Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit

ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 2.0 (ESMO-MCBS v2.0)

BACKGROUND

The ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies, with planned updates based upon recognition of new needs and shortcomings. This paper describes the development of ESMO-MCBS v2.0.

METHODOLOGY

The revision process incorporates nine steps: (i) review of critiques and suggestions and identification of problems in the application of ESMO-MCBS v1.1; (ii) identification of shortcomings for revision in the upcoming version; (iii) drafting solutions addressing identified shortcomings; (iv) field-testing of solutions; (v) preparation of a near-final revised version for peer review for reasonableness by members of the ESMO Faculty and ESMO Guidelines Committee; (vi) amendments based on peer review for reasonableness; (vii) near-final review by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group; (viii) final amendments; (ix) final review and approval by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board.

RESULTS

Seventeen issues for revision or amendment were considered, and 13 amendments were formulated to address identified shortcomings. In the curative setting, studies evaluated based on disease-free survival now credit improved time without treatment or disease even when overall survival is not significantly improved, and studies with small absolute gain in disease-free survival are credited more conservatively. Additionally, acute and persistent toxicity annotations are added. In the non-curative setting, the approach to crediting a difference in the tail of overall survival and progression-free survival curves is more statistically valid, and the toxicity evaluation has been revised. In peer review all amendments were found to be either reasonable or mostly reasonable. The amendments changed the scoring of 85/353 of evaluated studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The amendments incorporated into ESMO-MCBS v2.0 change the scores of 13.6% of evaluated studies (10.5% downgraded, 3.1% upgraded) and add toxicity annotations to 45.5% of the studies in the curative setting, and improve its discriminatory capacity and utility.

Enhancing rare cancer care in developing countries through patient advocacy: insights from the Desmoid Tumor Brazilian Association

Introduction

Desmoid tumors are soft-tissue neoplasms that can have profound impacts on the lives of people living with such diseases. As they are rare tumors, patients often have difficulty finding teams specialized in sarcomas and support networks. In low- and middle-income countries, the challenges are exacerbated due to a need for established networks and medication access.

Discussion

In this setting, patient advocacy groups are important in supporting affected people. To this end, the Desmoid Tumor Brazilian Association (DTBA) was established to help mitigate those challenges. This paper highlights the perspectives of patients with desmoid tumors living in Brazil, obtained in a nationwide survey, and discusses aspects related to access to specialists, medications, education, and awareness in Brazil.

Conclusions

The most commonly reported challenges in Brazil are access to educational material and specialists. The DTA continues to strive to improve support for people living in Brazil through initiatives such as Scientific and Educational Meetings, improving awareness, fostering science, and working on methods to facilitate access to medication and specialists.

Clinical benefit and fragility evaluation of systemic therapy trials for advanced soft tissue sarcoma

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of systemic anticancer therapies can be unclear despite positive trials, and outcomes may not translate to real-world practice. This study evaluated the benefit of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treatments using the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) v1.1 and measured the robustness of STS trial results using Fragility Index (FI).

METHODS

Database searches for adult phase II or III trials in advanced STS (January 1998-December 2023) were performed. Therapies with trial outcomes that met the criteria for MCBS were scored 1-5 (≥4 represents substantial clinical benefit). For randomized clinical trials with positive time-to-event endpoints, the number of additional events that would render results nonsignificant, FI, was calculated and expressed as a proportion of the experimental arm size (fragility quotient [FQ]). Higher FI/FQ implies more robust results.

RESULTS

Among 194 trials, 19 (9.8%) were phase III. Most phase II trials (146/175; 83.4%) had single-arm or non-comparative design. Trials that were eligible for MCBS scoring (n = 78; 40.2%) evaluated 56 different agents/regimens. Median MCBS score was 2. Only three agents/regimens (all cytotoxic therapies) had an MCBS score ≥4. Among 47 randomized clinical trials, 16 (8 phase II; 8 phase III) trials had positive outcomes. Median FI was 7 (range, 2-52) and 10 trials (62.5%) had an FQ < 10%, with median of 7% (range, 1%-59%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most systemic therapies in STS trials did not confer substantial clinical benefit per European Society of Medical Oncology-MCBS. Additionally, positive randomized trials were often fragile. Novel STS therapy trials should use clinically meaningful endpoints and real-world efficacy confirmation is essential, especially for less robust trials.

Benefit assessment of novel systemic therapies for bone and soft tissue sarcomas: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Bone and soft tissue sarcomas are rare malignancies, and their heterogeneity has limited the development of novel drugs. This study aimed to apply two validated tools to evaluate the clinical benefits of novel drug therapies for sarcoma developed over the last decade.

METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic therapies for sarcomas published between 2013 and 2023. Each trial was scored according to the European Society of Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology-Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF).

RESULTS

We included 52 RCTs in this study, of which 17 (32.7%) reported positive results that favored the experimental arm. The ESMO-MCBS grades were determined in 14/17 positive trials, and three of them (21.4%) met the threshold for meaningful clinical benefit. Likewise, ASCO-VF scores were calculated for 11/17 positive trials, and three of them (27.3%) met the threshold for meaningful clinical benefit. Weak correlation (r = 0.38, P = 0.277) and agreement (κ = 0.211, P = 0.490) were observed between the two frameworks.

CONCLUSION

Only a few RCTs with positive results have demonstrated substantial patient benefits for bone and soft tissue sarcomas over the past decade.

Is health-related quality of life sufficiently addressed in trials for breast cancer treatments? An assessment based on reimbursement opinions from the French health technology assessment body, 2009-2023

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer treatments can impact the patients' health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). This criterion is relevant for drug reimbursement decisions. We wanted to assess the usage of HR-QoL in health technology assessments (HTA).

METHODS

All HAS (Haute Autorité de Santé, the French HTA body) opinions published between January 1, 2009 and March 31, 2023 for the reimbursement of breast cancer drugs were analysed.

RESULTS

51 distinct appraisals were found during the period, corresponding to 45 product-specific indications, of which 36 (80 %) including clinical studies in which HR-QoL was an endpoint. HAS explicitly rejected HR-QoL data in 25 out of 36 (69 %) indications with such data. Rejections are justified by methodological weaknesses, including lack of adjustment for type I error inflation (n=21 indications), open-label treatment (n=7), lack of a pre-specified clinically relevant HR-QoL threshold (n=6) or missing data (n=6). Regardless of rejection status, HR-QoL results were not mentioned as a determinant of value assessment in 3/36 (8 %) instances (2/25 for rejected data).

CONCLUSIONS

HR-QoL data are inconsistently present in HTA assessments of new breast cancer drugs. Their methodological quality often hinders their use in determining the drug's value.

POLICY SUMMARY

A rigorous and acceptable comparative experimental framework is expected for HR-QoL assessments. More detail on the precise impact of the absence or presence of HR-QoL data in the determination of the drug's added value could help understanding how this dimension is influential in the assessments.

Health-related quality of life outcomes in randomized controlled trials in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review

Background

Since 2015 multiple combination treatments became available for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) without effectiveness cross-comparison. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could aid in decision-making.

Methods

We systematically reviewed HRQoL publications (January 2015-September 2024) of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in mHSPC using PRISMA guidelines, cross-compared HRQoL results and assessed usefulness to support decision-making (PROSPERO: CRD42023470698). International Society for Quality-of-Life Research (ISOQOL) recommended standards were used to assess quality of Patient-reported Outcomes reporting.

Findings

We identified nine HRQoL publications from eight RCTs investigating an estradiol patch, or either radiotherapy, docetaxel, androgen-receptor-pathway-inhibitor (ARPI) abiraterone, apalutamide or enzalutamide added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT ± placebo in ≥8000 patients. Only three studies were considered to have low overall risk of bias (RoB2). Eight HRQoL measures (1-4 per study) were used; 3/5 RCTs investigating an ARPI measured HRQoL using Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-SF), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). Overall, the quality of PRO reporting was high, but PRO-hypothesis was provided by only 25% and reasons for missing data explained in only 50% of RCTs.

Interpretation

Conceptual and methodological HRQoL heterogeneity, along with risk of biases, hampers cross-comparison and failed to robustly support decision-making underscoring the importance of harmonizing methodological approaches.

Funding

None.

Effectiveness and Safety of Sublingual Fentanyl in the Treatment of Breakthrough Cancer Pain in Older Patients with Cancer: Results from a Retrospective Observational Study

The study assessed sublingual fentanyl citrate (SFC) effectiveness and safety for breakthrough cancer pain (BtCP) in older patients. A multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted in three subgroups of cancer patients aged over 65 years with BtCP. The reports were collected by 20 oncologists across 12 hospitals. The primary goal was to measure changes in BtCP intensity with SFC treatment over 30 days; secondary objectives included pain relief onset and adverse events. A total of 127 patients with long-term cancer (mean: 3.3 years) were recruited. All of them had BtCP, mostly of mixed origin (62.5%). A significantly lower dose was needed in the high-age group at the final visit compared to baseline (212.90 ± 200.45 mcg vs. 206 ± 167.08 mcg; p = 0.000). Pain intensities at the beginning of the flare and at 30 min after SFC administration were significantly lower when the last and first visits were compared (1.9 vs. 2.3, p = 0.000; and 6.2 vs. 6.8 p = 0.006, respectively). The onset of analgesia was significantly more rapid for half of the patients ≥75 years, compared with 65-69 and 70-74 age groups. SFC appears then to be effective, well-tolerated, and safe to treat BtCP in older cancer patients.

Clinically meaningful outcomes in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a decade of defining and raising the bar

Currently, there is no consensus definition for clinically meaningful outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) designed to evaluate new treatments for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Since 2014, recommended targets for improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival have been published by several societies, including those from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Clinically Meaningful Outcomes Working Group in 2014, the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) in 2015, and Colorectal Cancer Canada (CCC) consensus statements in 2019. However, evidence from several systematic reviews suggests that in a substantial proportion of RCTs that led to oncology drug approvals, the recommended thresholds of ASCO and ESMO-MCBS were not met. In addition to efficacy and safety, quality of life (QoL) is important to patients with mCRC, especially for those who are receiving later-line therapy or end-of-life care. As such, both ESMO-MCBS and CCC recommend the inclusion of QoL assessments in the design of mCRC clinical trials. Since the publication of the ASCO recommendations in 2014, there has been significant progress in the development of treatment options for patients with refractory mCRC; these include the approvals of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) as a single agent and in combination with bevacizumab, and the approval of fruquintinib. Among the phase III RCTs in third-line mCRC, only the SUNLIGHT trial of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab met all recommended thresholds for clinically meaningful improvements, while also demonstrating a manageable safety profile and slower deterioration in multiple measures of QoL compared with FTD/TPI alone. The results from the SUNLIGHT study show that incremental gains in several clinically meaningful endpoints are achievable, thus raising the bar in defining clinically meaningful outcomes for emerging therapies in refractory mCRC.

Study of the relationship between psychoactive substance use and pain in cancer patients and cancer survivors: A French nationwide cross-sectional study

Pain is a prevalent symptom among cancer patients and survivors. Psychoactive substance use (PSU) is associated with both the presence and severity of pain. However, little is known about this association in the context of cancer. The primary objective was to compare the prevalence of PSU and its relationship with pain during and after cancer. PSU was defined as the use of nonmedication substances (alcohol, tobacco, e-cigarettes, cannabidiol, and cannabis), with frequency categorized as at least yearly, monthly, weekly, or daily. Secondary objectives aimed to explore the relationships between PSU and pain characteristics, health-related quality of life, anxiety, depression, deprivation, and individual characteristics. Among the 1041 individuals included, pain prevalence was 44.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.6%-47.8%). The overall prevalence of PSU at least monthly was 67.0% (95% CI 64.0%-69.8%). The proportions of chronic and neuropathic pains were higher for at least monthly use of cannabidiol compared to nonuse (70.0% vs. 39.3% and 55.7% vs. 28.1%, p < .001). In multivariate analysis, the monthly uses of tobacco and cannabidiol were higher in painful individuals than in nonpainful ones (odds ratio: 2.85 [95% CI 1.22-6.64] and 3.76 [95% CI 1.13-12.44], p < .05). From the point of view of the patient care, the study underscores the need for physicians to prioritize smoking cessation and pay attention to the use of cannabidiol during and after cancer.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): long-term, health-related quality-of-life results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 study, adjuvant pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival and distant-metastasis-free survival in patients with resected stage III melanoma. Earlier results showed no effect of pembrolizumab on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Little is known about HRQOL after completion of treatment with pembrolizumab, an important research area concerning patients who are likely to become long-term survivors. This study reports long-term HRQOL results.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial compared adjuvant pembrolizumab with placebo in patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0, recruited from 123 academic centres and community hospitals in 23 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographical region to receive 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses. Investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, measured with the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30. All patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation available who were alive 108 weeks from randomisation were included in this analysis of long-term HRQOL. Long-term HRQOL included assessments measured every 6 months between 108 weeks and 48 months after randomisation. The threshold of clinical relevance for all HRQOL scales used was an average change of 5 points. The trial is ongoing, recruitment is completed, and HRQOL data collection is finalised. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Completion of the HRQOL evaluation at baseline exceeded 90% (481 [94%] patients in the pembrolizumab group and 467 [92%] in the placebo group), and ranged between 60% and 90% for post-baseline timepoints. Among patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation, 365 (39%) were female and 583 (61%) were male. The mean change from baseline to long-term HRQOL was -0·56 (95% CI -2·33 to 1·22) in the pembrolizumab group and 1·63 (-0·12 to 3·38) in the placebo group. The difference between the two groups was -2·19 (-4·65 to 0·27, p=0·081). Differences for all other scales were smaller than 5 and not statistically significant.

INTERPRETATION

Adjuvant pembrolizumab did not have a significant impact on long-term HRQOL compared with placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma. These findings, together with earlier results on efficacy and HRQOL, support the use of pembrolizumab in this setting.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in myeloma clinical trials: an evolving paradigm

Measurement of overall survival (OS) remains the gold standard for interpreting the impact of new therapies for multiple myeloma in phase 3 trials. However, as outcomes have improved, it is increasingly challenging to use OS as the primary endpoint if timely approval of novel agents is to be ensured to enable maximum benefit for patients. Surrogate endpoints of OS, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and response to treatment, have contributed to approval decisions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency as endpoints demonstrating clinical benefit, and the FDA has recently supported the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma. This review aims to address situations in which the use of PFS as a surrogate endpoint warrants careful interpretation especially for specific subgroups of patients and considers ways to ensure that studies can be designed to account for possible discordance between PFS and OS. The utility of subgroup analyses, including the potential for those not pre-specified, to identify target populations for new agents is also discussed.

Time to Update-Requesting Inclusive Submission Categories for Oncology Research

Time to update abstract submission categories to promote dissemination of global oncology research.

Health-related quality of life outcomes reporting associated with FDA approvals in haematology and oncology

Objective

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes are important in making clinical and policy decisions. This study aimed to examine the HRQoL reporting in cancer drug trials leading to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals.

Methods and analysis

This retrospective cohort study analysed HRQoL data for trials leading to FDA approvals between July 2015 and May 2020. Proportion of included trials that reported HRQoL, latency between FDA approval and first report of HRQoL data, HRQoL outcomes, and their correlation with OS (overall survival) and PFS (progression-free survival) were analysed.

Results

Of the 233 trials associated with 207 FDA approvals, HRQoL was reported in 50% of trials, of which only 42% had the data reported by the time of FDA approval. There were no changes in frequency of HRQoL reporting between 2015 and 2020. HRQoL data were first reported in the primary publication in only 30% trials. Of the 115 trials with HRQoL data available, HRQoL improved in 43%, remained stable in 53% and worsened in 4% of trials. Among the trials that led to FDA approvals based on surrogate endpoints (79%), HRQoL was reported in 45% and improved only in 18% trials. There was no association between OS and PFS benefit and HRQoL outcomes.

Conclusion

Rates of HRQoL reporting were suboptimal in trials that led to FDA approvals with no improvements seen between 2015 and 2020. HRQoL reporting was often delayed and not presented in the primary publication. HRQoL reporting was further sparse in trials with approvals based on surrogate endpoints and HRQoL improved in only a minority of them.

Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials of systemic therapy for advanced soft tissue sarcomas in adults: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review evaluates reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search from January 2000 - August 2022 was conducted for phase II/III RCTs evaluating systemic treatments in adult patients with advanced STS. Quality of PRO reporting was assessed using the CONSORT PRO extension.

RESULTS

Out of 7294 abstracts, 59 articles were included; comprising 43 RCTs. Only 15 RCTs (35%) included PROs, none as primary endpoints. Only 10 of these RCTs reported PROs, either in the primary (6/10) or secondary publication (1/10) or in both (3/10), with a median time interval of 23 months. The median CONSORT PRO adherence score was 5.5/14, with higher scores in publications focusing exclusively on PROs.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the need for improved and more consistent PRO reporting to inform patient care in the setting of advanced STS.

From biology to clinical practice: antiproliferative effects of somatostatin analogs in neuroendocrine neoplasms

Somatostatin analogs (SSA), specifically octreotide and lanreotide, have demonstrated antiproliferative effects in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NET), a group of rare malignancies of diverse origin and presentation. A prominent feature of NET cells is the expression of G protein-coupled receptors called somatostatin receptors (SSTR). Although these SSTR are not uniformly present in NET, they can be instrumental in the diagnosis and treatment of NET. Apart from their application in nuclear imaging and radionuclide therapy, SSA have proven invaluable in the treatment of hormonal syndromes associated with certain NET (antisecretory effects of SSA), but it took more than two decades to convincingly demonstrate the antiproliferative effects of SSA in metastatic NET with the two pivotal studies PROMID and CLARINET. The current review summarizes three decades of SSA treatment and provides an overview of the clinical trial landscape for SSA monotherapy and combination therapy, including clinical implications and quality of life aspects, as well as ongoing fields of research.

Lessons learned from postmarketing withdrawals of expedited approvals for oncology drug indications

In the past decade, there have been a record number of oncology therapy approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Besides the EMA's conditional marketing authorisation programme and the FDA's Accelerated Approval Program, we observe a tendency towards fast approval for exploratory studies with non-randomised, uncontrolled designs and surrogate endpoints. This issue raises concerns about the robustness and effectiveness of accepted treatments, leaving patients and health-care professionals in a state of uncertainty. A substantial number of accelerated approvals have recently been withdrawn in the USA, with some still authorised in Europe, emphasising discrepancies in regulatory standards that affect both patients and society as a whole. We highlight examples of drugs, authorised on the basis of surrogate endpoints, that were later withdrawn due to an absence of overall survival benefit. Our findings address the challenges and consequences of accelerated approval pathways in oncology. In conclusion, this Policy Review calls for regulatory bodies to better align their procedures and insist on robust evidence, preferably through unbiased randomised controlled trials. Drug approval processes should prioritise patient benefit, overall survival, and quality of life to minimise risks and uncertainties for patients.

Systematic review of adoption, reporting and impact of health-related quality of life in phase III non-inferiority trials of systemic oncology treatments

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) assessment and patient-reported outcomes appear to be crucial in the rationale and interpretation of non-inferiority (NI) trials. The aim of this study was to assess the inclusion of QoL among endpoints in phase III NI oncology trials and the relevance of QoL results in the reporting and interpretation of these studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

By PubMed search and hand-search of 11 selected journals, we identified phase III NI trials in adult patients affected by solid tumours, published between 2012 and 2021. Trials were classified according to 4 NI strategies: (1) different drugs; (2) alternative drug administration routes; (3) shorter treatment duration; (4) "deintensification" of treatment schedule. Three main endpoints were: (1) the proportion of publications including QoL among endpoints; (2) the proportion of primary publications reporting QoL results; (3) the proportion of trials with available QoL results actually favoring the experimental treatment out of trials declaring NI.

RESULTS

106 publications were eligible. QoL was included among endpoints in 59 studies (55.7%), and QoL results were available in 40 primary publications (37.7%). In the 73 trials testing the NI of different drugs, QoL was included in 43 trials (58.9%) and QoL results were present in 31 publications (42.5%). Among the 74 trials formally demonstrating NI, only 19 trials (25.7%) had QoL results actually supporting the experimental treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In many NI trials in oncology, assessment and reporting of QoL are deficient. Furthermore, most trials formally claiming NI cannot count on QoL results actually supporting the experimental arm.

Patient-reported outcomes following selpercatinib treatment in Chinese patients with advanced RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and thyroid cancer, and RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer in the phase II LIBRETTO-321 trial

Background

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly becoming an important part of clinical trials as they are helpful in analyzing the safety and efficacy of treatment in chronic diseases like cancer.

Objectives

We report PROs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with selpercatinib treatment among Chinese patients with rearranged in transfection (RET) fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer (TC), and RET-mutant medullary TC (MTC) as an exploratory analysis of the LIBRETTO-321 trial.

Design

A total of 77 patients (47 RET fusion-positive NSCLC, 1 RET fusion-positive TC, and 29 RET-mutant MTC) were enrolled. Compliance for European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) was 100% at baseline and >90% at each time point.

Methods

PROs were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, and a bowel diary assessment for MTC patients with baseline diarrhea using the Systemic Therapy-Induced Diarrhea Assessment Tool. Data were collected at pre-dose; every 8 weeks from cycle 3; and every 12 weeks after cycle 13. A >10-point change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful. PRO changes were summarized through cycle 13.

Results

Most patients with NSCLC or MTC showed improvement or remained stable on the global health status and functional subscales. For global health status, 47.4% of NSCLC and MTC patients showed definite improvement with only 19.7% showing definite worsening. For functional subscales, less than 30% of the patients showed definite worsening. For symptom subscales, more than 64% of the patients either improved or remained stable for the symptoms. For MTC patients with bowel diary assessment (n = 5), there was no severity or worsening from baseline in the diarrheal episodes observed during treatment with selpercatinib.

Conclusion

The study demonstrated favorable PROs in Chinese patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, TC, and RET-mutant MTC treated with selpercatinib. HRQoL was improved or stable as assessed by EORTC QLQ-30.

Trail registration

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04280081) ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04280081.

Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI): stakeholder views, objectives, and procedures

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.