Co-authored by Mapi Research Trust’s Sandra Desruol-Allardin and Isabelle Savre.

Patient‐reported outcome measures in studies of myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia: Literature review and landscape analysis

Reinhard Stauder, Jérémy Lambert, Sandra Desruol‐Allardin, Isabelle Savre, Lona Gaugler, Igor Stojkov, Uwe Siebert, Hélène Chevrou‐Séverac 

Abstract 

Objectives

This study aims to describe the use of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) studies and the PROMs landscape. 

Methods

A comprehensive literature review was performed in Medline/Embase (since 2000) and ClinicalTrials.gov (since 2013) to identify PROMs used in MDS and AML clinical studies. Additionally, PROMs included in approved drug labels since 2000 were reviewed. 

Results

Overall, 112 different PROMs were used in 168 published MDS studies and 152 PROMs were used in 172 AML studies. From ClinicalTrials.gov, 16 different PROMs were used in 22 ongoing registered studies in MDS, and 24 were reported in 41 AML studies. The most frequently used PROMs were cancer‐specific (eg, EORTC QLQ‐C30, FACT‐An) or generic (SF‐36, EQ‐5D) instruments, whereas MDS‐ and AML‐specific instruments (eg, QUALMS and QOL‐E in MDS; FACT‐Leu and EORTC QLQ‐Leu in AML) were used in a minority of studies. Two EMA‐approved drugs for MDS included PROMs in their label. EORTC QLQ‐C30 is by far the most frequently used cancer‐specific PROM in both MDS and AML studies.

Conclusions

This research indicated an underuse of AML/MDS‐specific PROMs for these two indications in clinical studies and labeling claims. However, AML/MDS‐specific instruments in development might be considered in future studies.

 

To read the full publication please visit https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.13389

 

Stauder, R, Lambert, J, Desruol‐Allardin, S, et al. Patient‐reported outcome measures in studies of myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia: Literature review and landscape analysis. Eur J Haematol. 2020; 104: 476– 487. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.13389

 

Creative license link http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/