ReviewJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024
Time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer clinical trials: targeted literature review and best practice recommendations.
Review in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Time Toxicity in Advanced Breast Cancer: Psychological Burden, Psychiatric Vulnerability, and Implications for Patient-Centered Decision-Making.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Dynamic Quality-of-Life Trajectories After Head and Neck Reconstruction.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2026Article
- Measuring What Matters: RECIST Response Does Not Predict HRQoL in Early-Phase Clinical Trials.Cancers · 2026Article
- Are we reporting well enough? A systematic survey of missing data in patient-reported outcomes from non-small cell lung cancer randomized trials.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
- Prospective assessment of health-related quality of life in early phase oncology clinical trials: PEARLER.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTime to deterioration (TTD) endpoints are often utilized in the analysis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in oncology clinical trials but different endpoint definitions and analysis frameworks exist that can impact result interpretation. This review examined the analysis, reporting and heterogeneity of TTD endpoints in the literature, the impact of analysis methods on results, and provides recommendations for future trials.
methodsA targeted literature review of articles published between 2017 and 2022 was performed to collate TTD endpoints reported in oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Details of endpoints and results were extracted including; deterioration definition, PRO assessment schedule, methods for handling intercurrent events, statistical analysis methods, main trial results (overall survival and/or progression-free survival) and TTD endpoint results.
resultsSeventy RCTs were included covering 849 individual TTD endpoints. There were 17 primary cancer types, with lung (26%), breast (11%), and prostate (7%) cancers the most common. Most trials (71%) were for people with advanced cancer. Full definitions of TTD endpoints were often missing. There were no clear trends for a specific TTD definition within cancer types or stages. However, statistical analysis methods were consistent among trials.
conclusionThe TTD definition can vary and is ultimately driven by the research question. Points to consider for successfully implementing PRO TTD endpoints in oncology include consideration of the trial setting (e.g., early vs. advanced cancer), expected treatment effect (e.g., improvement vs. worsening), likely adverse event profile (including early vs. delayed) and PRO data collection frequency in order to improve utility of these endpoints.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.