record

ReviewJournal of geriatric oncology2024

Assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-related outcomes in randomized cancer clinical trials for older adults: Results of DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative.

Angéline Galvin, Pierre Soubeyran, Etienne Brain, Kwok-Leung Cheung, Marije E Hamaker, Ravindran Kanesvaran, Murielle Mauer, Supriya Mohile, Isacco Montroni, Martine Puts and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of geriatric oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03676218 (Assessing Patient-reported Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

NCT03676218 completednot on this map

Assessing Patient-reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-related Outcomes in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials for Older Adults: the DATECAN-ELDERLY Initiative

TypeobservationalSponsorInstitut BergoniéRan2017 to 2023Enrolled14ConditionsCancerArmsElderly cancer patients
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

14 authors at 11 institutions in 9 countries.

Angéline GalvinUniv. Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, Epicene team, UMR 1219, Bordeaux, France.
Pierre SoubeyranUniv. Bordeaux, Inserm, UMR 1312, SIRIC BRIO, France; Department of medical oncology, Bergonie Institute, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Bordeaux, France.
Etienne BrainDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie/Saint-Cloud, Saint-Cloud, France.
Kwok-Leung CheungSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Marije E HamakerDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht/ Zeist/Doorn, Zeist, the Netherlands.
Ravindran KanesvaranDivision of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Murielle MauerStatistics Department, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
Supriya MohileDepartment of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States.
Isacco MontroniDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Ospedale Santa Maria delle Croci, Ravenna, Italy.
Martine PutsLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Siri RostoftDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Hans WildiersDepartment of General Medical Oncology and Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven Cancer Institute, Belgium.
Simone Mathoulin-PélissierUniv. Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, Epicene team, UMR 1219, Bordeaux, France; INSERM CIC1401, Clinical and Epidemiological Research Unit, Bergonie Institute, Comprehensive Cancer Center, F-33000 Bordeaux, France.
Carine BelleraUniv. Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, Epicene team, UMR 1219, Bordeaux, France; INSERM CIC1401, Clinical and Epidemiological Research Unit, Bergonie Institute, Comprehensive Cancer Center, F-33000 Bordeaux, France. Electronic address: C.Bellera@bordeaux.unicancer.fr.
Université de Bordeaux · FRDiakonessenhuis hospital · NLEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer · BEInstitut Curie · FRKU Leuven · BENational Cancer Centre Singapore · SGOslo University Hospital · NOOspedale Santa Maria · ITUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Rochester Medical Center · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

A Patient-Oriented Research Program in Geriatric OncologyK24AG056589 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI Supriya G. Mohile · 2018 to 2026
$1.5M
NIA NIH HHS K24 AG056589
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As older adults with cancer are underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCT), there is limited evidence on which to rely for treatment decisions for this population. Commonly used RCT endpoints for the assessment of treatment efficacy are more often tumor-centered (e.g., progression-free survival). These endpoints may not be as relevant for the older patients who present more often with comorbidities, non-cancer-related deaths, and treatment toxicity. Moreover, their expectation and preferences are likely to differ from younger adults. The DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative combines a broad expertise, in geriatric oncology and clinical research, with interest in cancer RCT that include older patients with cancer. In order to guide researchers and clinicians coordinating cancer RCT involving older patients with cancer, the experts reviewed the literature on relevant domains to assess using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and patient-related outcomes, as well as available tools related to these domains. Domains considered relevant by the panel of experts when assessing treatment efficacy in RCT for older patients with cancer included functional autonomy, cognition, depression and nutrition. These were based on published guidelines from international societies and from regulatory authorities as well as minimum datasets recommended to collect in RCT including older adults with cancer. In addition, health-related quality of life, patients' symptoms, and satisfaction were also considered by the panel. With regards to tools for the assessment of these domains, we highlighted that each tool has its own strengths and limitations, and very few had been validated in older adults with cancer. Further studies are thus needed to validate these tools in this specific population and define the minimum clinically important difference to use when developing RCTs in this population. The selection of the most relevant tool should thus be guided by the RCT research question, together with the specific properties of the tool.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAgedHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresTreatment OutcomeAgedCognitionDepressionFunctional autonomyHealth-related quality of lifeNeoplasmsNutritionPatient-related outcomePatient-reported outcomePatient satisfactionToxicity

Identifiers

PMID37679204
PMCPMC12144566
OpenAlexW4386529391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.