Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes from international randomised clinical trials on cancer: a systematic review

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  1. Entrectinib for ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC and NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debateResearchpeer-review

  2. Access to radiotherapy among circumpolar Inuit populations

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  3. Combining PARP inhibition with PD-1 inhibitors

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. International validation of the EORTC CAT Core: a new adaptive instrument for measuring core quality of life domains in cancer

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Integration af specialiseret palliation og onkologi

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Reply to: Olanzapine: Sancho Panza for clinicians who care for patients with advanced cancer

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearch

  4. Thresholds for clinical importance were established to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice and research

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Justyna Mierzynska
  • Claire Piccinin
  • Madeline Pe
  • Francesca Martinelli
  • Carolyn Gotay
  • Corneel Coens
  • Murielle Mauer
  • Alexander Eggermont
  • Mogens Groenvold
  • Kristin Bjordal
  • Jaap Reijneveld
  • Galina Velikova
  • Andrew Bottomley
View graph of relations

A previous review published in 2008 highlighted the prognostic significance of baseline patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as independent predictors of the overall survival of patients with cancer in clinical studies. In response to the methodological limitations of studies included in the previous review, recommendations were subsequently published in the same year to promote a higher level of methodological rigour in studies of prognostic factors. Our systematic review aimed to provide an update on progress with the implementation of these recommendations and to assess whether the methodological quality of prognostic factor analyses has changed over time. Of the 44 studies published between 2006 and 2018 that were included in our review, more standardisation and rigour of the methods used for prognostic factor analysis was found compared with the previous review. 41 (93%) of the trials reported at least one PRO domain as independently prognostic. The most common significant prognostic factors reported were physical functioning (17 [39%] studies) and global health or quality of life (15 [34%] studies). These findings highlight the value of PROs as prognostic or stratification factors in research across most types of cancer.

Original languageEnglish
JournalLancet Oncology
Volume20
Issue number12
Pages (from-to)e685-e698
Number of pages14
ISSN1470-2045
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2019

ID: 58891671