P09.03.A DEVELOPMENT OF A CORE OUTCOME SET FOR USE IN ADULT PRIMARY GLIOMA PHASE III INTERVENTIONAL TRIALS - A MIXED METHODS STUDY

Abstract BACKGROUND Glioma patients’ high symptom burden and the poor prognosis of high grade glioma has emphasised quality of survival and overall health-related quality of life (HRQOL) throughout the disease trajectory in clinical trials. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow insight into how investigative treatment affects patients’ perceived functioning, complementing other outcome data (e.g. survival, radiological response) in clinical decision-making. Creating robust evidence requires effective data synthesis and meta-analyses across trials, underpinned by consistent trial outcome measurement, analysis and reporting. However, a standard ontology is lacking in cancer clinical trials, and brain tumours specifically, and selective outcome reporting is common. Core outcome set (COS) development is one means to improve data synthesis. The COBra project aimed to develop a COS for use in glioma phase III trials in support of those goals. Given stakeholder interest in PROs and prioritising the patient perspective, we also undertook initial exploration of which items could be patient reportable. MATERIAL AND METHODS A COS for adult primary glioma phase III interventional trials was developed through: (1) trial registry review and systematic review of qualitative studies; (2) interviews with glioma patients and caregivers; (3) outcome list de-duplication; (4) two-round Delphi process and outcome list rating; (5) a consensus meeting to finalise the COS. Patient-reportable COS outcomes were identified by cross-referencing the final COS outcomes with outcomes and PRO measures (PROMs) reported in the trial registry review. Activities were guided by UK Patient and Public Involvement standards and public contributors were core research team members. RESULTS A COS consisting of 19 outcomes grouped into seven outcome domains (Survival, Adverse Events, Activities of Daily Living, HRQOL, Seizure Activity, Cognitive Function and Physical Function) was finalised for use in glioma trials using this structured approach. Mapping PROMs identified in the registry review suggests that sub-domains of 6/7 outcome domains in the final COS can be patient-reported (adverse events, activities of daily living, HRQOL, seizure activity, neurocognitive function, physical function). Other currently unidentified instruments may also be suitable. Further research will identify appropriate measurement tools, promote accessible PRO delivery, and validate this COS for wider use. CONCLUSION A COS for glioma trials was developed, comprising seven outcome domains. Development of this COS coincides with growing regulatory interest in patient-reported data. To optimise data synthesis and prioritise the patient perspective, opportunities to collect data in this way should be promoted and taken. As such, this COS could be considered for use in registrational trials after further validation.