GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)  (5)
  • 1
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 30, No. 34 ( 2012-12-01), p. 4249-4255
    Abstract: Examining the patient's subjective experience in prospective clinical comparative effectiveness research (CER) of oncology treatments or process interventions is essential for informing decision making. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are the standard tools for directly eliciting the patient experience. There are currently no widely accepted standards for developing or implementing PRO measures in CER. Recommendations for the design and implementation of PRO measures in CER were developed via a standardized process including multistakeholder interviews, a technical working group, and public comments. Key recommendations are to include assessment of patient-reported symptoms as well as health-related quality of life in all prospective clinical CER studies in adult oncology; to identify symptoms relevant to a particular study population and context based on literature review and/or qualitative and quantitative methods; to assure that PRO measures used are valid, reliable, and sensitive in a comparable population (measures particularly recommended include EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT, MDASI, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS); to collect PRO data electronically whenever possible; to employ methods that minimize missing patient reports and include a plan for analyzing and reporting missing PRO data; to report the proportion of responders and cumulative distribution of responses in addition to mean changes in scores; and to publish results of PRO analyses simultaneously with other clinical outcomes. Twelve core symptoms are recommended for consideration in studies in advanced or metastatic cancers. Adherence to methodologic standards for the selection, implementation, and analysis/reporting of PRO measures will lead to an understanding of the patient experience that informs better decisions by patients, providers, regulators, and payers.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2012
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2012
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 30, No. 34 ( 2012-12-01), p. 4256-4261
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 30, No. 34 ( 2012-12-01), p. 4256-4261
    Abstract: Health technology assessment (HTA) is primarily used as a tool to ensure that clinical and policy decisions are made with the benefit of a systematic analysis of all completed research. This article describes the progress and potential for HTA reports to improve the quality and relevance of future research and to better serve the information needs of patients, clinicians, payers, and other decision makers. We conducted a review of the current published literature and working papers describing past, ongoing, and future initiatives that rely on HTA reports to identify gaps in evidence and improve the design of future research. Although still in a developmental stage, significant progress is under way to improve methods for using HTA reports for the systematic identification of research gaps, prioritization of future research, and improvement of study designs. Several well-defined frameworks have been developed to assist those who produce HTA to become more effective in these additional domains of work. A recurring element of this work is the importance of meaningfully involving stakeholders in the process of defining future research needs and designing studies to address them. Patients, clinicians, and payers are important audiences for completed research and are now recognized as serving an important role in determining what future research is needed. There are substantial opportunities to improve the quality, relevance, and efficiency of clinical research. Recent efforts are beginning to demonstrate the potential to build on the work invested in developing HTA reports to provide a roadmap toward these objectives.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2012
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2012
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 30, No. 22 ( 2012-08-01), p. 2801-2801
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 30, No. 22 ( 2012-08-01), p. 2801-2801
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2012
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2023
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 41, No. 16_suppl ( 2023-06-01), p. e15069-e15069
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 41, No. 16_suppl ( 2023-06-01), p. e15069-e15069
    Abstract: e15069 Background: The MCED Consortium is a group of volunteers, advisors, and companies from the US and the UK spanning a wide range of expertise in biomarker evaluation and implementation, with a special focus on clinical practice, health equity, and communication. The development of Multi Cancer Early Detection (MCED) markers may herald a new approach to screening and detection of multiple cancers at one time via various biological assays. Methods: The Consortium is developing recommendations for the evaluation of test utility, appropriate population targets for screening or early detection, downstream actions in health systems, issues of health equity, and communication challenges related to this new, potentially revolutionary generation of tests. While randomized controlled trials with cancer-specific endpoints have been the gold standard for the evaluation of cancer screening tests for decades, and have successfully shown effectiveness of breast, colorectal, cervical and lung cancer screening, there are compelling reasons not to rely entirely on those approaches to guide the evaluation and clinical use of MCEDs. Results: A large number of MCED products are likely to reach the market well before trials with mortality endpoints can be completed. The release of tests in clinical practice in the US via the laboratory-developed-test pathway means data could be available many years before data is available from trials. The MCED Consortium proposes approaches for the structure, systematic collection of real-world data that will complement such trials. This includes adopting shared definitions of RWD & RWE, definition of core data elements to be collected from all patients undergoing MCED testing, and the need for collaboration strategies across test developers, health systems, payers, clinicians, and others. Conclusions: We will present a framework for learning from clinical experience through data collection that will move MCEDs forward in the context of sensible clinical practice.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2012
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 30, No. 6 ( 2012-02-20), p. 661-666
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 30, No. 6 ( 2012-02-20), p. 661-666
    Abstract: To provide recommendations to trialists and sponsors that guide the design and implementation of prospective postapproval clinical trials for oncology drugs used outside US Food and Drug Administration–labeled indications for treatment of late-stage cancers. Methods A meeting was hosted by the Center for Medical Technology Policy in Baltimore, MD, on November 12, 2009. Discussions during the meeting and key informant interviews were conducted before and after this stakeholder meeting. Peer review by multidisciplinary stakeholders was followed by a public comment period. Input was received from patient advocacy groups, medical oncologists, pharmaceutical companies, the US Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the National Cancer Institute, foreign government agencies involved in health technology assessment, public and private payers, drug compendia, clinical research entities, statisticians, academics, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Results To address the needs of patients and their clinical providers, compendia, payers, and policy makers, recommendations are proposed to guide the design of future prospective trials for off-label use of oncology drugs across four areas: trial design and data analysis, patient and site recruitment, comparators, and outcomes. Conclusion The US Food and Drug Administration provides guidance to the pharmaceutical industry and others designing randomized clinical trials for regulatory approval. However, a gap exists for postregulatory decision makers, including patients, prescribers, and payers, because regulatory trials do not answer the questions most relevant to them. Therefore, guidance is needed for trials performed in the postapproval environment for these postapproval decision makers.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2012
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...