A Rapid Outcomes Ascertainment System Improves the Quality of Prognostic and Pharmacogenetic Outcomes from Observational Studies

Abstract

Purpose: Case-control and observational studies are popular choices for evaluating molecular prognostic/ pharmacogenetic outcomes, but data quality is rarely tested. Using clinical trial and epidemiologic methods, we assessed the quality of prognostic and outcomes data obtainable from a large case-control study of lung cancer. Methods: We developed an explicit algorithm (set of standard operating procedures forming a rapid outcomes ascertainment system) that encompassed multiple tests of quality assurance, and quality of data for a range of prognostic and outcomes variables, in several cancers, across several centers and two countries were assessed. Based on these assessments, the algorithm was revised and physicians' clinical practice changed. We reevaluated the quality of outcomes after these revisions. Results: Development of an algorithm with internal quality controls showed specific patterns of data collection errors, which were fixable. Although the major discrepancy rate in retrospective data collection was low (0.6%) when compared with external validated sources, complete data were found in <50% of patients for treatment response rate, toxicity, and documentation of patient palliative symptoms. Prospective data collection and changes to clinical practice led to significantly improved data quality. Complete data on response rate increased from 45% to 76% (P = 0.01, Fisher's exact test), for toxicity data, from 26% to 56% (P = 0.02), and for palliative symptoms, from 25% to 70% (P < 0.05), in one large lung cancer case-control study. Conclusions: Observational studies can be a useful source for studying molecular prognostic and pharmacogenetic outcomes. A rapid outcomes ascertainment system with strict ongoing quality control measures is an excellent means of monitoring key variables.

Cisplatin pharmacogenetics, DNA repair polymorphisms, and esophageal cancer outcomes

“…Thus, our findings are robust regardless of model assumptions. In addition, we applied multiple quality control mechanisms for clinical outcome data collection [26]. …”

“…Patients with histologically confirmed esophageal (and gastro-esophageal junction) cancer were recruited as part of a prospective molecular outcomes study from November 1999, at Massachusetts General Hospital, and from January 2004, at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Demographic, patient characteristics, and blood samples for genotyping were collected at the time of study entry, and outcome variables were collected prospectively, full details of which have been described [26]. To enable adequate follow-up, only patients recruited up to October 2004 were included in this analysis.…”

p53 Arg72Pro and MDM2 T309G Polymorphisms, Histology, and Esophageal Cancer Prognosis

“…Outcome data were collected from clinical records and the hospital cancer registries. Where possible, death was confirmed using the Social Security Death Index (18). The last date for censoring purposes was July 2007.…”

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Polymorphisms and Esophageal Cancer Prognosis

“…Patient demographics and blood samples for genotyping were obtained at the time of entry to the study. Follow up variables including treatment, survival, and treatment toxicity data were collected prospectively (18). The participation rate for this study was 93%.…”

“…Details of the prospective data collection procedures have been previously reported (18). In summary, at each patient visit data was collected using a standardized outcomes collection form completed by physicians, which included the end point variables and data required to undertake multivariate analyses.…”