The main objective of this study was to investigate whether patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in treatment with long-term therapy imatinib have a different health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) profile compared with the general population. In total, 448 CML patients were enrolled, and the SF-36 Health Survey was used to compare generic HRQOL profiles. Symptoms were also assessed. HRQOL comparisons were adjusted for key possible confounders. The median age of patients was 57 years and the median time of imatinib treatment was 5 years (range 3-9 years). The largest HRQOL differences were found in younger patients. In particular, patients aged between 18 and 39 years had marked impairments in role limitations because of physical and emotional problems, respectively: −22.6 (P < .001), −22.3 (P < .001). Patients with CML age 60 or older had a HRQOL profile very similar to that reported by the general population. Women had a worse profile than men when each were compared with their peers in the general population. Fatigue was the most frequently reported symptom. The HRQOL of CML patients is comparable with that of population norms in many areas, however, younger and female patients seem to report the major limitations.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play an increasingly important role in clinical practice and research. Modern psychometric methods such as item response theory (IRT) enable the creation of item banks that support fixed-length forms as well as computerized adaptive testing (CAT), often resulting in improved measurement precision and responsiveness. Here we describe and discuss the case for developing an international core set of PROs building from the US PROMIS^® network. PROMIS is a U.S.-based cooperative group of research sites and centers of excellence convened to develop and standardize PRO measures across studies and settings. If extended to a global collaboration, PROMIS has the potential to transform PRO measurement by creating a shared, unifying terminology and metric for reporting of common symptoms and functional life domains. Extending a common set of standardized PRO measures to the international community offers great potential for improving patient-centered research, clinical trials reporting, population monitoring, and health care worldwide. Benefits of such standardization include the possibility of: international syntheses (such as meta-analyses) of research findings; international population monitoring and policy development; health services administrators and planners access to relevant information on the populations they serve; better assessment and monitoring of patients by providers; and improved shared decision making. The goal of the current PROMIS International initiative is to ensure that item banks are translated and culturally adapted for use in adults and children in as many countries as possible. The process includes 3 key steps: translation/cultural adaptation, calibration, and validation. A universal translation, an approach focusing on commonalities, rather than differences across versions developed in regions or countries speaking the same language, is proposed to ensure conceptual equivalence for all items. International item calibration using nationally representative samples of adults and children within countries is essential to demonstrate that all items possess expected strong measurement properties. Finally, it is important to demonstrate that the PROMIS measures are valid, reliable and responsive to change when used in an international context. IRT item banking will allow for tailoring within countries and facilitate growth and evolution of PROs through contributions from the international measurement community. A number of opportunities and challenges of international development of PROs item banks are discussed.

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important goal of therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients treated with current molecular-targeted therapies. The main objective of this study was to investigate factors associated with long-term HRQOL outcomes of CML patients receiving imatinib. Analysis was performed on 422 CML patients recruited in an observational multicenter study. HRQOL was assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Key socio-demographic and clinical data were investigated for their association with HRQOL outcomes. Chronic fatigue and social support were also investigated. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were used to identify independent factors associated with HRQOL outcomes. Fatigue was the only variable showing an independent and consistent association across all physical and mental HRQOL outcomes (P<0.01). Differences between patients reporting low versus high fatigue levels were more than eight and seven times the magnitude of a clinically meaningful difference, respectively, for the role physical (Δ=70 points) and emotional scale (Δ=63 points) of the SF-36. Fatigue did not occur as an isolated symptom and was most highly correlated with musculoskeletal pain (r=0.511; P0.001) and muscular cramps (r=0.448; P0.001). Chronic fatigue is the major factor limiting HRQOL of CML patients receiving imatinib.

To inform clinical guidelines and patient care we need high quality evidence on the relative benefits and harms of intervention. Patient reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can “empower patients to make decisions based on their values” and “level the playing field between physician and patient”. While clinicians have a good understanding of the concept of health-related quality of life and other PROs, evidence suggests that many do not feel comfortable in using the data from trials to inform discussions with patients and clinical practice. This may in part reflect concerns over the integrity of the data and difficulties in interpreting the results arising from poor reporting.The new CONSORT PRO extension aims to improve the reporting of PROs in trials to facilitate the use of results to inform clinical practice and health policy. While the CONSORT PRO extension is an important first step in the process, we need broader engagement with the guidance to facilitate optimal reporting and maximize use of PRO data in a clinical setting. Endorsement by journal editors, authors and peer reviewers are crucial steps. Improved design, implementation and transparent reporting of PROs in clinical trials are necessary to provide high quality evidence to inform evidence synthesis and clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The main objectives of this study were to identify the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including a patient‐reported outcome (PRO) endpoint across a wide range of cancer specialties and to evaluate the completeness of PRO reporting according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension.METHODS: RCTs with a PRO endpoint that had been performed across several cancer specialties and published between 2004 and 2013 were considered. Studies were evaluated on the basis of previously defined criteria, including the CONSORT PRO extension and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias of RCTs. Analyses were also conducted by the type of PRO endpoint (primary vs secondary) and by the cancer disease site.RESULTS: A total of 56,696 potentially eligible records were scrutinized, and 557 RCTs with a PRO evaluation, enrolling 254,677 patients overall, were identified. PROs were most frequently used in RCTs of breast (n = 123), lung (n = 85), and colorectal cancer (n = 66). Overall, PROs were secondary endpoints in 421 RCTs (76%). Four of 6 evaluated CONSORT PRO items were documented in less than 50% of the RCTs. The level of reporting was higher in RCTs with a PRO as a primary endpoint. The presence of a supplementary report was the only statistically significant factor associated with greater completeness of reporting for both RCTs with PROs as primary endpoints (β = .19, P = .001) and RCTs with PROs as secondary endpoints (β = .30, P < .001).CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the CONSORT PRO extension is equally important across all cancer specialties. Its use can also contribute to revealing the robust PRO design of some studies, which might be obscured by poor outcome reporting. Cancer 2015;121:3335–3342. © 2015 American Cancer Society.