1
|
Johns JR, Vyas J, Ali FM, Ingram JR, Salek S, Finlay AY. The Dermatology Life Quality Index as the primary outcome in randomized clinical trials: a systematic review. Br J Dermatol 2024; 191:497-507. [PMID: 38819233 DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljae228] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2024] [Revised: 04/17/2024] [Accepted: 05/24/2024] [Indexed: 06/01/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Primary endpoint measures in clinical trials are typically measures of disease severity, with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relegated as secondary endpoints. However, validation of some PROMs may be more rigorous than that of disease severity measures, which could provide support for a primary role for PROMs. OBJECTIVES This study reports on 24 peer reviewed journal articles that used the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) as primary outcome, derived from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utlizing DLQI, covering all diseases and interventions. METHODS The study protocol was prospectively published on the PROSPERO database, and the study followed PRISMA guidelines. Searches were made using MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsycINFO databases and records were combined into an Endnote database. Records were filtered for duplicates and selected based on study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Full-text articles were sourced and data were extracted by two reviewers into a bespoke REDCap database, with a third reviewer adjudicating disagreements. The Jadad scoring method was used to determine risk of bias. RESULTS Of the 3220 publications retrieved from online searching, 457 articles met the eligibility criteria and included 198 587 patients. DLQI scores were used as primary outcomes in 24 (5.3%) of these studies comprising 15 different diseases and 3436 patients. Most study interventions (17 of 24 studies, 68%) were systemic drugs, with biologics (liraglutide, alefacept, secukinumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab) accounting for 5 of 25 pharmacological interventions (20%). Topical treatments comprised 32% (8 studies), whereas nonpharmacological interventions (n = 8) were 24% of the total interventions (N = 33). Three studies used nontraditional medicines. Eight studies were multicentred (33.3%), with trials conducted in at least 14 different countries, and four studies (16.7%) were conducted in multiple countries. The Jadad risk of bias scale showed that bias was uncertain or low, as 87.5% of studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3. CONCLUSIONS This study provides evidence for use of the DLQI as a primary outcome in clinical trials. Researchers and clinicians can use this data to inform decisions about further use of the DLQI as a primary outcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey R Johns
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Jui Vyas
- Centre for Medical Education, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Faraz M Ali
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - John R Ingram
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Sam Salek
- School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - Andrew Y Finlay
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lim AM, Le Tourneau C, Hurt C, Laskar SG, Steuer CE, Chow VLY, Szturz P, Henson C, Day AT, Bates JE, Lazarakis S, McDowell L, Mehanna H, Yom SS. Assessment of endpoint definitions in recurrent and metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma trials: Head and Neck Cancer International Group consensus recommendations. Lancet Oncol 2024; 25:e308-e317. [PMID: 38936389 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(24)00068-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2023] [Revised: 01/23/2024] [Accepted: 01/25/2024] [Indexed: 06/29/2024]
Abstract
Transparent and precise endpoint definitions are a crucial aspect of clinical trial conduct and reporting, and are used to communicate the benefit of an intervention. Previous studies have identified inconsistencies in endpoint definitions across oncological clinical trials. Here, the Head and Neck Cancer International Group assessed endpoint definitions from phase 3 trials or trials considered practice-changing for patients with recurrent or metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, published between 2008 and 2021. We identify considerable and global heterogeneity in endpoint definitions, which undermines the interpretation of results and development of future studies. We show how fundamental components of even incontrovertible endpoints such as overall survival vary widely, highlighting an urgent need for increased rigour in reporting and harmonisation of endpoints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annette M Lim
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Christophe Le Tourneau
- Department of Drug Development and Innovation (D3i), Institut Curie, Paris, France; INSERM U900 Research unit, Institut Curie, Paris, France; Paris-Saclay University, Paris, France
| | - Chris Hurt
- Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Sarbani G Laskar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
| | - Conor E Steuer
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Velda L Y Chow
- Division of Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
| | - Petr Szturz
- Department of Oncology, University of Lausanne and Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Christina Henson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma, OK, USA
| | - Andrew T Day
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, TX, USA
| | - James E Bates
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Smaro Lazarakis
- Health Sciences Library, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Lachlan McDowell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Hisham Mehanna
- Institute of Head and Neck Studies and Education (InHANSE), University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| | - Sue S Yom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Weiss ML, Domschikowski J, Krug D, Sonnhoff M, Nitsche M, Hoffmann W, Becker-Schiebe M, Bock F, Hoffmann M, Schmalz C, Dunst J, Fabian A. The impact of palliative radiotherapy on health-related quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer - Results of a multicenter prospective cohort study. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2023; 41:100633. [PMID: 37206410 PMCID: PMC10189372 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100633] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2023] [Revised: 04/13/2023] [Accepted: 04/24/2023] [Indexed: 05/21/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Palliative radiotherapy for patients with head and neck cancer can be used to alleviate symptoms. Only a few studies have investigated its impact on patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Therefore, we conducted a prospective multicenter observational study. The primary objective was to assess changes in health-related quality of life (HrQoL) per PRO. Methods Eligibility criteria included i.) head and neck cancer and ii.) palliative radiotherapy indicated (EQD2Gy < 60 Gy). The primary follow-up date was eight weeks after radiotherapy (t8w). PRO measures included the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-H&N43 and pain per Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Per protocol, five PRO domains were to be reported in detail as well as PRO domains corresponding to a primary and secondary symptom as determined by the individual patient. We defined a minimal important difference (MID) of 10 points. Results From 06/2020 to 06/2022, 61 patients were screened and 21 patients were included. Due to death or decline in health-status, HrQoL data was available for 18 patients at the first fraction and for eight patients at t8w. The MID was not met for the predefined domains in terms of mean values as compared from first fraction to t8w. Individually in those patients with available HrQoL data at t8w, 71% (5/7) improved in their primary and 40% (2/5) in their secondary symptom domain reaching the MID from first fraction to t8w, respectively. There was a significant improvement in pain per NRS in those patients with available data at t8w per Wilcoxon signed rank test (p = 0.041). Acute mucositis of grade ≥3 per CTCAE v5.0 occurred in 44% (8/18) of the patients. The median overall survival was 11 months. Conclusion Despite low patient numbers and risk of selection bias, our study shows some evidence of a benefit from palliative radiotherapy for head and neck cancer as measured by PRO.German Clinical Trial Registry identifier: DRKS00021197.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marie-Luise Weiss
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, 24105 Kiel, Germany
| | - Justus Domschikowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, 24105 Kiel, Germany
| | - David Krug
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, 24105 Kiel, Germany
| | - Mathias Sonnhoff
- Center for Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, 28239 Bremen, Germany
| | - Mirko Nitsche
- Center for Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, 28239 Bremen, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Hoffmann
- Radiotherapy & Radiation Oncology, Hospital Braunschweig, 38114 Braunschweig, Germany
| | | | - Felix Bock
- Department of Radiotherapy, University of Rostock, 18059 Rostock, Germany
| | - Markus Hoffmann
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Germany
| | - Claudia Schmalz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, 24105 Kiel, Germany
| | - Jürgen Dunst
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, 24105 Kiel, Germany
| | - Alexander Fabian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, 24105 Kiel, Germany
- Corresponding author at: Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, 24105 Kiel, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rühle A, Nya Yompang VA, Spohn SKB, Stoian R, Zamboglou C, Gkika E, Grosu AL, Nicolay NH, Sprave T. Palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases in octogenarians: How do the oldest olds respond? Results from a tertiary cancer center with 288 treated patients. Radiat Oncol 2022; 17:153. [PMID: 36071522 PMCID: PMC9450461 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-02122-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2022] [Accepted: 08/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accompanied by the demographic change, the number of octogenarian cancer patients with bone metastases will increase in the future. Palliative radiotherapy constitutes an effective analgesic treatment; however, as pain perception and bone metabolism change with increasing age, the analgesic efficacy of radiotherapy may be altered in elderly patients. We therefore investigated the treatment outcomes of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases in octogenarians. METHODS Patients between 80 and 89 years undergoing radiotherapy for bone metastases between 2009 and 2019 at a tertiary cancer center were analyzed for patterns-of-care, pain response and overall survival (OS). Logistic regression analyses were carried out to examine parameters associated with pain response, and Cox analyses were conducted to reveal prognostic parameters for OS. RESULTS A total of 288 patients with 516 irradiated lesions were included in the analysis. The majority (n = 249, 86%) completed all courses of radiotherapy. Radiotherapy led to pain reduction in 176 patients (61%) at the end of treatment. Complete pain relief at the first follow-up was achieved in 84 patients (29%). Bisphosphonate administration was significantly associated with higher rates of pain response at the first follow-up (p < 0.05). Median OS amounted to 9 months, and 1-year, 2-year and 3-year OS were 43%, 28% and 17%. In the multivariate analysis, ECOG (p < 0.001), Mizumoto score (p < 0.01) and Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) (p < 0.001) were independent prognosticators for OS. CONCLUSION Palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases constitutes a feasible and effective analgesic treatment in octogenarian patients. ECOG, Mizumoto score and SINS are prognosic variables for survival and may aid treatment decisions regarding radiotherapy fractionation in this patient group. Single-fraction radiotherapy with 8 Gy should be applied for patients with uncomplicated bone metastases and poor prognosis. Prospective trials focusing on quality of life of these very old cancer patients with bone metastases are warranted to reveal the optimal radiotherapeutic management for this vulnerable population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Rühle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Freiburg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Verlaine Ange Nya Yompang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Freiburg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Simon K B Spohn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Freiburg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Raluca Stoian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Freiburg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Freiburg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eleni Gkika
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Freiburg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Anca-Ligia Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Freiburg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Nils H Nicolay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Freiburg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Tanja Sprave
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Robert-Koch-Str. 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. .,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Freiburg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Fabian A, Domschikowski J, Letsch A, Schmalz C, Freitag-Wolf S, Dunst J, Krug D. Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Trials of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2231930. [PMID: 36136335 PMCID: PMC9500555 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.31930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Approximately 50% of all patients with cancer have an indication for radiotherapy, and approximately 50% of radiotherapy is delivered with palliative intent, with the aim of alleviating symptoms. Symptoms are best assessed by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), yet their reliable interpretation requires adequate reporting in publications. OBJECTIVE To investigate the use and reporting of PROs in clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy. EVIDENCE REVIEW This preregistered systematic review searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published from 1990 to 2020. Key eligibility criteria were palliative setting, palliative radiotherapy as treatment modality, and clinical trial design (per National Institutes of Health definition). Two authors independently assessed eligibility. Trial characteristics were extracted and standard of PRO reporting was assessed in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. The association of the year of publication with the use of PROs was assessed by logistic regression. Factors associated with higher CONSORT-PRO adherence were analyzed by multiple regression. This study is reported following the PRISMA guidelines. FINDINGS Among 7377 records screened, 225 published clinical trials representing 24 281 patients were eligible. Of these, 45 trials (20%) used a PRO as a primary end point and 71 trials (31%) used a PRO as a secondary end point. The most prevalent PRO measures were the Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale (38 trials), European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (32 trials), and trial-specific unvalidated measures (25 trials). A more recent year of publication was significantly associated with a higher chance of PROs as a secondary end point (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.07]; P = .03) but not as primary end point. Adherence to CONSORT-PRO was poor or moderate for most items. Mean (SD) adherence to the extension adherence score was 46.2% (19.6%) for trials with PROs as primary end point and 31.8% (19.8%) for trials with PROs as a secondary end point. PROs as a primary end point (regression coefficient, 9.755 [95% CI, 2.270-17.240]; P = .01), brachytherapy as radiotherapy modality (regression coefficient, 16.795 [95% CI, 5.840-27.751]; P = .003), and larger sample size (regression coefficient, 0.028 [95% CI, 0.006-0.049]; P = .01) were significantly associated with better PRO reporting per extension adherence score. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials, the use and reporting of PROs had room for improvement for future trials, preferably with PROs as a primary end point.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Fabian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Justus Domschikowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Anne Letsch
- Department of Haematology and Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Claudia Schmalz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Sandra Freitag-Wolf
- Institute of Medical Informatics and Statistics, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Juergen Dunst
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - David Krug
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| |
Collapse
|