Abstract
Abstract
Background
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) provide important information, however, missing PROM data threaten the interpretability and generalizability of findings by introducing potential bias. This study aims to provide insight into missingness mechanisms and inform future researchers on generalizability and possible methodological solutions to overcome missing PROM data problems during data collection and statistical analyses.
Methods
We identified 10,236 colorectal cancer survivors (CRCs) above 18y, diagnosed between 2014 and 2018 through the Danish Clinical Registries. We invited a random 20% (2,097) to participate in a national survey in May 2023. We distributed reminder e-mails at day 10 and day 20, and compared Initial Responders (response day 0–9), Subsequent Responders (response day 10–28) and Non-responders (no response after 28 days) in demographic and cancer-related characteristics and PROM-scores using linear regression.
Results
Of the 2,097 CRCs, 1,188 responded (57%). Of these, 142 (7%) were excluded leaving 1,955 eligible CRCs. 628 (32%) were categorized as initial responders, 418 (21%) as subsequent responders, and 909 (47%) as non-responders. Differences in demographic and cancer-related characteristics between the three groups were minor and PROM-scores only marginally differed between initial and subsequent responders.
Conclusion
In this study of long-term colorectal cancer survivors, we showed that initial responders, subsequent responders, and non-responders exhibit comparable demographic and cancer-related characteristics. Among respondents, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures were also similar, indicating generalizability. Assuming Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of subsequent responders represent answers by the non-responders (would they be available), it may be reasonable to judge the missingness mechanism as Missing Completely At Random.
Funder
University of Southern Denmark
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference48 articles.
1. The global. Regional, and national burden of colorectal cancer and its attributable risk factors in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2017, the lancet. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4:913–33.
2. Kluetz PG, Slagle A, Papadopoulos EJ, Johnson LL, Donoghue M, Kwitkowski VE, Chen WH, Sridhara R, Farrell AT, Keegan P, Kim G, Pazdur R. Focusing on Core patient-reported outcomes in Cancer clinical trials: symptomatic adverse events, physical function, and Disease-related symptoms, clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 22 (2016) 1553–8.
3. Maspero M, Hull T. Patient-reported outcomes in colorectal surgery. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2023;36:240–51.
4. Mercieca-Bebber R, King MT, Calvert MJ, Stockler MR, Friedlander M. The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization. Patient Relat Outcome Measures. 2018;9:353–67.
5. Giesinger JM, Efficace F, Aaronson N, Calvert M, Kyte D, Cottone F, Cella D, Gamper EM. Past and current practice of patient-reported outcome measurement in Randomized Cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Value Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2021;24:585–91.