Abstract Background Germline mutations in BRCA1/2 and ATM have been associated with prostate cancer (PCa) risk. Objective To directly assess whether germline mutations in these three genes ...distinguish lethal from indolent PCa and whether they confer any effect on age at death. Design, setting, and participants A retrospective case-case study of 313 patients who died of PCa and 486 patients with low-risk localized PCa of European, African, and Chinese descent. Germline DNA of each of the 799 patients was sequenced for these three genes. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Mutation carrier rates and their effect on lethal PCa were analyzed using the Fisher's exact test and Cox regression analysis, respectively. Results and limitations The combined BRCA1/2 and ATM mutation carrier rate was significantly higher in lethal PCa patients (6.07%) than localized PCa patients (1.44%), p = 0.0007. The rate also differed significantly among lethal PCa patients as a function of age at death (10.00%, 9.08%, 8.33%, 4.94%, and 2.97% in patients who died ≤ 60 yr, 61–65 yr, 66–70 yr, 71–75 yr, and over 75 yr, respectively, p = 0.046) and time to death after diagnosis (12.26%, 4.76%, and 0.98% in patients who died ≤ 5 yr, 6–10 yr, and > 10 yr after a PCa diagnosis, respectively, p = 0.0006). Survival analysis in the entire cohort revealed mutation carriers remained an independent predictor of lethal PCa after adjusting for race and age, prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score at the time of diagnosis (hazard ratio = 2.13, 95% confidence interval: 1.24–3.66, p = 0.004). A limitation of this study is that other DNA repair genes were not analyzed. Conclusions Mutation status of BRCA1/2 and ATM distinguishes risk for lethal and indolent PCa and is associated with earlier age at death and shorter survival time. Patient summary Prostate cancer patients with inherited mutations in BRCA1/2 and ATM are more likely to die of prostate cancer and do so at an earlier age.
Abstract The importance of content validity in developing patient reported outcomes (PRO) instruments is stressed by both the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. ...Content validity is the extent to which an instrument measures the important aspects of concepts developers or users purport it to assess. A PRO instrument measures the concepts most relevant and important to a patient's condition and its treatment. For PRO instruments, items and domains as reflected in the scores of an instrument should be important to the target population and comprehensive with respect to patient concerns. Documentation of target population input in item generation, as well as evaluation of patient understanding through cognitive interviewing, can provide the evidence for content validity. Part 1 of this task force report covers elicitation of key concepts using qualitative focus groups and/or interviews to inform content and structure of a new PRO instrument. Building on qualitative interviews and focus groups used to elicit concepts, cognitive interviews help developers craft items that can be understood by respondents in the target population and can ultimately confirm that the final instrument is appropriate, comprehensive, and understandable in the target population. Part 2 details: 1) the methods for conducting cognitive interviews that address patient understanding of items, instructions, and response options; and 2) the methods for tracking item development through the various stages of research and preparing this tracking for submission to regulatory agencies. The task force report's two parts are meant to be read together. They are intended to offer suggestions for good practice in planning, executing, and documenting qualitative studies that are used to support the content validity of PRO instruments to be used in medical product evaluation.
Abstract The importance of content validity in developing patient reported outcomes (PRO) instruments is stressed by both the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. ...Content validity is the extent to which an instrument measures the important aspects of concepts that developers or users purport it to assess. A PRO instrument measures the concepts most significant and relevant to a patient's condition and its treatment. For PRO instruments, items and domains as reflected in the scores of an instrument should be important to the target population and comprehensive with respect to patient concerns. Documentation of target population input in item generation, as well as evaluation of patient understanding through cognitive interviewing, can provide the evidence for content validity. Developing content for, and assessing respondent understanding of, newly developed PRO instruments for medical product evaluation will be discussed in this two-part ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Topics include the methods for generating items, documenting item development, coding of qualitative data from item generation, cognitive interviewing, and tracking item development through the various stages of research and preparing this tracking for submission to regulatory agencies. Part 1 covers elicitation of key concepts using qualitative focus groups and/or interviews to inform content and structure of a new PRO instrument. Part 2 covers the instrument development process, the assessment of patient understanding of the draft instrument using cognitive interviews and steps for instrument revision. The two parts are meant to be read together. They are intended to offer suggestions for good practices in planning, executing, and documenting qualitative studies that are used to support the content validity of PRO instruments to be used in medical product evaluation.
Background Aim of the COSMIN study (COnsensusbased Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) was to develop a consensus-based checklist to evaluate the methodological ...quality of studies on measurement properties. We present the COSMIN checklist and the agreement of the panel on the items of the checklist. Methods A four-round Delphi study was performed with international experts (psychologists, epidemiologists, statisticians and clinicians). Of the 91 invited experts, 57 agreed to participate (63%). Panel members were asked to rate their (dis) agreement with each proposal on a five-point scale. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 67% of the panel members indicated 'agree' or 'strongly agree'. Results Consensus was reached on the inclusion of the following measurement properties: internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity (including face validity), construct validity (including structural validity, hypotheses testing and cross-cultural validity), criterion validity, responsiveness, and interpretability. The latter was not considered a measurement property. The panel also reached consensus on how these properties should be assessed. Conclusions The resulting COSMIN checklist could be useful when selecting a measurement instrument, peerreviewing a manuscript, designing or reporting a study on measurement properties, or for educational purposes.
Abstract Objective Lack of consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions has led to confusion about which measurement properties are relevant and which concepts they represent. The aim was to ...clarify and standardize terminology and definitions of measurement properties by reaching consensus among a group of experts and to develop a taxonomy of measurement properties relevant for evaluating health instruments. Study Design and Setting An international Delphi study with four written rounds was performed. Participating experts had a background in epidemiology, statistics, psychology, and clinical medicine. The panel was asked to rate their (dis)agreement about proposals on a five-point scale. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 67% of the panel agreed. Results Of 91 invited experts, 57 agreed to participate and 43 actually participated. Consensus was reached on positions of measurement properties in the taxonomy (68–84%), terminology (74–88%, except for structural validity 56%), and definitions of measurement properties (68–88%). The panel extensively discussed the positions of internal consistency and responsiveness in the taxonomy, the terms “reliability” and “structural validity,” and the definitions of internal consistency and reliability. Conclusions Consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties was reached. Hopefully, this will lead to a more uniform use of terms and definitions in the literature on measurement properties.
AbstractObjectiveTo develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of ...the instrument.DesignInstrument development and reliability study.Data sourcesInitial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument.ParticipantsWith the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates.Main outcome measuresCore credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined.ResultsThe credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors.ConclusionsResearchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.
The COSMIN checklist is a tool for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health-related patient-reported outcomes. The aim of this study is to determine the ...inter-rater agreement and reliability of each item score of the COSMIN checklist (n = 114).
75 articles evaluating measurement properties were randomly selected from the bibliographic database compiled by the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Group, Oxford, UK. Raters were asked to assess the methodological quality of three articles, using the COSMIN checklist. In a one-way design, percentage agreement and intraclass kappa coefficients or quadratic-weighted kappa coefficients were calculated for each item.
88 raters participated. Of the 75 selected articles, 26 articles were rated by four to six participants, and 49 by two or three participants. Overall, percentage agreement was appropriate (68% was above 80% agreement), and the kappa coefficients for the COSMIN items were low (61% was below 0.40, 6% was above 0.75). Reasons for low inter-rater agreement were need for subjective judgement, and accustom to different standards, terminology and definitions.
Results indicated that raters often choose the same response option, but that it is difficult on item level to distinguish between articles. When using the COSMIN checklist in a systematic review, we recommend getting some training and experience, completing it by two independent raters, and reaching consensus on one final rating. Instructions for using the checklist are improved.
Multi-cancer early detection tests have been developed to enable earlier detection of multiple cancer types through screening. As reflected by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the psychosocial ...impact of cancer screening is not yet clear. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of cancer screening through PRO assessment.
A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles from January 2000 to August 2020 for relevant publications assessing the psychosocial impact of cancer screening before and within 1 year after screening in the general asymptomatic population, including following receipt of results. Studies focused on diagnostic evaluation or involving patients previously diagnosed with cancer were excluded.
In total, 31 studies (12 randomized controlled trials; 19 observational studies) were included, reflecting PRO assessments associated with lung, breast, colorectal, anal, ovarian, cervical, and prostate cancer screening procedures. The most commonly assessed construct was symptoms of anxiety, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Cancer-specific distress and worry were also assessed using a broad range of measures. Overall, individuals tolerated screening procedures well with no major psychosocial effects. Of note, increases in symptoms of anxiety and levels of distress and worry were generally found prior to communication of screening results and following communication of indeterminate or positive results that required further testing. These negative psychosocial effects were, however, not long-lasting and returned to baseline relatively soon after screening. Furthermore, individuals with higher cancer risk, such as current smokers and those with a family history of cancer, tended to have higher levels of anxiety and distress throughout the screening process, including following negative or indeterminate results.
The psychosocial impact of cancer screening is relatively low overall and short-lived, even following false-positive test results. Individuals with a higher risk of cancer tend to experience more symptoms of anxiety and distress during the screening process; thus, more attention to this group is recommended.
Hereditary angioedema is a rare genetic disorder characterized by acute, intermittent, and potentially life-threatening attacks of edema of the skin and mucosa. We evaluated ecallantide, a newly ...developed recombinant plasma kallikrein inhibitor, for the treatment of acute attacks of angioedema.
In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with hereditary angioedema presenting with an acute attack were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive subcutaneous ecallantide, at a dose of 30 mg, or placebo. Two measures of patient-reported outcomes were used to assess the response: treatment outcome scores, which range from +100 (designated in the protocol as significant improvement in symptoms) to -100 (significant worsening of symptoms), and the change from baseline in the mean symptom complex severity score, which range from +2 (representing a change from mild symptoms at baseline to severe symptoms after) to -3 (representing a change from severe symptoms at baseline to no symptoms after). The primary end point was the treatment outcome score 4 hours after study-drug administration. Secondary end points included the change from baseline in the mean symptom complex severity score at 4 hours and the time to significant improvement.
A total of 71 of the 72 patients completed the trial. The median treatment outcome score at 4 hours was 50.0 in the ecallantide group and 0.0 in the placebo group (interquartile range IQR, 0.0 to 100.0 in both groups; P=0.004). The median change in the mean symptom complex severity score at 4 hours was -1.00 (IQR, -1.50 to 0.00) with ecallantide, versus -0.50 (IQR, -1.00 to 0.00) with placebo (P=0.01). The estimated time to significant improvement was 165 minutes with ecallantide versus more than 240 minutes with placebo (P=0.14). There were no deaths, treatment-related serious adverse events, or withdrawals owing to adverse events.
Four hours after administration of ecallantide or placebo for acute attacks of angioedema in patients with hereditary angioedema, patient-reported treatment outcome scores and mean symptom complex severity scores were significantly better with ecallantide than with placebo. (Funded by Dyax; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262080.)
Abstract This article concerns development and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials to evaluate medical products. A PRO is any report coming directly from patients, without ...interpretation by physicians or others, about how they function or feel in relation to a health condition and its therapy. PRO instruments are used to measure these patient reports. PROs provide a unique perspective on medical therapy, because some effects of a health condition and its therapy are known only to patients. Properly developed and evaluated PRO instruments also have the potential to provide more sensitive and specific measurements of the effects of medical therapies, thereby increasing the efficiency of clinical trials that attempt to measure the meaningful treatment benefits of those therapies. Poorly developed andevaluated instruments may provide misleading conclusions or data that cannot be used to support product labeling claims. We review selected major challenges from Food and Drug Administration's perspective in using PRO instruments, measures, and end points to support treatment benefit claims in product labeling. These challenges highlight the need for sponsors to formulate desired labeling claim(s) prospectively, to acquire and document information needed to support these claim(s), and to identify existing instruments or develop new and more appropriate PRO instruments for evaluating treatment benefit in the defined population in which they will seek claims.
PDF
