Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37777816›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2023

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used in patients undergoing adoptive cell therapy (ACT) for the treatment of cancer: a systematic review.

Sally Taylor, Kate Law, Jake Coomber-Moore, Michelle Davies, Fiona Thistlethwaite, Mel Calvert, Olalekan Aiyegbusi, Janelle Yorke

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sally TaylorChristie Patient Centred Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M204BX, UK. sally.taylor38@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9026-1789
Kate LawChristie Patient Centred Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M204BX, UK.
Jake Coomber-MooreChristie Patient Centred Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M204BX, UK.
Michelle DaviesThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M204BX, UK.
Fiona ThistlethwaiteThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M204BX, UK.
Mel CalvertCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Olalekan AiyegbusiCentre for Patient Reported Outcome Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Janelle YorkeChristie Patient Centred Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M204BX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdoptive cell therapy (ACT) is a rapidly evolving field. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow patients to report the impact of treatment on their quality of life during and after treatment. The systematic review aims to characterise the breadth of PROs utilised in ACT cancer care and provide guidance for the use of PROs in this patient population in the future.

methodsA systematic search was conducted (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL) in August 2021 by two reviewers. Search terms covered the following: "adoptive cell therapy", "patient-reported outcomes" and "cancer". Studies were included if they used a PRO measure to report the impact of ACT. The methodological quality of PROs was assessed. Forward and backward reference searching was conducted of any relevant papers. A quality grading scale was applied based on Cochrane and Revenson criteria for classification of high-quality studies. Key data from the studies and the included PROs was extracted by two researchers and tabulated.

resultsOne-hundred nine papers were identified; 11 papers were included. The majority of studies were single-arm trials or observational studies. Twenty-two different PROs were identified; none was ACT specific. The PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D were most commonly used. Few studies collected PRO data in the first 1-2 weeks. Four studies followed patients up for over a year, and a further four studies followed patients for approximately 3 months. DISCUSSION: None of the PROs identified have been designed specifically for ACT. Appropriateness of existing instruments should be considered. It should be considered whether it is appropriate to collect data more frequently in the acute stage and then less frequently during follow-up. It should be considered if one tool is suitable at all time points or if the tool should be adapted depending on time since treatment. More research is needed to identify the exact timings of PRO assessments, and qualitative work with patients is needed to determine the most important issues for them throughout the treatment and follow-up.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsQuality of LifeHumansImmunotherapy, AdoptivePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdoptive cell therapy (ACT)CancerPatient-reported outcomes (PROs)Quality of lifeReviewSystematic

Identifiers

PMID37777816
PMCPMC10541698

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.