Assessing the impact of open-label designs in patient-reported outcomes: investigation in oncology clinical trials.
Journal
JNCI cancer spectrum
ISSN: 2515-5091
Titre abrégé: JNCI Cancer Spectr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721827
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2023
01 03 2023
Historique:
received:
26
07
2022
revised:
09
11
2022
accepted:
23
12
2022
pubmed:
21
1
2023
medline:
22
3
2023
entrez:
20
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Knowledge of treatment assignment may affect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which is of concern in oncology, where open-label trials are common. This study measured the magnitude of open-label bias by comparing PROs for similar patient groups in oncology trials with different degrees of concealment. Individual patient data from ipilimumab arms of 2 melanoma and docetaxel arms of 2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials were adjusted for differences using propensity score weighting. Patients were aware of treatment assignment in CA184-022 and CheckMate 057 (open-label) but not in MDX010-20 and VITAL (blinded). Overall survival (OS) and mean changes from baseline to week 12 in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (melanoma) and Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (NSCLC) scores were compared between open-label and blinded groups. After adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced between blinded (melanoma, n = 125; NSCLC, n = 424) and open-label (melanoma, n = 69; NSCLC, n = 205) groups. Study discontinuation and PRO completion rates at week 12 and OS were similar. There was no clear direction in differences in change scores between groups. In the melanoma trials, role functioning (mean = -5.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -15.4 to 5.0), global health status (mean = -1.3, 95% CI = -8.7 to 6.1), and pain (mean = 6.2 , 95% CI = -1.8 to 14.2) favored the blinded, whereas emotional functioning (mean = 2.2, 95% CI = -5.8 to 10.2) and diarrhea (mean = -8.3, 95% CI = -17.3 to 0.7) favored the open-label group. In the NSCLC trials, changes in dyspnea (mean = 5.4, 95% CI = -0.7 to 11.5) favored the blinded and changes in appetite (mean = -1.2, 95% CI = -8.1 to 5.7) favored the open-label group. None were clinically or statistically significant. This study adds to the growing evidence demonstrating that concerns regarding open-label bias should not prohibit the interpretation of large and meaningful treatment effects on PROs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Knowledge of treatment assignment may affect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which is of concern in oncology, where open-label trials are common. This study measured the magnitude of open-label bias by comparing PROs for similar patient groups in oncology trials with different degrees of concealment.
METHODS
Individual patient data from ipilimumab arms of 2 melanoma and docetaxel arms of 2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials were adjusted for differences using propensity score weighting. Patients were aware of treatment assignment in CA184-022 and CheckMate 057 (open-label) but not in MDX010-20 and VITAL (blinded). Overall survival (OS) and mean changes from baseline to week 12 in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (melanoma) and Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (NSCLC) scores were compared between open-label and blinded groups.
RESULTS
After adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced between blinded (melanoma, n = 125; NSCLC, n = 424) and open-label (melanoma, n = 69; NSCLC, n = 205) groups. Study discontinuation and PRO completion rates at week 12 and OS were similar. There was no clear direction in differences in change scores between groups. In the melanoma trials, role functioning (mean = -5.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -15.4 to 5.0), global health status (mean = -1.3, 95% CI = -8.7 to 6.1), and pain (mean = 6.2 , 95% CI = -1.8 to 14.2) favored the blinded, whereas emotional functioning (mean = 2.2, 95% CI = -5.8 to 10.2) and diarrhea (mean = -8.3, 95% CI = -17.3 to 0.7) favored the open-label group. In the NSCLC trials, changes in dyspnea (mean = 5.4, 95% CI = -0.7 to 11.5) favored the blinded and changes in appetite (mean = -1.2, 95% CI = -8.1 to 5.7) favored the open-label group. None were clinically or statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
This study adds to the growing evidence demonstrating that concerns regarding open-label bias should not prohibit the interpretation of large and meaningful treatment effects on PROs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36661326
pii: 6994189
doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkad002
pmc: PMC10023242
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 1998 Jan;16(1):139-44
pubmed: 9440735
Cancer Med. 2020 Oct;9(20):7363-7374
pubmed: 32846465
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):711-23
pubmed: 20525992
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 1;5(4):457-458
pubmed: 30653227
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Mar 3;85(5):365-76
pubmed: 8433390
Value Health. 2021 Jun;24(6):822-829
pubmed: 34119080
Support Care Cancer. 1994 Jul;2(4):213-22
pubmed: 8087439
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Jun 10;173(11):972-9
pubmed: 23699837
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022 Mar 8;114(3):471-474
pubmed: 34508610
Med Care. 2003 May;41(5):582-92
pubmed: 12719681
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Jan;96(1):34-44
pubmed: 27149591
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;3(6):738-739
pubmed: 27658006
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Oct;102:23-30
pubmed: 30103096
J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Apr;54(4):387-98
pubmed: 11297888
Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A Suppl 1:S51-8
pubmed: 8381294
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 May 1;111(5):459-464
pubmed: 30561711
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;43(4):1272-83
pubmed: 24881045
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Feb;11(2):155-64
pubmed: 20004617
Ann Oncol. 2010 Jan;21(1):19-26
pubmed: 19875758
Qual Life Res. 2022 Mar;31(3):645-657
pubmed: 34283382
Multivariate Behav Res. 2011 May;46(3):399-424
pubmed: 21818162
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Oct 10;30(29):3640-7
pubmed: 22965962
Stat Med. 2015 Dec 10;34(28):3661-79
pubmed: 26238958