Evaluation and reporting of quality of life outcomes in phase III chemotherapy trials for poor prognosis malignancies

The impact of surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy on health-related quality of life in patients with colon cancer: Changes at group level versus individual level

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate changes in health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) 1 year after surgical treatment in patients with primary resectable colon cancer and to assess whether changes at group level differ from changes at individual level. In addition, we assess which characteristics are associated with a decline of HR-QoL.

METHODS

Patients with primary resectable colon cancer who received surgical treatment and adjuvant chemotherapy if indicated were selected from the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer cohort (PLCRC). HR-QoL was assessed using EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire before surgery and 12 months post-surgery. Outcomes were assessed at group and individual levels. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess which socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were associated with a clinically relevant decline of HR-QoL at 12 months.

RESULTS

Of all 324 patients, the baseline level of HR-QoL summary score was relatively high with a mean of 88.1 (SD 11.4). On group level, the change of HR-QoL at 12 months varied between -2% for cognitive functioning and +9% for emotional functioning. On individual level, 15% of all patients experienced a clinically relevant decline in HR-QoL summary score at 12 months. Older age, comorbidity burden or the reception of adjuvant chemotherapy was independently associated with a decline of HR-QoL in one of the functional subscales of EORTC-QLQ-C30 at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Only trivial changes of HR-QoL were observed after colon cancer treatment on group level, whereas on individual level, at least 1 out of 10 patients experienced a decline of HR-QoL 12 months post-surgery. It is important to consider individual differences while making a treatment decision.

Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

In oncology, treatment outcomes can be competing, which means that one treatment could benefit one outcome, like survival, and negatively influence another, like independence. The choice of treatment therefore depends on the patient’s preference for outcomes, which needs to be assessed explicitly. Especially in older patients, patient preferences are important. Our systematic review summarizes all studies that assessed patient preferences for various treatment outcome categories. A total of 28 studies with 4374 patients were included, of which only six studies included mostly older patients. Although quality of life was only included in half of the studies, overall quality of life (79%) was most frequently prioritized as highest or second highest, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), treatment response (50%), and absence of transient short-term side effects (16%). In shared decision-making, these results can be used by healthcare professionals to better tailor the information provision and treatment recommendations to the individual patient.

Abstract

For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions.

Use of Health Related Quality of Life in Clinical Trials for Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Asthma Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is an outcome important to patients with severe asthma and can provide clinicians with additional insight into the benefits of treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the use and reporting of HRQoL questionnaires within randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of biologics, fevipiprant and bronchial thermoplasty.

METHODS

We followed the guidelines on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Of the 2380 retrieved articles, 52 studies were identified for inclusion.

RESULTS

Sixty-three percent included an asthma HRQoL questionnaire. It was a secondary outcome in the majority of cases (73%). The proportion of studies including an asthma HRQoL questionnaire did not change significantly over a 20-year period. While the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) was used in 45% of studies, 55% used a variety of 4 questionnaires. Most (70%) of the studies that included a HRQoL questionnaire did not report its subscale scores. Approximately half (52%) of studies that used HRQoL reported this in the abstract of the paper. A higher proportion of studies used an asthma control questionnaire compared to a HRQoL questionnaire (71% vs 63%).

CONCLUSION

In order to increase the use of asthma HRQoL questionnaires in RCTs of severe asthma treatments, the drivers and barriers to their use must first be understood. At present, the patients' perspective is underrepresented in RCTs of biologics, fevipiprant and bronchial thermoplasty for severe asthma.

Study objectives in clinical trials in older patients with solid malignancies: do we measure what matters?

PURPOSE

We set out to determine study objectives of clinical trials which included older patients with the four most common malignancies, to assess the extent to which the inclusion of patient-related outcomes (PROs) has changed over the last fifteen years.

METHOD

A search of the National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry was performed to identify currently recruiting or completed phase II or III clinical trials started between 2005 and 2020, which addressed chemotherapy or immunotherapy in patients aged > 65 years with the four most common solid malignancies. Trial characteristics and study objectives were extracted from the registry website.

RESULTS

Compared to disease- and treatment-related outcomes, PROs were the least measured outcomes. Of the 1,663 trials, PROs were addressed in only 21% of all trials, in which quality of life as primary objective was found in less than 1% of all trials. Compared to all trials, trials exclusively for older patients addressed more often PROs (respectively, 30% vs 21%, p < 0.001). Over the last fifteen years, there was an incremental trend in the reporting of PROs from 17 to 24% of all trials (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Despite a slight incremental trend over the past 15 years, PROs appear to be underrepresented in clinical trials which include patients with a solid malignancy. In order to provide physicians and older patients with cancer realistic information about the impact of chemo- or immunotherapy on quality of life or functioning, researchers should strongly consider including PROs in their future clinical trials.

Update in geriatrics: What geriatric oncology can learn from general geriatric research

Life expectancy has been steadily increasing for decades and this trend is likely to continue in coming years. In fact, there is more than a 50% probability that by 2030 female life expectancy could break the 90 year barrier, with more than half of the expected gains due to enhanced longevity above the age of 65 years. The resultant aging of societies means that health care will be faced with a rising number of increasingly older patients, who are also likely to have higher levels of multimorbidity. Most issues regarding assessment, prognostication and, management of older patients are not unique to geriatric oncology and thus there is opportunity to learn from progress in other fields. The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on research, reviews, and debate in general geriatrics that may be relevant to clinicians and researchers active in geriatric oncology. The selection of topics was based on a general search of the table of contents of widely read geriatrics and internal medicine journals, and includes geriatric co-management, improving research for older patients, caregiver issues, eliciting patient preferences, and shared-decision making.

[Evidence based tailoring of cancer care for older patients]

Cancer is a disease that disproportionately affects the elderly. Evidence-based treatment is the golden standard of current medical care, and this is also true for older cancer patients. In developing guidelines, all available evidence is collected, appraised and summarized. Subsequent recommendations are then translate to criteria used to judge the quality of care. The heterogeneity of the elderly population requires tailoring of care, which is the opposite of the often strictly formulated treatment recommendations in guidelines and protocols. This paper discusses several issues regarding evidence based treatment versus tailored care for older cancer patients.

Chemotherapy and healthcare utilisation near the end of life in patients with cancer

The quality of medical care delivered to patients with cancer near the end of life is a significant issue. Previous studies have defined several areas suggestive of aggressive cancer treatment as potentially representing poor quality care. The primary objective of current analysis was to examine chemotherapy and healthcare utilisation in the last 3 months of life among patients with cancer that received palliative chemotherapy. Patients were selected from the hospital administration database of the Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, the Netherlands. Data were extracted from the medical files. A total of 604 patients were included for analysis (median age: 64 years). For 300 patients (50%) chemotherapy was given in the last 3 months (CT+). For 76% (n = 229) of CT+ patients unplanned hospital admissions were made in these last 3 months, compared to 44% (n = 133) of CT- patients (p < .001). Visits to the emergency room in last 3 months were made by 67% (n = 202) of CT+ patients compared to 43% (n = 132) of CT- patients (p < .001). Healthcare consumption was significantly higher in patients who received chemotherapy in the last 3 months of life. Being able to inform our patients about these aspects of treatment can help to optimise both the quality of life and the quality of dying in patients with cancer.

Multidisciplinary decision-making regarding chemotherapy for lung cancer patients-An age-based comparison

Optimising decision-making in elderly patients is becoming increasingly urgent. We analysed treatment decisions and course of therapy for patients with lung cancer in different age categories: <65, 65-75, and 75 years and older. About 349 patients with lung cancer (median age 67.8 years), discussed at the multidisciplinary team meeting in the Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, the Netherlands, were reviewed. Multidisciplinary decision-making and subsequent clinical course were extracted from medical files. We found that 39% of eligible patients older than 75 years of age started treatment with chemotherapy compared to 80% of the younger patients (<65 and 65-75). When patients did receive chemotherapy, primary and secondary treatment adaptations were effectuated in 58%: for patients aged <65 in 49%, for patients aged 65-75 and >75 years in 66%. For 44% of all patients treated with chemotherapy, unplanned hospital admissions were required: in 42% for the patients <65, in 52% for those aged 65-75 and in 27% for >75 years. The decision-making process and course of treatment for lung cancer vary per age category. In particular, patients between 65 and 75 years of age might be more frail than initially thought. Age and frailty are important characteristics that need more attention.

Lung Cancer in the Oldest Old: A Nation-Wide Study in The Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

An important step in improving research and care for the oldest patients with lung cancer is analyzing current data regarding diagnostic work-up, treatment choices, and survival.

METHODS

We analyzed data on lung cancer from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR-IKNL) regarding diagnostic work-up, treatment, and survival in different age categories; the oldest old (≥85 years of age) versus those aged 71-84 (elderly) and those aged ≤70 years (younger patients).

RESULTS

47,951 patients were included in the 2010-2014 NCR database. 2196 (5%) patients were aged ≥85 years. Histological diagnosis was obtained significantly less often in the oldest old (38%, p < 0.001), and less standard treatment regimen was given (8%, p < 0.001) compared to elderly and younger patients. 67% of the oldest old received best supportive care only versus 38% of the elderly and 20% of the younger patients (p < 0.001). For the oldest old receiving standard treatment, survival rates were similar in comparison with the elderly patients. In the oldest old, no survival differences were found when comparing standard or adjusted regimens for stage I and IV NSCLC; for stage III, oldest old receiving standard treatment had longer survival. No oldest old patients with stage II received standard treatment.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians make limited use of diagnostics and invasive treatment in the oldest old; however, selected oldest old patients experienced similar survival rates as the elderly when receiving some form of anticancer therapy (standard or adjusted). More research is needed to further develop individualized treatment algorithms.