Time to health-related quality of life score deterioration as a modality of longitudinal analysis for health-related quality of life studies in oncology: do we need RECIST for quality of life to achieve standardization? Qual Life Res. 2015;24:5-18. [PMID: 24277234 PMCID: PMC4282717 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-013-0583-6]

Health-state utility values and their time to deterioration in informal caregivers of older patients with chronic diseases

Objectives

This study aimed to assess health state utility values (HSUVs) in caregivers of older patients with chronic diseases receiving or not receiving social worker support.

Methods

This multicentric open-label randomized study assigned caregivers to receive either an informational booklet alone or one accompanied by social worker support. Caregivers completed EQ-5D-3L each semester for 24 months. We reported caregiver HSUVs at baseline and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months using EQ-5D-3L utility index scores and exploring their time to deterioration (TTD).

Results

Among 179 included caregivers, the percentage reporting some or extreme problems on five EQ-5D-3L dimensions remained almost stable over time with a median EQ-5D-3L utility index score of 0.89 [0.80-1.00] at baseline (n = 177), 0.80 [0.80-0.89] at M6 (n = 125), and 0.80 [0.73-0.91] at M24 (n = 81). Among the respondents, 62% (n = 109) experienced a deterioration in EQ-5D-3L utility index score, with a median TTD of 9.1 months [95%CI 6.2-14.9] in the control group (CG) and 9.5 months [6.3-14.4] in the supportive intervention group (SIG) (HR = 1.06 [0.73-1.54]), p-value = 0.76.

Conclusion

Our study provides a catalog of HSUVs across different caregiver profiles and at various follow-up time points, which can inform future economic evaluations.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02626377.

Health-related quality of life with belzutifan versus everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma (LITESPARK-005): patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The first-in-class hypoxia-inducible factor-2α (HIF-2α) inhibitor belzutifan is approved for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma previously treated with immune checkpoint and anti-angiogenic therapy based on results of the phase 3 LITESPARK-005 trial. We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from LITESPARK-005.

METHODS

LITESPARK-005 was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled phase 3 trial conducted at 147 hospitals and cancer centres in six regions. Eligible participants were 18 years or older with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma, had a Karnofsky Performance Status score of 70% or higher, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1, had disease progression on or after treatment with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy and a VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor (in sequence or in combination), and had received no more than three previous systemic lines of therapy. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally using interactive voice-response and web-response systems to receive either belzutifan 120 mg orally once daily or everolimus 10 mg orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic score and number of previous VEGF-targeted or VEGF receptor-targeted therapies. The dual primary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival, results of which have been reported previously. In this study, prespecified secondary patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from LITESPARK-005 were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Cancer Symptom Index: Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). The PRO analysis population included all participants who received at least one dose of study therapy and completed at least one PRO assessment. Least-squares mean change from baseline in PROs at week 17 was assessed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model. Time to deterioration in physical functioning (prespecified) and role functioning (post hoc), as assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30, were also evaluated in the PRO analysis population. This trial is ongoing, closed to recruitment, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04195750.

FINDINGS

Between March 10, 2020, and Jan 19, 2022, 996 participants were screened for eligibility and 746 participants were randomly assigned to belzutifan (n=374) or everolimus (n=372). The PRO full analysis set population included 366 participants in the belzutifan group and 354 in the everolimus group. Median time from randomisation to the database cutoff date (June 13, 2023) was 25·7 months (IQR 21·7-30·4). Completion rates for FKSI-DRS and QLQ-C30 were higher than 94% at baseline and higher than 55% at week 17 in each group. Change from baseline to week 17 in FKSI-DRS score (difference in least-squares mean between groups 1·5 [95% CI 0·7 to 2·2]) and QLQ-C30 global health status-quality of life (QOL) score (6·4 [3·2 to 9·6]) suggested stability with belzutifan versus worsening with everolimus. Change from baseline to week 17 was similar between groups for QLQ-C30 physical functioning (difference in least-squares mean 2·5 [95% CI -0·6 to 5·5]) and QLQ-C30 role functioning (4·2 [0·1 to 8·4]) subscale scores. Time to deterioration was similar between the belzutifan and everolimus groups for EORTC physical functioning (median 19·3 months [95% CI 11·1 to not reached] in the belzutifan group vs 13·8 months [10·6 to not reached] in the everolimus group; hazard ratio 0·93 [95% CI 0·72 to 1·20]) and role functioning (median 12·0 months [9·2 to not reached] vs 10·2 months [4·7 to 14·4]; 0·88 [0·69 to 1·11]).

INTERPRETATION

Belzutifan for advanced renal cell carcinoma was associated with improved disease-specific symptoms and QOL compared with everolimus. Taken together with the efficacy and safety data from LITESPARK-005, belzutifan could offer a clinical benefit without compromising the QOL of patients in this setting.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Impact of adapted physical activity and diet counselling on health-related quality of life in women undergoing adjuvant breast cancer therapy

In the monocentric APAD1 trial, 143 women with non-metastatic breast cancer were randomised to undergo either an adapted physical activity and diet counselling (APAD) program or usual care. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was prospectively evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire at baseline, during treatment (adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy) and during follow-up. Our objective was two-fold: to analyse the impact of APAD on HRQoL using three approaches; to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and derive methodological recommendations. Analytical approaches utilised were: statistical testing to compare the mean HRQoL scores between baseline and end of study in both groups and the mean HRQoL scores between the two groups at the different assessment times; linear mixed models that modelled the longitudinal score data in both groups and tested whether the score trajectories were different between the groups; a survival analysis comparing the time to deterioration of HRQoL between the groups using a minimal clinically important difference. This study shows a substantial clinical benefit of the APAD intervention on HRQoL, especially for global health status/HRQoL, functioning scales and the fatigue symptom scale. Furthermore, this study highlights the advantages and disadvantages of three standard approaches used to analyse HRQoL data.Trial registration: The APAD1 study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01495650, date 20/12/2011).

Cost-minimization analysis of the GORTEC 2014-04 randomized phase II study of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) or chemotherapy-SABR in oligometastatic head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

The randomized phase II GORTEC 2014-04 and French Head and Neck Intergroup study showed deeper deterioration of the quality of life (HRQoL) and dramatically higher severe toxicity rates with similar overall survival rates using chemo-SABR compared to SABR alone in oligometastatic head and neck cancer (HNSCC) patients. We evaluated the costs associated with SABR-alone versus chemo-SABR and their associated costs (transportation, hospitalizations, etc).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

69 HNSCC patients with 1-3 oligometastases and a controlled primary were randomized from September 2015 to October 2022. HRQoL by the QLQ-C30, QLQ-HN35, descriptive EQ5D-3L and visual EQ-VAS self-rated questionnaires were completed for clinical benefit and economic utility appraisal. Direct medical treatment-related costs (radiotherapy, anticancer drugs, hospital stays, serious adverse event management, medical imaging, biological surveillance and medical transports) were analyzed from randomization until 12 months (M12, including per protocol and salvage treatments) or death. Utility index scores and deterioration rates were used. Based on equivalent outcomes, a cost-minimization analysis was performed..

RESULTS

Median EQ-5D-3L utility index scores were 0.84 at baseline and 0.87 at M12 for SABR-alone; corresponding to 0.85 and 0.57 for chemo-SABR. Rates of patients free of definitive EQ-VAS deterioration at M12 were 76.9 % and 63.8 % for SABR-alone and chemo-SABR. Mean quality-adjusted PFS was 12.1 and 11.0 months with SABR-alone and chemo-SABR. The mean total costs from the French Public health system perspective were €8,498 ± 3,599 for SABR-alone, and €48,034 ± 58,228 for chemo-SABR (p < 10-4). Sensitivity analyses confirmed cost savings around €35,000-€40,000 per patient using SABR-alone. Anticancer drugs and hospital stays were cost drivers. The economic burden increased by 269 ± 66 % with chemo-SABR compared to SABR-alone (p < 10-4).

CONCLUSIONS

in addition to clinical benefits, SABR-alone appears as the least costly option (by a factor of 5) for the management of oligometastases from HNSCC.

Patient-reported quality of life in Asian patients with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer treated with palbociclib plus letrozole in the PALOMA-4 trial

BACKGROUND

Palbociclib plus an aromatase inhibitor is approved for treatment of patients with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). In the PALOMA-4 trial, adding palbociclib to letrozole prolonged median progression-free survival in Asian women with ER+/HER2- ABC. Here, we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from PALOMA-4.

METHODS

PALOMA-4 was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial of palbociclib plus letrozole vs. placebo plus letrozole treatment in postmenopausal Asian women with ER+/HER2- ABC. PROs were longitudinally assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) and EuroQoL 5D three level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaires. Group comparisons were analyzed using longitudinal, mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Patients were randomly assigned to palbociclib plus letrozole (n = 169) or placebo plus letrozole (n = 171) treated groups. No significant between-arm differences in change from baseline were observed in FACT-B and its subscales, or the EQ-5D-3L index. A significant, but not clinically meaningful difference was observed in change from baseline in mean EQ-VAS score favoring palbociclib plus letrozole (3.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-5.83; P = 0.008). When patients from both arms were combined, significant differences in the mean change from baseline for FACT-B total were observed favoring treatment responders vs. non-responders (3.84; 95% CI, 0.33-7.36; P = 0.032) and for the Breast Cancer Subscale favoring patients without disease progression vs. those with progression (0.97; 95% CI, 0.05-1.89; P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of life was maintained when palbociclib was added to letrozole in Asian women with ABC. These findings are consistent with PALOMA-2 results and support the use of palbociclib as first-line treatment in postmenopausal Asian patients with ER+/HER2- ABC.

REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02297438.

Time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer clinical trials: targeted literature review and best practice recommendations

BACKGROUND

Time to deterioration (TTD) endpoints are often utilized in the analysis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in oncology clinical trials but different endpoint definitions and analysis frameworks exist that can impact result interpretation. This review examined the analysis, reporting and heterogeneity of TTD endpoints in the literature, the impact of analysis methods on results, and provides recommendations for future trials.

METHODS

A targeted literature review of articles published between 2017 and 2022 was performed to collate TTD endpoints reported in oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Details of endpoints and results were extracted including; deterioration definition, PRO assessment schedule, methods for handling intercurrent events, statistical analysis methods, main trial results (overall survival and/or progression-free survival) and TTD endpoint results.

RESULTS

Seventy RCTs were included covering 849 individual TTD endpoints. There were 17 primary cancer types, with lung (26%), breast (11%), and prostate (7%) cancers the most common. Most trials (71%) were for people with advanced cancer. Full definitions of TTD endpoints were often missing. There were no clear trends for a specific TTD definition within cancer types or stages. However, statistical analysis methods were consistent among trials.

CONCLUSION

The TTD definition can vary and is ultimately driven by the research question. Points to consider for successfully implementing PRO TTD endpoints in oncology include consideration of the trial setting (e.g., early vs. advanced cancer), expected treatment effect (e.g., improvement vs. worsening), likely adverse event profile (including early vs. delayed) and PRO data collection frequency in order to improve utility of these endpoints.

Venetoclax-obinutuzumab for previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia: 6-year results of the randomized phase 3 CLL14 study

ABSTRACT

In the CLL14 study, patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and coexisting conditions were randomized to 12 cycles of venetoclax-obinutuzumab (Ven-Obi, n = 216) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (Clb-Obi, n = 216). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Key secondary end points included time-to-next-treatment (TTNT), rates of undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD), overall survival (OS), and rates of adverse events. Patient reported outcomes of time until definitive deterioration (TUDD) in quality of life (QoL) were analyzed. At a median observation time of 76.4 months, PFS remained superior for Ven-Obi compared with Clb-Obi (median, 76.2 vs 36.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.52; P < .0001). Likewise, TTNT was longer after Ven-Obi (6-year TTNT, 65.2% vs 37.1%; HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.33-0.58; P < .0001). In the Ven-Obi arm, presence of del(17p), unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region, and lymph node size of ≥5 cm were independent prognostic factors for shorter PFS. The 6-year OS rate was 78.7% in the Ven-Obi and 69.2% in the Clb-Obi arm (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = .052). A significantly longer TUDD in global health status/QoL was observed in the Ven-Obi than in the Clb-Obi arm (median, 82.1 vs 65.1 months; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.97). Follow-up-adjusted second primary malignancies incidence rates were 2.3 and 1.4 per 1000 patient-months in the Ven-Obi and Clb-Obi arm, respectively. The sustained long-term survival and QoL benefits support the use of 1-year fixed-duration Ven-Obi in CLL. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02242942.

Correlation analyses of radiographic progression-free survival with clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Analysis of the phase 3 VISION trial

BACKGROUND

[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (177Lu-PSMA-617) plus protocol-permitted standard of care (SOC) prolonged overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) versus SOC in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the phase 3 VISION study, in addition to beneficial effects on symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

METHODS

Post hoc analyses used the full analysis set from the VISION study (N = 831) overall and by randomized treatment arm (177Lu-PSMA-617 plus SOC, n = 551; SOC, n = 280). Correlations were determined between OS and rPFS and between rPFS or OS and time to SSE or to worsening HRQOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P] and 5-level EQ-5D [EQ-5D-5L]). Correlation analyses used an iterative multiple imputation copula-based approach (correlation coefficients [rho] of <0.3 were defined as weak, ≥0.3 and <0.5 as mild, ≥0.5 and <0.7 as moderate, and ≥0.7 as strong).

RESULTS

In the overall population, rPFS correlated strongly with OS (rho, ≥0.7). Correlations between rPFS or OS and time to SSE without death were weak or mild. Time to worsening in the FACT-P total score and emotional and physical well-being domains correlated mildly or moderately with rPFS and moderately with OS. Correlation coefficients for time-to-worsening EQ-5D-5L scores were mild to moderate for both rPFS and OS. Correlation coefficients were similar between treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of the VISION study, rPFS correlated strongly with OS but not with time to SSE or worsening HRQOL. These findings require further investigation.

Early palliative care and overall survival in patients with metastatic upper gastrointestinal cancers (EPIC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled phase 3 trial

Background

Early palliative care (EPC) leads to an improvement in quality of life and an unexpected survival benefit compared with oncological care for patients with metastatic lung cancer. The Early Palliative Integrated Care (EPIC) is aimed at examining whether EPC can improve overall survival in patients with metastatic upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Methods

We performed a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase-3 trial. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, had metastatic upper gastrointestinal cancer and a performance status of 0-2. Patients from 19 French centres were randomly assigned between 10/10/2016 and 17/12/2021 to receive EPC plus oncological care or standard oncological care (SOC) alone. EPC was provided by palliative care physicians and included five EPC visits scheduled every month, starting within 3 weeks after randomisation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention-to-treat. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02853474).

Findings

470 patients were randomised: 233 and 237 patients in the EPC and SOC groups, respectively. In the EPC group, 216/233 patients (92.7%) underwent ≥1EPC visit, with 159 EPC visits per protocol (68.2%). The median follow-up duration was 46 months. We did not observe any overall survival difference between the EPC (median = 7.0 months [95% confidence interval, 6.1-8.8]) and SOC groups (8.6 months [6.8-9.8]) (stratified hazard ratio = 1.04 [0.86-1.26], p = 0.68). No significant heterogeneity was found in primary tumour locations, performance status groups, sex, age groups, and inclusion periods.

Interpretation

Our findings suggested that receiving EPC did not improve the benefit of oncological care with regard to overall survival in patients with metastatic upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Funding

Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, Ligue Contre le Cancer, Conseil Régional du Nord-Pas-de-Calais.

Health-related quality of life and symptoms of chronic myeloid leukemia patients after discontinuation of tyrosine kinase inhibitors: results from the EURO-SKI Trial

Limited data is available on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who are in treatment-free remission (TFR). We herein report HRQoL results from the EURO-SKI trial. Patients who had been on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) therapy for at least 3 years and achieved MR4 for at least 1 year were enrolled from 11 European countries, and the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACIT-Fatigue questionnaires were used to assess HRQoL and fatigue respectively. Patients were categorized into the following age groups: 18-39, 40-59, 60-69 and ≥70 years. Of 728 patients evaluated at baseline, 686 (94%) completed HRQoL assessments. The median age at TKI discontinuation was 60 years. Our findings indicate that HRQoL and symptom trajectories may vary depending on specific age groups, with younger patients benefiting the most. Improvements in patients aged 60 years or older were marginal across several HRQoL and symptom domains. At the time of considering TKI discontinuation, physicians could inform younger patients that they may expect valuable HRQoL benefits. Considering the marginal improvements observed in patients aged 60 years or above, it may be important to further investigate the value of TFR compared to a lowest effective dose approach in this older group of patients.

Toward a more patient-centered drug development process in clinical trials for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS): Practical considerations from the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS)

Notable treatment advances have been made in recent years for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS), and several new drugs are under development. For example, the emerging availability of oral MDS therapies holds the promise of improving patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Within this rapidly evolving landscape, the inclusion of HRQoL and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critical to inform the benefit/risk assessment of new therapies or to assess whether patients live longer and better, for what will likely remain a largely incurable disease. We provide practical considerations to support investigators in generating high-quality PRO data in future MDS trials. We first describe several challenges that are to be thoughtfully considered when designing an MDS-focused clinical trial with a PRO endpoint. We then discuss aspects related to the design of the study, including PRO assessment strategies. We also discuss statistical approaches illustrating the potential value of time-to-event analyses and their implications within the estimand framework. Finally, based on a literature review of MDS randomized controlled trials with a PRO endpoint, we note the PRO items that deserve special attention when reporting future MDS trial results. We hope these practical considerations will facilitate the generation of rigorous PRO data that can robustly inform MDS patient care and support treatment decision-making for this patient population.

[Special issue PRO] A demonstration of estimands and sensitivity analyses for time-to-deterioration of patient reported outcomes

In oncology trials, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), specifically patient-reported symptom burden and functional status, can support the interpretation of survival endpoints, such as progression-free survival. However, applying time-to-event endpoints to patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data is challenging. For example, in time-to-deterioration analyses clinical events such as disease progression are common in many settings and are often handled through censoring the patient at the time of occurrence; however, disease progression and HRQoL are often related leading to informative censoring. Special consideration to the definition of events and intercurrent events (ICEs) is necessary. In this work, we demonstrate time-to-deterioration of PRO estimands and sensitivity analyses to answer research questions using composite, hypothetical, and treatment policy strategies applied to a single endpoint of disease-related symptoms. Multiple imputation methods under both the missing-at-random and missing-not-at-random assumptions are used as sensitivity analyses of primary estimands. Hazard ratios ranged from 0.52 to 0.66 over all the estimands and sensitivity analyses modeling a robust treatment effect favoring the treatment in time to disease symptom deterioration or death. Differences in the estimands include how people who experience disease progression or discontinue the randomized treatment due to AEs are accounted for in the analysis. We use the estimand framework to define interpretable and principled approaches for different time-to-deterioration research questions and provide practical recommendations. Reporting the proportions of patient events and patient censoring by reason helps understand the mechanisms that drive the results, allowing for optimal interpretation.

Predictors of Quality of Life Decline in Patients with Oligometastases treated with Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy: Analysis of the Population-Based SABR-5 Phase II Trial

AIMS

Most patients experience stable quality of life (QoL) after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) treatment for oligometastases. However, a subset of patients experience clinically relevant declines in QoL on post-treatment follow-up. This study aimed to identify risk factors for QoL decline.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SABR-5 trial was a population-based single-arm phase II study of SABR to up to five sites of oligometastases. Prospective QoL was measured using treatment site-specific tools at pre-treatment baseline and 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 30 and 36 months after treatment. The time to persistent QoL decline was calculated as the time from SABR to the first decline in QoL score meeting minimum clinically important difference with no improvement to baseline score on subsequent assessments. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors associated with QoL decline.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-three patients were included with a median follow-up of 32 months (interquartile range 25-43). Thirty-five patients (26%) experienced a persistent decline in QoL. The median time until persistent QoL decline was not reached. The cumulative incidence of QoL decline at 2 and 3 years were 22% (95% confidence interval 14.0-29.6) and 40% (95% confidence interval 28.0-51.2), respectively. In multivariable analysis, disease progression (odds ratio 5.23, 95% confidence interval 1.59-17.47, P = 0.007) and adrenal metastases (odds ratio 9.70, 95% confidence interval 1.41-66.93, P = 0.021) were associated with a higher risk of QoL decline. Grade 3 or higher (odds ratio 3.88, 95% confidence interval 0.92-16.31, P = 0.064) and grade 2 or higher SABR-associated toxicity (odds ratio 2.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85-5.91, P = 0.10) were associated with an increased risk of QoL decline but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease progression and adrenal lesion site were associated with persistent QoL decline following SABR. The development of grade 3 or higher toxicities was also associated with an increased risk, albeit not statistically significant. Further studies are needed, focusing on the QoL impact of metastasis-directed therapies.

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework

Regulatory agencies are advancing the use of systematic approaches to collect patient experience data, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in cancer clinical trials to inform regulatory decision-making. Due in part to clinician under-reporting of symptomatic adverse events, there is a growing recognition that evaluation of cancer treatment tolerability should include the patient experience, both in terms of the overall side effect impact and symptomatic adverse events. Methodologies around implementation, analysis, and interpretation of "patient" reported tolerability are under development, and current approaches are largely descriptive. There is robust guidance for use of PROs as efficacy endpoints to compare cancer treatments, but it is unclear to what extent this can be relied-upon to develop tolerability endpoints. An important consideration when developing endpoints to compare tolerability between treatments is the linkage of trial design, objectives, and statistical analysis. Despite interest in and frequent collection of PRO data in oncology trials, heterogeneity in analyses and unclear PRO objectives mean that design, objectives, and analysis may not be aligned, posing substantial challenges for the interpretation of results. The recent ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework represents an opportunity to help address these challenges. Efforts to apply the estimand framework in the context of PROs have primarily focused on efficacy outcomes. In this paper, we discuss considerations for comparing the patient-reported tolerability of different treatments in an oncology trial context.

Impact of a one-year supervised physical activity program on long-term cancer-related fatigue and mediating effects of the gut microbiota in metastatic testicular cancer patients: protocol of the prospective multicentre, randomized controlled phase-III STARTER trial

BACKGROUND

Testicular germ cell tumours (TGCTs) are the most common malignancy in men aged 15-40 years, with increasing incidence worldwide. About 33 ~ 50% of the patients present with metastatic disease at diagnosis. TGCT survivors experience short- and long-term sequelae, including cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Physical activity (PA) has established effects on reducing CRF and other sequelae and improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, its impact on TGCT survivors has so far received little attention. The gut microbiota plays a crucial role in various physiological functions, including cognition and metabolism, and may mediate the effects of PA on CRF and other sequelae, but this has not been investigated in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

This national, multicentre, phase-III trial will evaluate the impact of a one-year supervised PA program on CRF and other short- and long-term sequelae in metastatic TGCT patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy combined with etoposide+/-bleomycin. It will also investigate potential mediating effects of the gut microbiota and its metabolites involved in the gut-brain axis on the relationship between PA and CRF and other sequelae. A total of 236 men ≥ 18 years of age with metastatic TGCT (seminoma and non-seminoma) will be enrolled before starting first-line chemotherapy in several French hospitals. The primary (CRF) and secondary (cognitive/psychological/metabolic sequelae, HRQoL, etc.) outcomes and gut microbiota and relevant metabolites will be assessed at inclusion, during and at the end of the one-year intervention, and annually until 10 years since inclusion to assess long-term sequelae, more specifically CRF, cardiovascular toxicities, and second primary cancer occurrence in this population.

DISCUSSION

This trial will provide comprehensive and novel insights into the effects of a long-term supervised PA program on CRF and other sequelae in metastatic TGCT patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. It will also contribute to understanding the potential role of the gut microbiota and its metabolites in mediating the effects of PA on these outcomes. The findings of this study will help the development of effective PA interventions to improve the health of TGCT survivors and may have implications for other cancer populations as well.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05588700) on 20 Oct. 2022.

A Research Protocol for a Phase II Single-Arm Clinical Trial Assessing the Feasibility and Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Anastrozole in Patients With Luminal Breast Cancer and Low Proliferative Index: The ANNE Trial

INTRODUCTION

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) is recommended for the treatment of invasive breast cancer (BC), particularly luminal subtypes, in locally advanced stages. Previous randomized studies have demonstrated the benefits of aromatase inhibitors in this context. However, NET is typically reserved for elderly or frail patients who may not tolerate neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Identifying non-responsive patients early and extending treatment for responsive ones would be ideal, yet optimal strategies are awaited.

AIMS

This non-randomized phase 2 clinical trial aims to assess NET feasibility and efficacy in postmenopausal stage II and III luminal BC patients, identifying predictive therapeutic response biomarkers. Efficacy will be gauged by patients with Ki67 ≤ 10% after 4 weeks and Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index (PEPI) scores 0 post-surgery. Study feasibility will be determined by participation acceptance rate (recruitment rate ≥50%) and inclusion rate (>2 patients/month).

METHODS

Postmenopausal women with luminal, HER2-tumors in stages II and III undergo neoadjuvant anastrozole treatment, evaluating continuing NET or receiving chemotherapy through early Ki67 analysis after 2 to 4 weeks. The study assesses NET extension for up to 10 months, using serial follow-ups with standardized breast ultrasound and clinical criteria-based NET suspension. Clinical and pathological responses will be measured overall and in the luminal tumor A subgroup. Toxicity, health-related quality of life, and circulating biomarkers predicting early NET response will also be evaluated.

The estimand framework had implications in time to patient-reported outcomes deterioration analyses in cancer clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

To apply the estimand framework in time to deterioration (TTD) analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and identify the appropriate statistical methods to deal with intercurrent event (IEs) such as death.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Data from phase II randomized trial were used. We estimated TTD using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 questionnaire with death as the IE, by applying Kaplan-Meier (K.M.) estimator and Cox proportional hazards (PH) model. The Fine-Gray approach was explored, accounting for death as a competing risk. The estimands targeted by the aforementioned methods were defined.

RESULTS

We analyzed the data of 64 patients with available questionnaires at baseline. The most notable differences in TTD estimates were observed for deterioration in physical functioning: the hazard ratios were 0.44 [95% CI 0.22-0.90] and 0.62 [95% CI 0.36-1.07] by either ignoring death (31 events) or considering it as deterioration (58 events), respectively (Cox-PH model). When considering death as a competing event (Fine-Gray model), the sub-HRs was 0.51 [95% CI 0.26-1.01].

CONCLUSION

Depending on the proportion and distribution of deaths occurring before deterioration between arms, the Fine-Gray competing risks model should be considered rather than KM estimator and Cox PH model to reflect the patient's experience of the disease and treatment burden.

Patient-reported outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma trials using combinations versus sunitinib as first-line treatment

Over the past 5 years, several new immunotherapy treatments have been tested for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Clinical trials assessing combinations of different immunotherapies, or of an immunotherapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), have reported improved clinical outcomes compared with the standard of care - that is, treatments using TKIs alone. However, to understand the holistic impact of new treatments on patients, physicians must also consider effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on HRQoL are often treated as a secondary outcome in clinical trials, their collection and reporting are non-standardized and, therefore, difficult to compare and interpret. However, results from six clinical trials indicate that two immunotherapy treatments overwhelmingly outperform sunitinib in HRQoL measurements: nivolumab plus cabozantinib (CheckMate 9ER) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (IMmotion151). An additional two treatments generally outperform sunitinib: nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 214) and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (CLEAR). Of three studies that reported no difference from sunitinib, two suffered design flaws that might have obscured HRQoL benefits (JAVELIN Renal 101 and KEYNOTE-426). To ensure future HRQoL data are of the highest quality and comparable across trials, future studies should adopt best practices for the design, analysis and reporting of PROMs.

Applications of Machine Learning in Palliative Care: A Systematic Review

Objective: To summarize the available literature on using machine learning (ML) for palliative care practice as well as research and to assess the adherence of the published studies to the most important ML best practices. Methods: The MEDLINE database was searched for the use of ML in palliative care practice or research, and the records were screened according to PRISMA guidelines. Results: In total, 22 publications using machine learning for mortality prediction (n = 15), data annotation (n = 5), predicting morbidity under palliative therapy (n = 1), and predicting response to palliative therapy (n = 1) were included. Publications used a variety of supervised or unsupervised models, but mostly tree-based classifiers and neural networks. Two publications had code uploaded to a public repository, and one publication uploaded the dataset. Conclusions: Machine learning in palliative care is mainly used to predict mortality. Similarly to other applications of ML, external test sets and prospective validations are the exception.

Evaluation of efficacy and safety for compound kushen injection combined with intraperitoneal chemotherapy for patients with malignant ascites: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: Compound Kushen injection (CKI) combined with intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IPC) is widely used in the treatment of malignant ascites (MA). However, evidence about its efficacy and safety remains limited. This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CKI combined with IPC for the treatment of MA. Methods: Protocol of this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022304259). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of IPC with CKI for the treatment of patients with MA were searched through 12 electronic databases and 2 clinical trials registration platforms from inception until 20 January 2023. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included trials through the risk of bias assessment. We included RCTs that compared IPC single used or CKI combined with IPC for patients with MA schedule to start IPC. The primary outcome was identified as an objective response rate (ORR), while the secondary outcomes were identified as the quality of life (QoL), survival time, immune functions, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The Revman5.4 and Stata17 software were used to calculate the risk ratio (RR) at 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) at 95% CI for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the GRADE criteria. Results: A total of 17 RCTs were assessed, which included 1200 patients. The risk of bias assessment of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool revealed that one study was rated high risk and the remaining as unclear or low risk. Meta-analysis revealed that CKI combined with IPC had an advantage in increasing ORR (RR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.43, p < 0.00001) and QoL (RR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.83, p < 0.0001) when compared with IPC alone. Moreover, the combined treatment group showed a lower incidence of myelosuppression (RR = 0.51, 95%CI 0.40-0.64, p < 0.00001), liver dysfunction (RR = 0.33, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.70, p = 0.004), renal dysfunction (RR = 0.39, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.89, p = 0.02), and fever (RR = 0.51, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.75, p = 0.0007) compared to those of the control group. The quality of evidence assessment through GRADE criteria showed that ORR, myelosuppression, and fever were rated moderate, renal dysfunction and liver dysfunction were rated low, and QoL and abdominal pain were rated very low. Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of CKI combined with IPC were superior to that with IPC alone for the treatment of MA, which indicates the potentiality of the treatment. However, more high-quality RCTs are required to validate this conclusion. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022304259], identifier [PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022304259].

The association between variables of cardiopulmonary exercise test and quality of life in patients with chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy (Insights from the PEACH STUDY)

Studies investigating the association between functional capacity and quality of life (QoL) in individuals with chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy (CCC) usually do not include a gold-standard evaluation of functional capacity, limiting the validity and the interpretation of the results. The present study is a cross-section analysis aiming to evaluate the association between functional capacity (quantified by cardiopulmonary exercise test [CPET]) and QoL in individuals with CCC. QoL was assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire. Sociodemographic, anthropometric, clinical, cardiac function and maximal progressive CPET variables were obtained from PEACH study. Generalized linear models adjusted for age, sex, and left ventricular ejection fraction were performed to evaluate the association between CPET variables and QoL. After adjustments, VO2 peak and VO2 AT were both associated with physical functioning (β = +0.05 and β = +0.05, respectively) and physical component summary (β = +0.03 and β = +0.03, respectively). Double product was associated with physical functioning (β = +0.003), general health perceptions (β = +0.003), physical component summary (β = +0.002), and vitality (β = +0.004). HRR≤12bpm was associated with physical functioning (β = -0.32), role limitations due to physical problems (β = -0.87), bodily pain (β = -0.26), physical component summary (β = -0.21), vitality (β = -0.38), and mental health (β = -0.19). VE/VCO2 slope presented association with all mental scales of SF-36: vitality (β = -0.028), social functioning (β = -0.024), role limitations due to emotional problems (β = -0.06), mental health (β = -0.04), and mental component summary (β = -0.02). The associations between CPET variables and QoL demonstrate the importance of CPET inclusion for a more comprehensive evaluation of individuals with CCC. In this setting, intervention strategies aiming to improve functional capacity may also promote additional benefits on QoL and should be incorporated as a treatment strategy for patients with CCC.

Patient-reported outcomes in ZUMA-7, a phase 3 study of axicabtagene ciloleucel in second-line large B-cell lymphoma

Here, we report the first comparative analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy vs standard-of-care (SOC) therapy in second-line relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) from the pivotal randomized phase 3 ZUMA-7 study of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) vs SOC. PRO instruments were administered at baseline, day 50, day 100, day 150, month 9, and every 3 months from randomization until 24 months or an event-free survival event. The quality of life (QoL) analysis set comprised patients with a baseline and ≥1 follow-up PRO completion. Prespecified hypotheses for Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) physical functioning, global health status/QoL, and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS) were tested using mixed-effects models with repeated measures. Clinically meaningful changes were defined as 10 points for QLQ-C30 and 7 for EQ-5D-5L VAS. Among 359 patients, 296 (165 axi-cel, 131 SOC) met inclusion criteria for QoL analysis. At day 100, statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences in mean change of scores from baseline were observed favoring axi-cel over SOC for QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL (estimated difference 18.1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 12.3-23.9]), physical functioning (13.1 [95% CI, 8.0-18.2]), and EQ-5D-5L VAS (13.7 [95% CI, 8.5-18.8]; P < .0001 for all). At day 150, scores significantly favored axi-cel vs SOC for global health status/QoL (9.8 [95% CI, 2.6-17.0]; P = .0124) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (11.3 [95% CI, 5.4-17.1]; P = .0004). Axi-cel showed clinically meaningful improvements in QoL over SOC. Superior clinical outcomes and favorable patient experience with axi-cel should help inform treatment choices in second-line R/R LBCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03391466.

Statistical methods and graphical displays of quality of life with survival outcomes in oncology clinical trials for supporting the estimand framework

Background

Although there are discussions regarding standards of the analysis of patient-reported outcomes and quality of life (QOL) in oncology clinical trials, that of QOL with death events is not within their scope. For example, ignoring death can lead to bias in the QOL analysis for patients with moderate or high mortality rates in the palliative care setting. This is discussed in the estimand framework but is controversial. Information loss by summary measures under the estimand framework may make it challenging for clinicians to interpret the QOL analysis results. This study illustrated the use of graphical displays in the framework. They can be helpful for discussions between clinicians and statisticians and decision-making by stakeholders.

Methods

We reviewed the time-to-deterioration analysis, prioritized composite outcome approach, semi-competing risk analysis, survivor analysis, linear mixed model for repeated measures, and principal stratification approach. We summarized attributes of estimands and graphs in the statistical analysis and evaluated them in various hypothetical randomized controlled trials.

Results

Graphs for each analysis method provide different information and impressions. In the time-to-deterioration analysis, it was not easy to interpret the difference in the curves as an effect on QOL. The prioritized composite outcome approach provided new insights for QOL considering death by defining better conditions based on the distinction of OS and QOL. The semi-competing risk analysis provided different insights compared with the time-to-deterioration analysis and prioritized composite outcome approach. Due to the missing assumption, graphs by the linear mixed model for repeated measures should be carefully interpreted, even for descriptive purposes. The principal stratification approach provided pure comparison, but the interpretation was difficult because the target population was unknown.

Conclusions

Graphical displays can capture different aspects of treatment effects that should be described in the estimand framework.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01735-1.

Tailored Strategy for Locally Advanced Rectal Carcinoma (GRECCAR 4): Long-term Results From a Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase II Trial

BACKGROUND

Systematic preoperative radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision are the standard of care for locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Some patients can be over- or undertreated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the long-term oncological, functional, and late morbidity outcomes after tailored radiochemotherapy and induction high-dose chemotherapy.

DESIGN

This is a prospective, phase II, multicenter, open-label study at 16 tertiary centers in France.

SETTINGS

Patients were operated on by surgeons from the French GRECCAR group.

PATIENTS

Two hundred six patients were randomly assigned to treatment: good responders after chemotherapy (≥75% tumor volume reduction) to immediate surgery (arm A) or standard radiochemotherapy (capecitabine 50) plus surgery (arm B) and poor responders to capecitabine 50 (arm C) or intensive radiochemotherapy (capecitabine 60; 60 Gy irradiation; arm D) before surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Treatment was tailored according to MRI response to induction chemotherapy.

RESULTS

After induction treatment, 194 patients were classified as good (n = 30, 15%) or poor (n = 164, 85%) responders; they were included in arms A and B (16 and 14 patients) or C and D (113 and 51 patients). The primary objective was obtained: R0 resection rates (90% CI) in the 4 arms were 100% (74-100), 100% (85-100), 83% (72-91), and 88% (77-95). At 5 years, overall survival rates were 90% (47.3-98.5), 93.3% (61.3-99.0), 84.3% (71.0-91.8), and 86.1% (71.6-93.5); disease-free survival rates were 80% (40.9-94.6), 89.5% (64.1-97.3), 72.9% (58.5-82.9), and 72.8% (57.7-83.2); local recurrence rates were 0%, 0%, 2.1% (0.3-13.9), and 9.3% (3.6-23.0); and metastasis rates were 20% (5.4-59.1), 10.5% (2.7-35.9), 18% (31.8-94.6), and 18.8% (10.2-33.0). Late morbidity and quality-of-life evaluations showed no significant difference between arms.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations were due to the small number of patients randomly assigned in the good responder arms, especially arm A without radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Tailoring preoperative radiochemotherapy based on induction treatment response appears to be promising. Future prospective trials should confirm this strategy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B761 .

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Identifier: NCT01333709.

ESTRATEGIA HECHA A MEDIDA PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CARCINOMA DE RECTO LOCALMENTE AVANZADO GRECCAR RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE UN ESTUDIO ALEATRIO MULTICNTRICO Y ABIERTO DE FASE II

ANTECEDENTES:La radio-quimioterapia pré-operatoria sistemáticas y la excisión total del mesorrecto son el estándar en el tratamiento del carcinoma de recto localmente avanzado. En éste sentido, algunos pacientes podrían recibir un sobre o un infra-tratamiento.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los resultados oncológicos, funcionales y de morbilidad a largo plazo después de radio-quimioterapia personalizada y quimioterapia de inducción a dosis elevadas.DISEÑO:Estudio aleatório multicéntrico y abierto de Fase II° realizado en 16 centros terciarios en Francia.AJUSTE:Aquellos pacientes operados por cirujanos del grupo GRECCAR francés.PACIENTES:206 pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente al tratamiento: los buenos respondedores después de quimioterapia (reducción del volumen tumoral ≥75%) a la cirugía inmediata (brazo A) o a la radio-quimioterapia estándar (Cap 50) asociada a la cirugía (brazo B); los malos respondedores a Cap 50 (brazo C) o a la radio-quimioterapia intensiva (Cap 60 (irradiación de 60 Gy) (brazo D) previas a la cirugía.INTERVENCIONES:Tratamiento adaptado según la respuesta de la RM a la TC de inducción.RESULTADOS:Después del tratamiento de inducción, 194 pacientes fueron clasificados como buenos (n = 30, 15%) o malos (n = 164, 85%) respondedores, y se incluyeron en los brazos A y B (16 y 14 pacientes) o C y D (113 y 51 pacientes). Se alcanzó el objetivo principal: las tasas de resección R0 [intervalo de confianza del 90%] en los cuatro brazos respectivamente, fueron del 100% [74-100], 100% [85-100], 83% [72-91] y 88% [77-95]. A los 5 años, las tasas fueron: de sobrevida global 90% [47,3-98,5], 93,3% [61,3-99,0], 84,3% [71,0-91,8], 86,1% [71,6-93,5]; de sobrevida libre a la enfermedad 80% [40,9-94,6], 89,5% [64,1-97,3], 72,9% [58,5-82,9], 72,8% [57,7-83,2]; de recidiva local 0, 0, 2,1% [0,3-13,9], 9,3% [3,6-23,0]; de metástasis 20% [5,4-59,1], 10,5% [2,7-35,9], 18% [31,8-94,6], 18,8% [10,2-33,0]. La evaluación tardía de la morbilidad y la calidad de vida no mostraron diferencias significativas entre los brazos.LIMITACIONES:Debido al pequeño número de pacientes asignados al azar en los brazos de buenos respondedores, especialmente en el brazo A de aquellos sin radioterapia.CONCLUSIÓN:Parecería muy prometedor el adaptar la radio-quimioterapia pré-operatoria basada en la respuesta al tratamiento de inducción. Estudios prospectivos en el futuro podrán confirmar la presente estrategia. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B761 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo )IDENTIFICADOR DE CLINICALTRIALS.GOV:NCT01333709. Groupe de REcherche Chirurgicale sur le CAncer du Rectum.

Dose-escalated radiotherapy to 82 Gy for prostate cancer following insertion of a peri-rectal hydrogel spacer: 3-year outcomes from a phase II trial

BACKGROUND

Dose-escalation to above 80 Gy during external beam radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer leads to improved oncological outcomes but also substantially increased rectal toxicity. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of escalating the dose to 82 Gy following insertion of a peri-rectal hydrogel spacer (HS) prior to radiotherapy.

METHODS

This was a single arm, open-label, prospective study of men with localised prostate cancer who were prescribed a course of intensity modulated radiotherapy escalated to 82 Gy in 2 Gy fractions following insertion of the SpaceOAR™ HS (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). Patients were prescribed a standard course of 78 Gy in 2 Gy fractions where rectal dose constraints could not be met for the 82 Gy plan. The co-primary endpoints were the rate of grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) adverse events (CTCAE, v4), and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) (EORTC QLQ-C30 and PR25 modules), up to 37.5 months post-treatment.

RESULTS

Seventy patients received treatment on the study, with 64 (91.4%) receiving an 82 Gy treatment course. The median follow-up time post-treatment was 37.4 months. The rate of radiotherapy-related grade 3 GI and GU adverse events was 0% and 2.9%, respectively. There were 2 (2.9%) grade 3 adverse events related to insertion of the HS. Only small and transient declines in QoL were observed; there was no clinically or statistically significant decline in QoL beyond 13.5 months and up to 37.5 months post-treatment, compared to baseline. No late RTOG-defined grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity was observed, with no GI toxicity observed in any patient at 37.5 months post-treatment. Nine (12.9%) patients met criteria for biochemical failure within the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose-escalation to 82 Gy, facilitated by use of a hydrogel spacer, is safe and feasible, with minimal toxicity up to 37.5 months post-treatment when compared to rates of rectal toxicity in previous dose-escalation trials up to 80 Gy. Trials with longer follow-up of oncological and functional outcomes are required to robustly demonstrate a sustained widening of the therapeutic window. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12621000056897 , 22/01/2021. Retrospectively registered.

How scoring limits the usability of minimal important differences (MIDs) as responder definition (RD): an exemplary demonstration using EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales

PURPOSE

The recommended method for establishing a meaningful threshold for individual changes in patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores over time uses an anchor-based method. The patients assess their perceived level of change and this is used to define a threshold on the PRO score which may be considered meaningful to the patient. In practice, such an anchor may not be available. In the absence of alternative information often the meaningful change threshold for assessing between-group differences, the minimally important difference, is used to define meaningful change at the individual level too. This paper will highlight the issues with this, especially where the underlying measurement scale is not continuous.

METHODS

Using the EORTC QLQ-C30 as an example, plausible score increments ("state changes") are calculated for each subscale highlighting why commonly used thresholds may be misleading, including leading to sensitivity analyses that are inadvertently testing the same underlying threshold.

RESULTS

The minimal possible individual score change varies across subscales; 6.7 for Physical Functioning, 8.3 for Global Health Scale and Emotional Functioning, 11.1 for fatigue, 16.7 for role functioning, cognitive functioning, social functioning, nausea and vomiting, pain and 33.3 for single items.

CONCLUSIONS

The determination of meaningful change for an individual patient requires input from the patients but being mindful of the underlying scale ensures that these thresholds are also guided by what is a plausible change for patients to achieve on the scale.

Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in Patients with Resected Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Who Received Adjuvant Osimertinib in the Phase III ADAURA Trial

PURPOSE

In the phase III ADAURA trial, adjuvant treatment with osimertinib versus placebo, with/without prior adjuvant chemotherapy, resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful disease-free survival benefit in completely resected stage IB-IIIA EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes from ADAURA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients randomized 1:1 received oral osimertinib 80 mg or placebo for 3 years or until recurrence/discontinuation. HRQoL (secondary endpoint) was measured using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey at baseline, 12, and 24 weeks, then every 24 weeks until recurrence or treatment completion/discontinuation. Exploratory analyses of SF-36 score changes from baseline until week 96 and time to deterioration (TTD) were performed in the overall population (stage IB-IIIA; N = 682). Clinically meaningful changes were defined using the SF-36 manual.

RESULTS

Baseline physical/mental component summary (PCS/MCS) scores were comparable between osimertinib and placebo (range, 46-47) and maintained to Week 96, with no clinically meaningful differences between arms; difference in adjusted least squares (LS) mean [95% confidence intervals (CI), -1.18 (-2.02 to -0.34) and -1.34 (-2.40 to -0.28), for PCS and MCS, respectively. There were no differences between arms for TTD of PCS and MCS; HR, 1.17 (95% CI, 0.82-1.67) and HR, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.70-1.39), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

HRQoL was maintained with adjuvant osimertinib in patients with stage IB-IIIA EGFRm NSCLC, who were disease-free after complete resection, with no clinically meaningful differences versus placebo, further supporting adjuvant osimertinib as a new treatment in this setting. See related commentary by Patil and Bunn, p. 2204.

Quality of life with encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib treatment in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: patient-reported outcomes from BEACON CRC

Background

In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), encorafenib plus cetuximab with binimetinib {9.3 versus 5.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.60 [0.47-0.75]} or without binimetinib [9.3 versus 5.9 months; HR (95% CI): 0.61 (0.48-0.77)] significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with the previous standard of care (control) in patients with BRAF V600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Quality of life (QoL) was a secondary endpoint, assessed using validated instruments.

Patients and methods

BEACON CRC was a randomized, open-label, phase III study comparing encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib and the investigator’s choice of irinotecan plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (chemotherapy control) in patients with previously treated BRAF V600E mCRC. Patient-reported QoL assessments included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Colorectal (FACT-C). The primary outcome for these tools was time to definitive 10% deterioration.

Results

Encorafenib plus cetuximab, both with and without binimetinib, was associated with longer median times to definitive 10% deterioration versus the control group in the EORTC Global Health Status scale [HR (95% CI): 0.65 (0.52-0.80) versus 0.61 (0.49-0.75), respectively] and the FACT-C functional well-being subscale [HR (95% CI): 0.62 (0.50-0.76) versus 0.58 (0.47-0.72), respectively]. Consistent results were observed across all subscales of the EORTC and FACT-C instruments. QoL was generally maintained during treatment for the global EORTC and FACT-C scales.

Conclusions

In addition to improving OS, encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib delays QoL decline in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.

•

BEACON CRC compares encorafenib + cetuximab ± binimetinib to chemotherapy in previously treated BRAF V600E mCRC.

•

Encorafenib + cetuximab had longer time to 10% deterioration versus control in QoL and functional well-being scales.

•

Encorafenib + cetuximab ± binimetinib delays QoL decline in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E mCRC.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated With Liver Transplantation Compared to Chemotherapy

Liver transplantation (LT) for patients with non-resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) offers improved survival and has gained increased interest internationally the last years. The aim of this study was to describe the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with non-resectable CRLM receiving LT and how baseline HRQoL factors affect overall survival (OS). HRQoL data in the SECA (SEcondary CAncer) LT cohort was compared to data obtained from colorectal cancer patients starting first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease in a clinical trial and data from a Norwegian normal population. HRQoL data from the QLQ-C30 questionnaire used in the SECA LT study and the NORDIC- VII study were reported. The relationship between patient-reported symptom burden at baseline and OS was investigated. In the SECA study longitudinal HRQoL assessment was used to describe the time until definitive deterioration as well as mean values at different time points. Patients in the SECA and NORDIC-VII studies reported similar baseline HRQoL. The median time until definitive deterioration in the transplanted patients was estimated to 36 months. In the SECA study appetite loss and pain at baseline had negative impact on OS (25.3 versus 71.7 months, p = 0.002 and 39.7 versus 71.7 months, p = 0.038, respectively). Despite a relapse in most of the LT patients the Global Health Score (GHS) remained good. Pain, and especially appetite loss at time of transplantation is associated with poor outcome after LT.

Utility values and its time to deterioration in breast cancer patients after diagnosis and during treatments

BACKGROUND

The potential effects of breast cancer (BC) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) should be considered in clinical and policy decision-making, as the economic burden of BC management is currently assessed. In the last decades, time-to-HRQoL score deterioration (TTD) has been proposed as an approach to the analysis of longitudinal HRQoL in oncology. The main objectives of the current study were to investigate the evolution of the utility values in BC patients after diagnosis and during follow-ups and to evaluate the TTD in utility values among women in all stages of BC.

METHODS

Health-state utility values (HSUV) were assessed using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level at diagnosis, at the end of the first hospitalization and 3 and 6 months after the first hospitalization. For a given baseline score, HSUV was considered to have deteriorated if this score decreased by ≥ 0.08 points of the EQ-5D utility index score and ≥ 7 points of the EQ visual analogue scale. TTD curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimation method.

RESULTS

Overall 381 patients were enrolled between February 2006 and February 2008. The highest proportions of respondents at the baseline and all follow-ups reporting some and extreme problems were in pain discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions; more than 80% of patients experienced a deterioration in EQ-5D utility index score and EQ VAS score with a median TTD of 3.15 months and 6.24 Months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

BC patients undergoing therapy need psychological support to cope with their discomfort, pain, depression, anxiety, and fear during the process of diagnosis and treatment to improve their QoL.

Toward Incorporating Health-Related Quality of Life as Coprimary End Points in Clinical Trials: Time to Achieve Clinical Important Differences and QoL Profiles

PURPOSE

Besides morbidity and mortality, quality of life (QoL) is a key outcome of cancer treatments. Trials on the basis of clinical outcomes have expectations that QoL outcomes can be either tolerated or improved. Simultaneously considering QoL and clinical outcomes is challenging with lack of suitable metrics allowing incorporation of QoL as coprimary end points in clinical trial design and utilization of hierarchical hypothesis testing.

METHOD

We propose combining time to achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and probabilities of a MCID occurring in each QoL domain to provide QoL metrics analogous to those used for clinical end points. For QoL domains of interest, these yield QoL profiles, time to MCID, and number needed to treat. Incorporation of QoL as coprimary end points in clinical trial designs through hierarchical hypothesis testing can easily be achieved. The noninferiority designed Laparoscopic Approach to Carcinoma of the Endometrium trial, evaluating laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery for endometrial cancer with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General QoL domains, is used to illustrate the usefulness of these metrics.

RESULTS

This analysis revealed that laparoscopic surgery had a significant shorter time to MCID for physical and functional well-being QoL domains (physical mean: 1.5 months, 95% CI, 0.5 to 2.6; P = .002; and functional mean: 1.4 months; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.4; P = .003) than abdominal surgery, but little difference between the two approaches for psychologic social and emotion well-being. Probability profile plots show a consistent > 2-fold higher chance of attaining a MCID for physical and functional well-being over time for laparoscopic compared with abdominal surgery.

CONCLUSION

This analysis reinforces the potential value of novel MCID metrics and their usefulness in raising the profile of QoL outcomes to complement clinical end points. The methods will allow health professionals to counsel patients about QoL outcomes and clinical outcomes simultaneously.

Transarterial Radioembolization Versus Atezolizumab-Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Time to Deterioration in Quality of Life

Introduction

Given the relatively short life expectancy of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), quality of life (QOL) plays a significant role in treatment selection. This analysis aimed to compare time to deterioration (TTD) in QOL with transarterial radioembolization (TARE) and atezolizumab–bevacizumab, as well as sorafenib, in advanced and unresectable HCC.

Methods

Patient-level data from SARAH (TARE using SIR-Spheres^® Y-90 resin microspheres [SIR-Spheres] versus sorafenib) and aggregate data from IMbrave150 (atezolizumab–bevacizumab versus sorafenib) randomized controlled trials were used to conduct an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Patients with a Child–Pugh score B in SARAH were excluded to align with exclusion criteria in IMbrave150. To identify potential effect modifiers for adjustment, the literature was searched and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were implemented using SARAH data. Patients from SARAH were then weighted to balance with baseline characteristics from IMbrave150. Median TTD in QOL and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated.

Results

Four potential effect modifiers were identified and used for adjustment: cause of disease (viral/non-viral), macrovascular invasion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, and alpha-fetoprotein level. The MAIC included 217 patients from SARAH (TARE = 94; sorafenib = 123). Median TTD in QOL was 11.23 and 8.64 months for atezolizumab–bevacizumab and TARE, respectively (HR = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–1.50; p = 0.725). A sensitivity analysis was conducted adjusting for cause of disease defined as hepatitis B/hepatitis C/non-viral: median TTD in QOL was higher for TARE compared with atezolizumab–bevacizumab (19.88 vs 11.23 months; HR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.36–1.19; p = 0.163). Sorafenib resulted in the shortest TTD in QOL, with statistically significant differences in both base case and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

TARE using SIR-Spheres may achieve similar TTD in QOL compared with atezolizumab–bevacizumab, as the analyses found no statistically significant differences between these two interventions. Both TARE using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab–bevacizumab seem to be more efficacious than sorafenib in maintaining QOL.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02099-0.

For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as physicians treating hepatocellular carcinoma, the quality of life that different treatments can offer represents an increasingly important aspect to consider when choosing treatments. Transarterial radioembolization and atezolizumab–bevacizumab are two potential treatments for advanced and unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, but no clinical trials have directly compared the outcomes of these two therapeutic options. With the data available (patient-level data from a clinical trial of transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres^® Y-90 resin microspheres [SIR-Spheres] versus sorafenib and data from a trial of atezolizumab–bevacizumab versus sorafenib from the literature), this study indirectly compared the time to deterioration of quality of life (i.e., how long quality of life is maintained) after treatment with transarterial radioembolization and atezolizumab–bevacizumab. The study showed that quality of life may be preserved over a similar time period with transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab–bevacizumab; also, both transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab–bevacizumab seem to maintain patients’ quality of life over a longer period of time compared with sorafenib. These results are expected to enrich the existing evidence on which patients and physicians can base their decisions, allowing them to choose the most appropriate treatment by assessing the treatments’ characteristics as a whole.

Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Health-related quality-of-life results from KEYNOTE-048

OBJECTIVES

To assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with first-line pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab-chemotherapy, or cetuximab-chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-048 trial (NCT02358031).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

HRQoL was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-question quality-of-life (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC 35-question quality-of-life head and neck cancer-specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35), and the EuroQol 5-dimension 3-level instruments (EQ-5D-3L). Secondary endpoints included mean change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) at week 15 and time to deterioration (TTD) in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and EORTC QLQ-H&N35 pain and swallowing.

RESULTS

Of 882 enrolled participants, 844 received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥ 1 HRQoL assessment; adherence was ≥ 79% at week 15 across treatment groups. At week 15, EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores remained stable; no clinically meaningful between-group differences were observed (least squares mean difference, pembrolizumab vs cetuximab-chemotherapy, 0.24; 95% CI, -3.34 to 3.82; pembrolizumab-chemotherapy vs cetuximab-chemotherapy, 0.40; 95% CI, -3.46 to 4.26). Median TTD in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and EORTC QLQ-H&N35 pain and swallowing scores was not reached over 51 weeks across groups, showing stable HRQoL. TTD was similar between groups for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (pembrolizumab vs cetuximab-chemotherapy: HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.95-2.00; pembrolizumab-chemotherapy vs cetuximab-chemotherapy: HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.94-2.00), as was TTD in EORTC QLQ-H&N35 pain and swallowing scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab-chemotherapy extended OS while maintaining HRQoL, further supporting first-line use for R/M HNSCC.

Handling Missing Data and Drop Out in Hospice/Palliative Care Trials Through the Estimand Framework

CONTEXT

Missing data are common in hospice/palliative care randomized trials due to high drop-out because of the demographic of interest. It can introduce bias in the estimate of the treatment effect and its precision.

OBJECTIVES

The International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) released updated guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials introducing the estimand framework to align trial objectives, trial conduct, statistical analysis and interpretation of results. Our objective is to present how the estimand framework can be used to guide the handling of missing data in palliative care trials.

METHODS

We outline the estimand framework by highlighting the five elements of an estimand: treatment, population, variable, summary measure and intercurrent event handling. We list common intercurrent events in palliative care trials and present the five strategies for handling intercurrent events outlined in the ICH guidance.

RESULTS

We describe common intercurrent events in palliative care trials and discuss and justify what analytic strategies could be followed with each. We provide an example using a palliative care trial comparing two opioids for pain relieve in participants with cancer pain.

CONCLUSION

When planning a palliative care trial, the estimand should be explicitly stated, including how intercurrent events will be handled in the analysis. This should be informed by the scientific objectives of the trial. The estimand guides the handling of missing data during the conduct and analysis of the trial. Defining an estimand is not a statistical activity, but a multi-disciplinary process involving all stakeholders.

%TTD and %TUDD: New SAS macro programs to calculate the survival data of the time to deterioration for patient-reported outcomes data in oncology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Longitudinal analysis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data remains challenging, as no standardization of statistical methods has been proposed, making comparison of PRO results between clinical trials difficult. In this context, the time to deterioration approach has recently been proposed and is regularly used as a modality of longitudinal PRO analysis in oncology.

METHODS

Two new SAS macro programs were developed, %TTD and %TUDD, which implement longitudinal analysis of PRO data according to the time to deterioration approach. These programs implement the recommended deterioration definitions. We described the programs with their different functionalities.

RESULTS

The %TTD macro calculates the time to first or transient deterioration, and the %TUDD macro calculates the time until definitive deterioration. These macros allow to obtain the survival variables from the time to deterioration approach. We illustrate our programs by presenting different applications on the randomized phase II AFUGEM GERCOR clinical trial.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of the deterioration definitions in SAS software allows the dissemination of this approach, in order to move toward the goal of standardization of longitudinal PRO analysis in oncology clinical trials.

Patient-reported outcomes in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with melflufen plus dexamethasone: analyses from the Phase II HORIZON study

Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is known to have a high burden of disease and complications associated with refractoriness to prior lines of therapy. Severe pain and fatigue symptoms and impairments in physical and emotional functioning have been strongly linked to reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with RRMM. Assessment of patient reported-outcome measures from the pivotal, Phase II HORIZON study (OP-106; NCT02963493) in patients with RRMM (n = 64) demonstrated that melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) plus dexamethasone treatment preserved HRQoL. Patients had clinically meaningful improvements, even after eight treatment cycles, in relevant scales such as global health status/QoL, physical functioning, emotional functioning, pain, and fatigue. Patients with triple-class-refractory disease (n = 50) displayed similar improvements. Patient-reported outcome deterioration was delayed for a substantial amount of time in patients who experienced a response to melflufen plus dexamethasone treatment relative to patients who did not experience a response. These findings support the notion that treatment with melflufen plus dexamethasone may sustain or improve HRQoL over time in patients with RRMM, including in patients with triple-class-refractory disease for whom outcomes are generally worse. The clinical benefits observed in patients from the HORIZON trial are encouraging and supportive of translation into real-world practice.

Time to deterioration of patient-reported outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer: exploring different definitions

Purpose

The clinical relevance of different time-to-deterioration (TTD) definitions for patient-reported outcomes were explored.

Methods

TTD definitions differing by reference score and deterioration event were used to analyse data from the phase 3 FLAURA trial of first-line osimertinib versus erlotinib or gefitinib in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Pre-specified key symptoms were fatigue, appetite loss, cough, chest pain and dyspnoea, scored using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires (≥ 10-point difference = clinically relevant).

Results

No significant treatment differences in TTD (distributions) were observed using definitions based on transient or definitive deterioration alone. TTD definitions based on definitive, sustained deterioration, with death not included as an event, yielded a significant treatment difference for dyspnoea (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; P = 0.034) when baseline was the reference, and for cough (HR 0.70; P = 0.009) and dyspnoea (HR 0.71; P = 0.004) when best previous score was the reference. With death included as an event, treatment differences were significant for dyspnoea (HR 0.70; P = 0.025) when baseline was the reference, and for cough (HR 0.70; P = 0.011), dyspnoea (HR 0.71; P = 0.003) and chest pain (HR 0.71; P = 0.038) when best previous score was the reference. Irrespective of definition, TTD for appetite loss and fatigue did not differ significantly between arms.

Conclusion

This exploratory work showed that different TTD definitions yield different magnitudes of treatment difference, highlighting the importance of pre-specifying TTD definitions upfront in clinical trials.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02296125.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03088-0.

Targeted therapy for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (<I>ALK</I>)-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapies directed at specific driver oncogenes have improved outcomes for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approximately 5% of lung adenocarcinomas, the most common histologic subtype of NSCLC, harbour rearrangements in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene leading to constitutive activity of the ALK kinase. Crizotinib was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) demonstrated to be effective in advanced NSCLC. Next-generation ALK TKIs have since been developed including ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib, and have been compared with crizotinib or chemotherapy in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These ALK-targeted therapies are currently used in clinical practice and are endorsed in multiple clinical oncology guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALK inhibitors given as monotherapy to treat advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles. All searches were conducted from 2007 until 7 January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing ALK inhibitors with cytotoxic chemotherapy or another ALK inhibitor in individuals with incurable locally advanced or metastatic pathologically confirmed ALK-rearranged NSCLC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for each included study. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AE); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), OS at one year, overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) criteria, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed a meta-analysis for all outcomes, where appropriate, using the fixed-effect model. We reported hazard ratios (HR) for PFS, OS, and a composite HRQoL of life outcome (time to deterioration), and risk ratios (RR) for AE, ORR, and one-year OS. We presented 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity. We planned comparisons of 'ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy' and 'next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib' with subgroup analysis by type of ALK inhibitor, line of treatment, and baseline central nervous system involvement.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies (2874 participants) met our inclusion criteria: six studies compared an ALK inhibitor (crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib) to chemotherapy, and five studies compared a next-generation ALK inhibitor (alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib) to crizotinib. We assessed the evidence for most outcomes as of moderate to high certainty. Most studies were at low risk for selection, attrition, and reporting bias; however, no RCTs were blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance and detection bias for outcomes reliant on subjective measurement. ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy Treatment with ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.52, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence). This was found regardless of line of treatment. ALK inhibitors may result in no difference in overall AE rate when compared to chemotherapy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, 5 RCTs, 1404 participants, low-certainty evidence). ALK inhibitors slightly improved OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence), despite most included studies having a significant number of participants crossing over from chemotherapy to receive an ALK inhibitor after the study period. ALK inhibitors likely increase ORR (RR 2.43, 95% CI 2.16 to 2.75, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including in measurable baseline brain metastases (RR 4.88, 95% CI 2.18 to 10.95, 3 RCTs, 108 participants) when compared to chemotherapy. ALK inhibitors result in a large increase in the HRQoL measure, time to deterioration (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60, 5 RCTs, 1504 participants, high-certainty evidence) when compared to chemotherapy. Next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib Next-generation ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.46, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, high-certainty evidence), particularly in participants with baseline brain metastases. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely result in no difference in overall AE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely increase OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and slightly increase ORR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25, 5 RCTs, 1229 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including a response in measurable brain metastases (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.54, 4 RCTs, 138 participants) when compared to crizotinib. Studies comparing ALK inhibitors were conducted exclusively or partly in the first-line setting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Next-generation ALK inhibitors including alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib are the preferred first systemic treatment for individuals with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Further trials are ongoing including investigation of first-line ensartinib. Next-generation inhibitors have not been compared to each other, and it is unknown which should be used first and what subsequent treatment sequence is optimal.

Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety for Kanglaite Injection in the Control of the Malignant Pleural Effusions via Thoracic Perfusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Kanglaite injection (KLTI) is a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) preparation with anti-tumor activity, which has been used to treat malignant tumors in China. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intrapleural infusion with KLTI in the treatment of malignant pleural effusion (MPE).

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of intrathoracic infusion with KLTI in the treatment of MPE were searched from the PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang and CBM databases. The primary outcome was objective remission rate (ORR). Secondary outcomes included quality of life (QOL) and incidence of adverse events (AEs). The Stata15.1 software and RevMan5.3 software were used to calculate risk ratios (RR) at 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conduct the meta-analysis.

Results: This meta-analysis included 20 RCTs, involving 1,291 patients. The ORR of intrapleural infusion with KLTI + chemotherapy drugs in the treatment of MPE was higher than that of chemotherapy alone (RR) 1.23; 95%CI; 1.11–1.36, I² = 0%, z = 3.876, p = 0.000]. When KLTI is combined with cisplatin or KLTI 200 ml is used in every time, it is more advantageous to improve ORR. Moreover, compared with intrapleural infusion of chemotherapy drugs alone, KLTI combined with chemotherapy drugs significantly improved the QOL of patients with MPE (RR 1.28; 95%CI; 1.70–1.53, I² = 0%, z = 2.70, p = 0.007). In addition, the participation of KLTI reduced the gastrointestinal reaction (RR 0.79; 95% CI; 0.66–0.96; I² = 0%, z = 2.37, p = 0.018) and renal damage (RR 0.468; 95% CI; 0.23–0.945, I² = 0%, z = 2.11, p = 0.035) caused by chemotherapy drugs, but did not increase other adverse reactions (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of traditional chemotherapy drugs plus KLTI was superior to traditional chemotherapy drugs alone via intrapleural injection in controlling MPE, which suggested that KLTI can be used to treat MPE. However, a more rigorous RCT should be designed and completed before it is widely recommended.

Measuring the Time to Deterioration for Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Using a Web-Based Monitoring Application: Longitudinal Cohort Study

Background

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is used to evaluate the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. In a long-term therapy setting, HRQoL can be used as an important benchmark for treatment success. With the help of digital apps, HRQoL monitoring can be extended to more remote areas and be administered on a more frequent basis.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate 3 common HRQoL questionnaires in metastasized breast cancer in terms of TTD in a digital, web-based setting. We further aim to examine the development of the HRQoL in different systemic treatment groups in each of these evaluation instruments.

Methods

A total of 192 patients with metastatic breast cancer were analyzed in this bicentric prospective online cohort study at two German university hospitals. Patients completed questionnaires on HRQoL (EuroQol Visual Analog Scale [EQ-VAS], EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level [EQ-5D-5L], European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Core 30 item [EORTC QLQ-C30]) via an online platform over a 6-month period. Treatment schedules and medical history were retrieved from medical records. Unadjusted Cox regression analysis on treatment-related factors was performed. We conducted subgroup analyses in regard to TTD events between different treatments.

Results

The EQ-VAS showed a higher rate of deterioration after 8 weeks (84/179, 46.9%) than the EQ-5D-5L (47/163, 28.8%) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (65/176, 36.9%). Unadjusted Cox regression revealed significant connections between known metastases in the liver (P=.03, HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.06-2.52) and pleura (P=.04, HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.96) in the EQ-VAS. Significant relations between EQ-VAS events and single EQ-5D-5L items and the EQ-5D-5L summary score were demonstrated. All treatment groups significantly differed from the CDK4/6 inhibition subgroup in the EQ-VAS.

Conclusions

Compared to the EQ-5D-5L and QLQ-C30, the EQ-VAS showed a higher rate of deterioration after 8 weeks. Significant connections to certain metastatic locations were only detected in the EQ-VAS. The EQ-VAS is capable of reflecting the distinctive HRQoL profiles of different systemic treatments as well as the different aspects of HRQoL presented in the EQ-5D-5L. TTD with the EQ-VAS is an adequate mean of examining longitudinal development of HRQoL among breast cancer patients.

Quality of life of therapies for hormone receptor positive advanced/metastatic breast cancer: Regulatory aspects and clinical impact in Europe

In recent years, the number of trials incorporating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data has increased. The impact of HRQoL on regulatory decision making in the European context and on clinical practice is not well established. We conducted an analysis of the role of QoL data extracted from the clinical trials of the drugs approved for hormone receptor positive/HER2-negative advanced/metastatic breast cancer (mBC). The results from the HRQoL were collected and a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of experimental drugs compared to standard treatments. The results showed a non-detrimental effect in HRQoL from the new treatments. As regards the approval process, from an examination of the European Medicine Agency (EMA) documents, HRQoL was reported nonextensively and contained and discussed in the European assessment reports (EPARs) for eleven trials in the approval process and cited in three cases in the EPARs and summary of medicinal product characteristics (SmPC). An effort should be made by all the stakeholders to increase the visibility of the HRQoL results in order to allow increased consideration in the approval process to make QoL data more easily and visibly available for the clinician and the patients. The evaluation should be reflected in the SmPC in order to increase the amount of information provided to the physician.

Health-related quality of life in locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated by either radioembolisation or sorafenib (SARAH trial)

BACKGROUND

The aim of this ancillary study of the SARAH trial is to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with locally advanced or inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with transarterial radioembolisation (TARE) or sorafenib.

METHODS

This study included randomised patients who received either TARE or at least one dose of sorafenib with no major deviation in the protocol and who had at least one QoL follow-up assessment in addition to the baseline evaluation. QoL was assessed from the date of randomisation using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire, until disease progression or other reasons for stopping study participation. Data were analysed using linear mixed and time-dependent models.

RESULTS

A total of 285 patients were included (122 and 163, in the TARE and sorafenib groups, respectively). Questionnaire completion rates were similar (77.5% versus 80.4%, in the TARE and sorafenib groups, respectively, p = 0.25). Longitudinal HRQoL analysis showed a significant treatment and time effects for fatigue and global health status, and significant treatment, time and treatment by time interaction effects for appetite loss, diarrhoea and social functioning. The median time to deterioration for the global health status was 3.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7-4.3) versus 2.6 months (95% CI 2.0-3.0) in the TARE and sorafenib groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

HRQoL was preserved longer with TARE than with sorafenib in locally advanced HCC. These data could be used to optimise management of patients with advanced or inoperable HCC.

Quality of life with first-line pembrolizumab for PD-L1-positive advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: results from the randomised phase III KEYNOTE-062 study

BACKGROUND

In the randomised phase III KEYNOTE-062 study, pembrolizumab was non-inferior to chemotherapy for overall survival in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive [combined positive score (CPS) ≥1] advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. We present findings of prespecified health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) analyses for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in this population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

HRQOL, a secondary endpoint, was measured in patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥1 HRQOL questionnaire [European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30-question quality-of-life (QLQ-C30), EORTC 22-question quality-of-life gastric-cancer-specific module (QLQ-STO22)]. Least squares mean (LSM) change (baseline to week 18) in global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL; EORTC QLQ-C30) and time to deterioration (TTD) in GHS/QOL, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss scores (EORTC QLQ-C30) and abdominal pain/discomfort scores (EORTC QLQ-STO22) were evaluated.

RESULTS

The HRQOL population comprised 495 patients with CPS ≥1 (pembrolizumab, 252; chemotherapy, 243). Compliance rates at week 18 were similar for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy (EORTC QLQ-C30, 87.9% and 81.9%; EORTC QLQ-STO22, 87.9% and 81.3%, respectively). There was no between-arm difference in LSM score change in GHS/QOL [-0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.01 to 4.69; P = 0.948]. The LSM score change for most subscales showed comparable worsening in both arms. TTD for GHS/QOL [hazard ratio (HR), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.67-1.38; P = 0.826], appetite loss (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20; P = 0.314) and pain (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.78-1.91; P = 0.381) were similar between arms. Longer TTD was observed for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for nausea/vomiting (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

HRQOL was maintained with first-line treatment with pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1-positive advanced gastric/GEJ cancer and was similar between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in this population.

Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial Exploring Optimal Sequencing of Short-Term Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Prostate Radiation Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Two phase 3 randomized controlled trials (OTT-0101, RTOG-9413) and a meta-analysis have shown an impact of sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy on oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). However, the impact of sequencing strategy on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) is unclear. Here, we present the patient-reported HR-QoL outcomes from the OTT-0101 study.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In this trial, patients with PCa with Gleason score ≤7, clinical stage T1b to T3a, and prostate-specific antigen level <30 ng/mL were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant and concurrent ADT for 6 months, starting 4 months before or concurrent with prostate radiation therapy, or concurrent and adjuvant ADT for 6 months, starting simultaneously with prostate radiation therapy. HR-QoL was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaires. Time until definitive deterioration was defined as time from random allocation to the first deterioration of at least 10 points with no further improvement of ≥10 points or if the patient experienced progression, died, or dropped out after deterioration, resulting in missing data. Stratified log-rank tests were applied for between-group comparisons of time-to-event estimates.

RESULTS

Overall, 393 patients (194 and 199 in the 2 arms, respectively) were evaluable, except 214 (101 and 113 in the 2 arms, respectively) for sexual function. Five-year rates of freedom from definitive deterioration of urinary symptoms, bowel symptoms, and sexual activity were 33.5%, 33.1%, and 38.5% in the neoadjuvant group and 34.1%, 35.4%, and 36.7% in the adjuvant group, respectively, with no significant between-group differences. The adjuvant approach was associated with a reduced risk of definitive deterioration of sexual function (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.94; P = .02). With respect to clinical relevance, the mean change in score for sexual function showed only a small to moderate difference favoring the adjuvant group at and beyond 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, no differences were found in the bowel or urinary symptoms between the adjuvant and neoadjuvant approach. Considering a significant likelihood of type I and type II errors and because of a lack of a persistent and clinically meaningful between-group difference in mean score changes over time, our findings do not confer a clear and conclusive picture of the impact of sequencing strategy on sexual function.

Effect of Regorafenib in Delaying Definitive Deterioration in Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Advanced Cancer of Three Different Tumor Types

Purpose

The efficacy and safety of regorafenib have been demonstrated in phase 3 trials for multiple tumor types, including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) (CORRECT [NCT01103323]; CONCUR [NCT01584830]), advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) (GRID [NCT01271712]), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (RESORCE [NCT01774344]). The objective of this post hoc exploratory analysis was to explore the impact of regorafenib on delaying health-related quality of life (HRQOL) deterioration across these tumor types.

Patients and Methods

HRQOL data (assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires) were pooled for all trials to determine time until definitive deterioration (TUDD), defined as the patient’s first minimal clinically important deterioration in HRQOL score from baseline that does not resolve, using stratified Kaplan–Meier estimators and Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for relevant trial, cancer type, and baseline covariates. Additional analyses based on cancer type were conducted by pooling mCRC trials (CORRECT and CONCUR) and pooling the two mCRC trials with the HCC trial (RESORCE).

Results

A total of 1699 patients with HRQOL data were pooled across the four trials. The results showed that regorafenib significantly delayed TUDD compared with placebo across all three tumor types. Median time to deterioration across the five scales ranged from 16.3 to 24.1 weeks for regorafenib and 8.6 to 12.1 weeks for placebo. The results from the individual studies, the pooled mCRC trials, and the pooled mCRC and HCC trials were similar to the overall pooled results.

Conclusion

A pooled analysis of four phase 3 trials demonstrated that regorafenib delayed a clinically relevant exploratory endpoint, defined as TUDD, compared with placebo across three different tumor types (mCRC, GIST, and HCC), which supports a novel benefit of the impact of regorafenib with respect to patients with these three types of cancers by allowing initial declines in HRQOL to resolve and patients the opportunity to continue treatment.

Quality of life in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving the combination encorafenib plus binimetinib: Results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase III study (COLUMBUS)

BACKGROUND

In COLUMBUS, treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma showed improved progression-free and overall survival with favourable tolerability compared to vemurafenib treatment. Here, results on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are presented.

METHODS

COLUMBUS was a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase III study in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. In PART-I, 577 patients were randomised (1:1:1) to encorafenib plus binimetinib, encorafenib or vemurafenib. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival. As a secondary objective, HRQoL was assessed by the EQ-5D, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-M questionnaires. Furthermore, time to definitive 10% deterioration was estimated with a Kaplan-Meier analysis and differences in mean scores between groups were calculated with a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. Hospitalisation rate and the impact of hospitalisation on HRQoL were also assessed.

RESULTS

Patients receiving the combination treatment showed improvement of their FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scores, compared to those receiving vemurafenib (post-baseline score differences: 3.03 [p < 0.0001] for FACT M and 5.28 [p = 0.0042] for EORTC QLQ-C30), indicative of a meaningful change in patient's status. Furthermore, a delay in the deterioration of QoL was observed in non-hospitalised patients compared to hospitalised patients (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.16 [0.80; 1.68] for EORTC QLQ-C30 and 1.27 [0.81; 1.99] for FACT-M) and a risk reduction of 10% deterioration, favoured the combination in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The improved efficacy of encorafenib plus binimetinib compared to vemurafenib, translates into a positive impact on the perceived health status as assessed by the HRQoL questionnaires. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453 and EudraCT number 2013-001176-38.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the third-leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during treatment is an important therapeutic goal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with lenvatinib versus sorafenib on HRQOL.

METHODS

REFLECT was a previously published multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line systemic treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and one or more measurable target lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C categorisation, Child-Pugh class A, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or lower, and adequate organ function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system; stratification factors for treatment allocation included region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; ECOG performance status; and bodyweight. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), collected at baseline, on day 1 of each subsequent cycle, and at the end of treatment, were evaluated in post-hoc analyses of secondary and exploratory endpoints in the analysis population, which was the subpopulation of patients with a PRO assessment at baseline. A linear mixed-effects model evaluated change from baseline in PROs, including European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and hepatocellular carcinoma-specific QLQ-HCC18 scales (both secondary endpoints of the REFLECT trial). Time-to-definitive-deterioration analyses were done based on established thresholds for minimum differences for worsening in PROs. Responder analyses explored associations between HRQOL and clinical response. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01761266.

FINDINGS

Of 954 eligible patients randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476) between March 14, 2013, and July 30, 2015, 931 patients (n=468 for lenvatinib; n=463 for sorafenib) were included in this analysis. Baseline PRO scores reflected impaired HRQOL and functioning and considerable symptom burden relative to full HRQOL. Differences in overall mean change from baseline estimates in most PRO scales generally favoured the lenvatinib over the sorafenib group, although the differences were not nominally statistically or clinically significant. Patients treated with lenvatinib experienced nominally statistically significant delays in definitive, meaningful deterioration on the QLQ-C30 fatigue (hazard ratio [HR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·69-0·99), pain (0·80, 0·66-0·96), and diarrhoea (0·52, 0·42-0·65) domains versus patients treated with sorafenib. Significant differences in time to definitive deterioration were not observed for other QLQ-C30 domains, and there was no difference in time to definitive deterioration on the global health status/QOL score (0·89, 0·73-1·09). For most PRO scales, differences in overall mean change from baseline estimates favoured responders versus non-responders. Across all scales, HRs for time to definitive deterioration were in favour of responders; median time to definitive deterioration for responders exceeded those for non-responders by a range of 4·8 to 14·6 months.

INTERPRETATION

HRQOL for patients undergoing treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is an important therapeutic consideration. The evidence of HRQOL benefits in clinically relevant domains support the use of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib to delay functional deterioration in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

FUNDING

Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.