Validity of a single-item indicator of treatment side effect bother in a diverse sample of cancer patients

Validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful change threshold estimates of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16)

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women. Patient-reported outcome measures are used to evaluate patients' health-related quality of life in clinical breast cancer studies. This study evaluated the structure, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) subscales in a clinical trial featuring patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (aBC), and estimated NFBSI-16 meaningful change thresholds.

METHODS

Data from 101 patients with aBC enrolled in a phase II trial (Xenera-1) were included for psychometric evaluation of the NFBSI-16. Subscale structure was evaluated by assessing inter-item correlations, item-total correlations, and internal consistency (cycles 2 and 5). Validity was assessed using scale-level convergent validity (cycles 2 and 5) and known-groups (Baseline). Reliability was analysed via test-retest at cycles 3-4, and responsiveness to improvement and worsening was evaluated at cycles 5, 7, and 9. Meaningful change thresholds were estimated using anchor-based methods (supported by distribution-based methods) at cycles 5, 7, and 9.

RESULTS

NFBSI-16 internal consistency was acceptable, but item-total correlations suggested that its subscales and the GP5 item (side-effect of treatment) scores may be preferred over a total score. Convergent and known-groups evidence supported NFBSI-16 validity. Test-retest reliability was good to excellent for Total and DRS-P (disease-related symptoms: physical) scales, and moderate for the GP5 item. Responsiveness to worsening was generally demonstrated, but responsiveness to improvement could not be demonstrated due to limited observed improvement. Anchor-based meaningful change thresholds were estimated for DRS-P and Total scores.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that the NFBSI-16 has desirable psychometric properties for use in clinical studies in aBC. It also provides estimates of group- and individual-level meaningful change thresholds to facilitate score interpretation in future aBC research.

The FACT-GP5 as a global tolerability measure: responsiveness and robustness to missing assessments

PURPOSE

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy item (FACT-GP5) has the potential to provide an understanding of global treatment tolerability from the patient perspective. Longitudinal evaluations of the FACT-GP5 and challenges posed by data missing-not-at-random (MNAR) have not been explored. Robustness of the FACT-GP5 to missing data assumptions and the responsiveness of the FACT-GP5 to key side-effects are evaluated.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind study (NCT00065325), postmenopausal women (n = 618) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), advanced breast cancer received either fulvestrant or exemestane and completed FACT measures monthly for seven months. Cumulative link mixed models (CLMM) were fit to evaluate: (1) the trajectory of the FACT-GP5 and (2) the responsiveness of the FACT-GP5 to CTCAE grade, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status scale, and key side-effects from the FACT. Sensitivity analyses of the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption were conducted.

RESULTS

Odds of reporting worse side-effect bother increased over time. There were positive within-person relationships between level of side-effect bother (FACT-GP5) and severity of other FACT items, as well as ECOG performance status and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade. The number of missing FACT-GP5 assessments impacted the trajectory of the FACT-GP5 but did not impact the relationships between the FACT-GP5 and other items (except for nausea [FACT-GP2]).

CONCLUSIONS

Results support the responsiveness of the FACT-GP5. Generally speaking, the responsiveness of the FACT-GP5 is robust to missing assessments. Missingness should be considered, however, when evaluating change over time of the FACT-GP5.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00065325.

TRIAL REGISTRATION YEAR

2003.

Administering selected subscales of patient-reported outcome questionnaires to reduce patient burden and increase relevance: a position statement on a modular approach

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas.

Patient-Reported Adverse Events and Early Treatment Discontinuation Among Patients With Multiple Myeloma

Importance

There is substantial interest in capturing cancer treatment tolerability from the patient's perspective using patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Objective

To examine whether a PRO question, item 5 from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General General Physical Wellbeing Scale (GP5), was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) due to adverse events.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective survey study was conducted from February to April 2023. Among participants in the ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 trial (a phase 3, parallel design trial conducted between 2013 and 2019), patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction therapy. The GP5 item was administered at baseline (pretreatment) and at 1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months postbaseline. Eligible participants included patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated at community oncology practices or academic medical centers in the US.

Exposures

GP5 response options were "very much," "quite a bit," "somewhat," "a little bit," and "not at all." Responses at each assessment while undergoing treatment (1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months) were categorized as high adverse event bother (ie, "very much," and "quite a bit") and low adverse event bother (ie, "somewhat," "a little bit," or "not at all"). In addition, change from baseline to each assessment while undergoing treatment was calculated and categorized as worsening by 1 response category and 2 or more response categories.

Main Outcome and Measure

ETD due to adverse events (yes vs no) was analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for treatment group, performance status, gender, race, and disease stage.

Results

Of the 1087 participants in the original trial, 1058 (mean [SD] age 64 [9] years; 531 receiving VrD [50.2%]; 527 receiving KRd [49.8%]) responded to item GP5 and were included in the secondary analysis. A small proportion (142 patients [13.4%]) discontinued treatment early due to AEs. For those with high adverse-effect bother, GP5 while undergoing treatment was associated with ETD at 1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.25-3.89), 2.8 months (aOR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.01-5.80), and 5.5 months (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.69-12.83). Worsening by 2 or more response categories on the GP5 was associated with ETD at 2.8 months (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.64-5.54) and 5.5 months (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 1.45-20.76).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey study of the E1A11 trial, worse GP5 response was associated with ETD. These findings suggest that simple assessment of adverse-effect bother while receiving treatment is an efficient way to indicate treatment tolerability and ETD risk.

Importance of Low- and Moderate-Grade Adverse Events in Patients' Treatment Experience and Treatment Discontinuation: An Analysis of the E1912 Trial

PURPOSE

Despite defined grades of 1 to 5 for adverse events (AEs) on the basis of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events criteria, mild (G1) and moderate (G2) AEs are often not reported in phase III trials. This under-reporting may inhibit our ability to understand patient toxicity burden. We analyze the relationship between the grades of AEs experienced with patient side-effect bother and treatment discontinuation.

METHODS

We analyzed a phase III Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network trial with comprehensive AE data. The Likert response Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-GP5 item, "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" was used to define side-effect bother. Bayesian mixed models were used to assess the impact of G1 and G2 AE counts on patient side-effect bother and treatment discontinuation. AEs were further analyzed on the basis of symptomatology (symptomatic or asymptomatic). The results are given as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible interval (CrI).

RESULTS

Each additional G1 and G2 AEs experienced during a treatment cycle increased the odds of increased self-reported patient side-effect bother by 13% (95% CrI, 1.06 to 1.21) and 35% (95% CrI, 1.19 to 1.54), respectively. Furthermore, only AEs defined as symptomatic were associated with increased side-effect bother, with asymptomatic AEs showing no association regardless of grade. Count of G2 AEs increased the odds of treatment discontinuation by 59% (95% CrI, 1.32 to 1.95), with symptomatic G2 AEs showing a stronger association (OR, 1.75; 95% CrI, 1.28 to 2.39) relative to asymptomatic G2 AEs (OR, 1.45; 95% CrI, 1.12 to 1.89).

CONCLUSION

Low- and moderate-grade AEs are related to increased odds of increased patient side-effect bother and treatment discontinuation, with symptomatic AEs demonstrating greater magnitude of association than asymptomatic. Our findings suggest that limiting AE capture to grade 3+ misses important contributors to treatment side-effect bother and discontinuation.

Psychometrics of patient-reported bother from side effects of treatment single-items in industry-sponsored oncology trials

BACKGROUND

Improvements in cancer treatment have increased the number of cancer survivors, but also increased the long-term and late effects from cancer therapy. Patient reported "side effect bother" could be used to measure the burden of treatment, and the risk for negative outcomes such as dose reduction, treatment delay or discontinuation. The current study addresses the psychometric properties of a single item, determines what represents a "meaningful change", and evaluates the correlation to safety endpoints and functioning.

METHODS

Results from 5911 patients enrolled in 8 clinical trials representing 5 disease types in oncology and hematology who completed either the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) GP5 item or a modified bother item (MBI) were assessed.

RESULTS

Patients ranged in age from 18 to 93 years, with all cancer stages represented and approximately equal numbers of males and females. Test-retest reliability was acceptable, as were convergent and known groups validity. The GP5 and MBI effectively demonstrated sensitivity to change over time and established meaningful thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that these single-items are psychometrically sound, capable of distinguishing known groups, responsive to change and can identify meaningful change over time in terms of treatment-related symptoms. It extends the findings of recent scientific groups by providing analyses not included in prior studies, and further supports the FDA's recommendation to include a single item question in clinical trials.

Patient-reported tolerability of adjuvant ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) versus high-dose interferon alfa-2b for resected high-risk stage III-IV melanoma in phase III trial E1609

PURPOSE

Trial E1609 demonstrated superior overall survival with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) compared to high-dose interferon (HDI) for patients with resected high-risk melanoma. To inform treatment tolerability, we compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL), gastrointestinal (GI), and treatment-specific physical and cognitive/emotional symptoms. We also compared treatment-specific concerns between all arms.

METHODS

We assessed HRQoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, physical and cognitive/emotional concerns using the FACT-Biologic Response Modifier subscale, and GI symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Diarrhea subscale pre-treatment and every 3 months. The primary outcome was the difference in HRQoL at 3 months between ipi3/ipi10 vs. HDI.

RESULTS

549 patients (n = 158 ipi3; n = 191 ipi10; n = 200 HDI) were analyzed. 3-month completion was 58.7%. Compared to HDI, ipilimumab patients reported better HRQoL (ipi3 = 87.5 ± 14.6 vs. HDI = 74.7 ± 15.4, p < .001; ipi10 = 84.9 ± 16.5 vs. HDI, p < .001) and fewer physical (ipi3 = 22.3 ± 4.6 vs. HDI = 17.1 ± 5.4, p < .001; ipi10 = 21.8 ± 5.0 vs. HDI p < .001) and cognitive/emotional (ipi3 = 18.6 ± 4.4 vs. HDI = 15.0 ± 5.3, p < .001; ipi10 = 17.7 ± 4.8 vs. HDI p < .001) concerns, but worse GI symptoms (ipi3 = 40.8 ± 5.0 vs. HDI = 42.2 ± 2.9, p = .011; ipi10 = 39.5 ± 7.0 vs. HDI, p < .001). Fewer ipilimumab patients reported worsening treatment-specific concerns (e.g., 52% of ipi3 and 58% of ipi10 reported worsening fatigue vs. 82% HDI, p's < .001).

CONCLUSION

PROs demonstrated less toxicity of ipi3 compared to HDI and ipi10. Priorities for symptom management among patients receiving ipilimumab include GI toxicities, fatigue, weakness, appetite loss, arthralgia, and depression.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01274338, January 11, 2011 (first posted date) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01274338?term=NCT01274338&draw=2&rank=1 .

How do patients interpret and respond to a single-item global indicator of cancer treatment tolerability?

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in patient-reported measures of cancer treatment tolerability. A global measure of bother, the FACT GP5 item ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment") is potentially useful for regulatory, research, and clinical use. To understand this item's appropriateness for capturing treatment tolerability, we conducted cognitive interviews on this item with 3 samples of cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients with ovarian cancer (Study 1: N = 21; on treatment), lymphoma (Study 2: N = 14; on treatment), and colorectal or lung cancer (Study 3: N = 16; treatment naïve) were interviewed about GP5's understandability and relevance to their treatment side effects. What patients think about when answering GP5 was also assessed. In all studies, the interview included both structured and open-ended questions. Qualitative data were coded to extract themes and responses to structured questions were tallied.

RESULTS

Most patients on treatment (Studies 1 and 2) reported that the GP5 item wording is appropriate (88%) and its meaning is clear (97%). They were very confident or confident in their response (97%) and stated that GP5 was relevant to their cancer experience (97%). When answering GP5, patients considered their treatment and specific side effects. A large proportion (40%) of the treatment-naïve (Study 3) patients reported that GP5 was not relevant to their cancer treatment, and the largest proportion responded to GP5 thinking of negative side effect expectancies.

CONCLUSION

This study provides assurance that GP5 is a useful indicator of treatment tolerability, and is meaningful to people with cancer, especially once they have started treatment.