Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: a survey of public attitudes

Background Advances in genetic technologies are expected to make population-wide genetic testing feasible. This could provide a basis for risk stratified cancer screening; but acceptability in the target populations has not been explored. Methods We assessed attitudes to risk-stratified ovarian cancer (OC) screening based on prior genetic risk assessment using a survey design. Home-based interviews were carried out by the UK Office of National Statistics in a population-based sample of 1095 women aged 18–74. Demographic and personal correlates of attitudes to risk-stratified OC screening based on prior genetic risk assessment were determined using univariate analyses and adjusted logistic regression models. Results Full data on the key analytic questions were available for 829 respondents (mean age 46 years; 27 % ‘university educated’; 93 % ‘White’). Relatively few respondents felt they were at ‘higher’ or ‘much higher’ risk of OC than other women of their age group (7.4 %, n = 61). Most women (85 %) said they would ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ take up OC genetic testing; which increased to 88 % if the test also informed about breast cancer risk. Almost all women (92 %) thought they would ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ participate in risk-stratified OC screening. In multivariate logistic regression models, university level education was associated with lower anticipated uptake of genetic testing (p = 0.009), but with more positive attitudes toward risk-stratified screening (p <0.001). Perceived risk was not significantly associated with any of the outcome variables. Conclusions These findings give confidence in taking forward research on integration of novel genomic technologies into mainstream healthcare

Predictors of progression free survival, overall survival and early cessation of chemotherapy in women with potentially platinum sensitive (PPS) recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) starting third or subsequent line(> 3) chemotherapy – the GCIG Symptom Benefit Study (SBS)

Background: Potentially platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PPS ROC) is defined by a platinum-free interval of >6 months, and usually treated with platinum-based chemotherapy with variable response and benefit in women who have had 3 or more lines of chemotherapy(≥3). We identified baseline characteristics (health-related quality of life[HRQL] and clinicopathological factors), associated with PFS, OS and early progression (within 8 weeks). The goal is to improve patient selection for chemotherapy based on a nomogram predicting PFS. Methods: HRQL was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30/QLQ-OV28. Associations with PFS and OS were assessed with Cox proportional hazards regression. Variables significant in univariable analysis were included in multivariable analyses using backward elimination to select those significant. Associations with stopping chemotherapy early were assessed with logistic regression. Results: 378 women were enrolled, with median(m)OS and PFS of 16.6 months and 5.3 months, respectively. The majority had ECOGPS 0–1. Chemotherapy was stopped early in 45/378 participants (12%); with mOS 3.4 months (95% CI: 1.7–7.2). Physical function(PF), role function(RF), cognitive function(CF), social function(SF), Global Health Status(GHS) and abdominal/GI symptoms(AGIS) were significant univariable predictors of PFS(p < 0.030). SF remained significant after adjusting for clinicopathological factors; p = 0.03. PF, RF, CF, SF, GHS and AGIS were significant univariable predictors of OS (p < 0.007); PF, RF, SF and GHS remained significant predictors of OS in multivariable models; p < 0.007. Poor baseline PF and GHS were significant univariable predictors of stopping chemotherapy early (p < 0.007) but neither remained significant after adjusting for clinicopathological factors. Conclusion: Baseline HRQL is simple to measure, is predictive of PFS and OS and when used in conjunction with clinicopathological prognostic factors, can assist with clinical decision making and treatment recommendations for women with PPSROC≥3

Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol.

Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported.Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points.Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion.The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r)

International perspectives on suboptimal patient-reported outcome trial design and reporting in cancer clinical trials: a qualitative study

Purpose: Evidence suggests that the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of cancer trial protocols is frequently inadequate and non-reporting of PRO findings is widespread. This qualitative study examined the factors influencing suboptimal PRO protocol content, implementation, and reporting, and use of PRO data during clinical interactions. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four stakeholder groups: (1) trialists and chief investigators; (2) people with lived experience of cancer; (3) international experts in PRO cancer trial design; (4) journal editors, funding panelists, and regulatory agencies. Data were analyzed using directed thematic analysis with an iterative coding frame. Results: Forty-four interviews were undertaken. Several factors were identified that could influenced effective integration of PROs into trials and subsequent findings. Participants described (1) late inclusion of PROs in trial design; (2) PROs being considered a lower priority outcome compared to survival; (3) trialists’ reluctance to collect or report PROs due to participant burden, missing data, and perceived reticence of journals to publish; (4) lack of staff training. Strategies to address these included training research personnel and improved communication with site staff and patients regarding the value of PROs. Examples of good practice were identified. Conclusion: Misconceptions relating to PRO methodology and its use may undermine their planning, collection, and reporting. There is a role for funding, regulatory, methodological, and journalistic institutions to address perceptions around the value of PROs, their position within the trial outcomes hierarchy, that PRO training and guidance is available, signposted, and readily accessible, with accompanying measures to ensure compliance with international best practice guidelines

Measuring what matters MOST: Validation of the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment, a patient-reported outcome measure of symptom burden and impact of chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC)

Purpose: Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Symptom Benefit Study (GCIG-SBS) Stage 2 aimed to review, revise, and validate a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST), developed in GCIG-SBS Stage 1 (MOSTv1, 35 items), and document recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) symptom burden and benefit. Methods: GCIG-SBS Stage 2 recruited patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ROC (PRR-ROC) or potentially platinum-sensitive ROC with ≥ 3 lines of prior chemotherapy (PPS-ROC ≥ 3). Patients completed MOSTv1, QLQ-C30, QLQ-OV28, and FACT-O/FOSI at baseline and before cycle 3 of chemotherapy (pre-C3), and global assessments of change (MOST-Change) pre-C3. Clinicians rated patients’ cancer-related symptoms, performance status, and adverse events. Convergent and divergent validity (Spearman’s correlations), discriminative validity (effect sizes between groups classified by clinician-rated characteristics), and responsiveness (paired t tests in patients expected to experience clinically meaningful change) were assessed. Results: Of 948 recruits, 903 completed PROMs at baseline and 685 pre-C3. Baseline symptom burden was substantial for PRR-ROC and PPS-ROC ≥ 3. MOSTv2 has 24 items and five multi-item scales: abdominal symptoms (MOST-Abdo), disease or treatment-related symptoms (MOST-DorT), chemotherapy-related symptoms (MOST-Chemo), psychological symptoms (MOST-Psych), and MOST-Well-being. Correlations confirmed concurrent and divergent validity. Discriminative validity was confirmed by effect sizes that conformed with a priori hypotheses. MOST-Abdo was responsive to improvements in abdominal symptoms and MOST-Chemo detected the adverse effects of chemotherapy. Conclusions: The MOSTv2 validly quantifies patient-reported symptom burden, adverse effects, and symptom benefit in ROC, and as such is fit-for-purpose for clinical trials of palliative chemotherapy in ROC. Further research is required to assess test–retest reliability

Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice. Methods: We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored. Results: Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2–19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0–11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5–8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years. Conclusions: PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future

International perspectives on suboptimal patient-reported outcome trial design and reporting in cancer clinical trials: A qualitative study

Abstract Purpose: Evidence suggests that the patient- reported outcome (PRO) content of cancer trial protocols is frequently inadequate and non- reporting of PRO findings is widespread. This qualitative study examined the factors influencing suboptimal PRO protocol content, implementation, and reporting, and use of PRO data during clinical interactions. Methods: Semi- structured interviews were conducted with four stakeholder groups: (1) trialists and chief investigators; (2) people with lived experience of cancer; (3) international experts in PRO cancer trial design; (4) journal editors, funding panelists, and regulatory agencies. Data were analyzed using directed thematic analysis with an iterative coding frame. Results: Forty- four interviews were undertaken. Several factors were identified that could influenced effective integration of PROs into trials and subsequent findings. Participants described (1) late inclusion of PROs in trial design; (2) PROs being considered a lower priority outcome compared to survival; (3) trialists’ reluctance to collect or report PROs due to participant burden, missing data, and perceived reticence of journals to publish; (4) lack of staff training. Strategies to address these included training research personnel and improved communication with site staff and patients regarding the value of PROs. Examples of good practice were identified. Conclusion: Misconceptions relating to PRO methodology and its use may under-mine their planning, collection, and reporting. There is a role for funding, regulatory, methodological, and journalistic institutions to address perceptions around the value of PROs, their position within the trial outcomes hierarchy, that PRO training and guidance is available, signposted, and readily accessible, with accompanying measures to ensure compliance with international best practice guideline

Validation of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) in recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) – Analysis of patients enrolled in the GCIG Symptom Benefit Study (SBS)

Background: Modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) is predictive of survival in many advanced cancers, but has not been evaluated in recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). The aim was to determine validity of mGPS in ROC, investigate its associations with health related quality of life (HRQL) and ECOG performance status (PS). / Methods: mGPS is based on serum C reactive protein (CRP) and albumin, with scores ranging from 0 (least) to 2 (most). HRQL was measured with EORTC QLQ C-30 and OV-28. χ2 tests for trend were used to examine the relationship between HRQL, PS and mGPS. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess associations between mGPS, HRQL, clinicopathological factors, and overall survival (OS). / Results: Inflammatory markers were available in 516 of 948 patients in GCIG SBS. 200(39%) had potentially platinum sensitive ROC with ≥ 3 lines of chemotherapy, 316(61%) had platinum resistant ROC. 282(55%), 123(24%), 111(22%) had mGPS of 0, 1, 2, respectively. Median OS (months) was 18.1, 9.6, and 6.6 for mGPS 0, 1, and 2 respectively. mGPS was an independent predictor of OS after adjusting for PS and platinum sensitivity (p < 0.001). mGPS remained a predictor of OS after adjusting for physical function, role function, global health status, abdominal/GI symptoms, and multiple clinicopathologic factors (p = 0.02). Worse PS and higher mGPS were associated with poorer HRQL (p < 0.001). Higher mGPS was associated with worse HRQL, independent of PS. / Conclusion: The mGPS is an independent predictor of OS in ROC after adjusting for HRQL and clinicopathological factors. Higher mGPS is associated with worse HRQL independent of PS. mGPS is simple, inexpensive and may be suitable for clinical practice, clinical trial patient selection and stratification

Impact of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management on women's knowledge and intentions: a randomised online experimental survey study.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification using genetic and other types of personal information could improve current best available approaches to ovarian cancer risk reduction, improving identification of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer and reducing unnecessary interventions for women at lower risk. Amounts of information given to women may influence key informed decision-related outcomes, e.g. knowledge. The primary aim of this study was to compare informed decision-related outcomes between women given one of two versions (gist vs. extended) of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management. METHODS: This was an experimental survey study comparing the effects of brief (gist) information with lengthier, more detailed (extended) information on cognitions relevant to informed decision-making about participating in risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Women with no personal history of ovarian cancer were recruited through an online survey company and randomised to view the gist (n = 512) or extended (n = 519) version of a website-based decision aid and completed an online survey. Primary outcomes were knowledge and intentions. Secondary outcomes included attitudes (values) and decisional conflict. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the gist and extended conditions in knowledge about ovarian cancer (time*group interaction: F = 0.20, p = 0.66) or intention to participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment (t(1029) = 0.43, p = 0.67). There were also no between-groups differences in secondary outcomes. In the sample overall (n = 1031), knowledge about ovarian cancer increased from before to after exposure to the decision aid (from 5.71 to 6.77 out of a possible 10: t = 19.04, p < 0.001), and 74% of participants said that they would participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in knowledge or intentions were found between women who viewed the gist version and women who viewed the extended version of a decision aid about risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Knowledge increased for women in both decision aid groups. Further research is needed to determine the ideal volume and type of content for decision aids about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry; registration number: ISRCTN48627877 .This work was funded by Cancer Research UK (Grant Code: C1005/A12677) and The Eve Appeal Gynaecological Cancer Charity