Evaluating health-related quality-of-life therapeutic effectiveness in a clinical trial with extensive nonignorable missing data and heterogeneous response: results from a phase III randomized trial of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer

The role of chemotherapy in treatment of advanced breast cancer: an overview for clinical practice

This review aims to evaluate the role of chemotherapy-containing regimens in the treatment of advanced breast cancer (ABC), with the purpose to optimize selection, sequencing and duration of treatment with the currently available agents for clinical practice. Data from observational as well as randomized phase II and III studies were included. Chemotherapy yielded a median overall survival (OS) of 2 years in registration studies, with comparable efficacy of different agents. Combining chemotherapy agents did not yield OS improvement and caused greater toxicity compared with single-agent chemotherapy. Continuing chemotherapy till progression or unacceptable toxicity generated greater efficacy without detrimental impact on quality of life compared with a limited amount of cycles. In real-world studies, benefits after third-line chemotherapy were modest compared with first- and second-line. Furthermore, effects of previous chemotherapy predicted effects of next-line therapy in real-world. Physicians increasingly prescribed capecitabine or taxanes as first- or second-line chemotherapy over time.

Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, are important endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there is little consensus about the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of these data. We did a systematic review to assess the variability, quality, and standards of PRO data analyses in advanced breast cancer RCTs. We searched PubMed for English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2017. Eligible articles were those that reported PRO results from RCTs of adult patients with advanced breast cancer receiving anti-cancer treatments with reported sample sizes of at least 50 patients-66 RCTs met the selection criteria. Only eight (12%) RCTs reported a specific PRO research hypothesis. Heterogeneity in the statistical methods used to assess PRO data was observed, with a mixture of longitudinal and cross-sectional techniques. Not all articles addressed the problem of multiple testing. Fewer than half of RCTs (28 [42%]) reported the clinical significance of their findings. 48 (73%) did not report how missing data were handled. Our systematic review shows a need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs. Lack of standardisation makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions and compare findings across trials. The Setting International Standards in the Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data Consortium was set up to address this need and develop recommendations on the analysis of PRO data in RCTs.

Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy as a viable option for treatment of advanced breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis and literature review

This meta-analysis was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine-based regimens for the treatment advanced breast cancer (ABC). Altogether 15 studies involving 8195 ABC patients were retrieved for analysis. Compared with non-gemcitabine-based chemotherapies, patients receiving gemcitabine-based therapy exhibited better overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) (HR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19; HR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.30; HR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.24). Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was significantly high but manageable in gemcitabine-based groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy had better OS (HR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32), PFS (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.27), and ORR (RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32). In addition, additional gemcitabine chemotherapy also showed better OS (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.30), PFS (HR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.30) and ORR (RR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.42) than gemcitabine replacement therapy. Furthermore, patients receiving gemcitabine-taxanes-based regimens had better OS (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28), PFS (HR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20) and ORR (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.35) than patients with non-gemcitabine-taxanes-based chemotherapy. These findings indicate that gemcitabine combination regimens could serve as a promising regimen for ABC patients, though increased hematologic toxicity should be considered with caution.

A systematic review and development of a classification framework for factors associated with missing patient-reported outcome data

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Missing patient-reported outcome data can lead to biased results, to loss of power to detect between-treatment differences, and to research waste. Awareness of factors may help researchers reduce missing patient-reported outcome data through study design and trial processes. The aim was to construct a Classification Framework of factors associated with missing patient-reported outcome data in the context of comparative studies. The first step in this process was informed by a systematic review.

METHODS

Two databases (MEDLINE and CINAHL) were searched from inception to March 2015 for English articles. Inclusion criteria were (a) relevant to patient-reported outcomes, (b) discussed missing data or compliance in prospective medical studies, and (c) examined predictors or causes of missing data, including reasons identified in actual trial datasets and reported on cover sheets. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Discrepancies were discussed with the research team prior to finalizing the list of eligible papers. In completing the systematic review, four particular challenges to synthesizing the extracted information were identified. To address these challenges, operational principles were established by consensus to guide the development of the Classification Framework.

RESULTS

A total of 6027 records were screened. In all, 100 papers were eligible and included in the review. Of these, 57% focused on cancer, 23% did not specify disease, and 20% reported for patients with a variety of non-cancer conditions. In total, 40% of the papers offered a descriptive analysis of possible factors associated with missing data, but some papers used other methods. In total, 663 excerpts of text (units), each describing a factor associated with missing patient-reported outcome data, were extracted verbatim. Redundant units were identified and sequestered. Similar units were grouped, and an iterative process of consensus among the investigators was used to reduce these units to a list of factors that met the guiding principles. The list was organized on a framework, using an iterative consensus-based process. The resultant Classification Framework is a summary of the factors associated with missing patient-reported outcome data described in the literature. It consists of 5 components (instrument, participant, centre, staff, and study) and 46 categories, each with one or more sub-categories or examples.

CONCLUSION

A systematic review of the literature revealed 46 unique categories of factors associated with missing patient-reported outcome data, organized into 5 main component groups. The Classification Framework may assist researchers to improve the design of new randomized clinical trials and to implement procedures to reduce missing patient-reported outcome data. Further research using the Classification Framework to inform quantitative analyses of missing patient-reported outcome data in existing clinical trials and to inform qualitative inquiry of research staff is planned.

Patient-reported pain and other quality of life domains as prognostic factors for survival in a phase III clinical trial of patients with advanced breast cancer

Background

Patient-reported outcomes have been associated with survival in numerous studies across cancer types, including breast cancer. However, the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) and the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL) have rarely been investigated in this regard in breast cancer.

Methods

Here we describe a post hoc analysis of the prognostic effect of baseline scores of these instruments on survival in a phase III trial of patients with advanced breast cancer who received gemcitabine plus paclitaxel or paclitaxel alone after anthracycline-based adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. The variables for this analysis were baseline BPI-SF “worst pain” and BPI-SF “pain interference” scores, and four RSCL subscales (each transformed to 0–100). Univariate and multivariate Cox models were used, the latter in the presence of 11 demographic/clinical variables. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to compare survival for patients by BPI-SF or RSCL scores.

Results

Of 529 randomized patients, 286 provided BPI-SF data and 336 provided RSCL data at baseline. Univariate analyses identified BPI-SF worst pain and pain interference (both hazard ratios [HR], 1.07 for a 1-point increase; both p ≤ 0.0061) and three of four RSCL subscales [activity level, physical distress, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (HR, 0.86–0.91 for 10-point increase all p ≤ 0.0104)], to have significant prognostic effect for survival. BPI-SF worst pain (p = 0.0342) and RSCL activity level (p = 0.0004) were prognostic in the multivariate analysis. Median survival for patients categorized by BPI-SF worst pain score was 23.8 (n = 91), 17.9 (n = 94) and 14.6 (n = 94) months for scores 0, 1–4, and 5–10, respectively (log-rank p = 0.0065). Median survival was 23.8 and 14.6 months for patients (n = 330) with above- and below-median RSCL activity level scores respectively (log-rank p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Pretreatment BPI-SF worst pain and RSCL activity scores provide distinct prognostic information for survival in patients receiving paclitaxel or gemcitabine plus paclitaxel for advanced breast cancer even after controlling for multiple demographic and clinical factors.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00006459.

Construction of quality of life change patterns: example in oncology in a phase III therapeutic trial (FFCD 0307)

Objective

Quality of life data in cancerology are often difficult to summarize due to missing data and difficulty to analyze the pattern of evolution in different groups of patients. The aim of this work was to apply a new methodology to construct Quality of Life (QoL) change patterns within patients included in a clinical trial comparing to regimen of treatment in locally advanced eosogastric cancer.

Materials and methods

In this trial, QoL was assessed every 2 months by self-reported EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Physical dimension scores were analyzed. After multiple imputation of missing data, 27 statistical measures aiming to describe the variation of QoL measures among follow-up were computed for each patient. Based on these measures, patient were grouped into homogenous groups in terms of QoL variation pattern using a K-Means classification method. The mean QoL score at each time was graphically represented in each obtained pattern. Finally, clinical characteristic of patients in each pattern of QoL were described and compared.

Results

The trial included 416 patients and 1023 questionnaire were collected. 74 % of patients were male with a mean ± SD age of 62 ± 11 years. 43 % of scores were missing. Patients were grouped into four classes of homogeneous QoL variation patterns. 1) a Pattern of 24 (6 %) patients showing improvement in QoL with a mean variation of +10.7 points on the 0–100 scale, 2) a Pattern of 171 (41 %) patients showing a stability 3) two Patterns of 78 (19 %) and 143 (34 %) patients respectively showing a deterioration of QoL with a mean variation of −67.2 and −67.6, respectively. There were no difference between patterns in terms of gender or age. Patients within “degradation” pattern had significantly lower performance status (p = 0.015), higher severe after-effects rate (p < 10-3) and death rate (p < 10-3).

Conclusion

This work opens up perspectives for longitudinal data analysis with a high probability of missing values while providing a relevant graphical summary. Patterns of QoL evolution with clinical relevance may help to interpret longitudinal QoL data in Cancer studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-015-0342-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The use and reporting of patient-reported outcomes in phase III breast cancer trials

BACKGROUND

Public and government attention to patient-centered research outcomes has been increasing, evidenced by the recent formation of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Drug development clinical trials can be made more patient-centered by collecting patient-reported outcome measures that can inform decision making by patients and their health-care providers. Patient-reported outcomes are important to collect in trials of breast cancer therapeutics, which encompass a wide range of treatment regimens and side effects.

PURPOSE

We sought to determine recent trends in the use of patient-reported outcomes in drug trials for the treatment of breast cancer and evaluate the reporting of these data in study publications.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase III breast cancer drug trials, recording information on start date, primary completion date, primary outcome measure, primary sponsor, stage of cancer, and patient-reported outcome use. To assess the reporting of patient-reported outcome data, Google.com and PubMed.gov were searched for all publications resulting from included trials.

RESULTS

We found 236 eligible trials, starting between May 1989 and December 2011. Of these trials, 83 (35%) stipulated patient-reported outcome use. The rate of patient-reported outcome use in recent years has shown no increase over earlier time periods: 37% (1989-2000) versus 36% (2004-2007) versus 30% (2008-2011) (p = 0.8). Trials with sponsorship led by the pharmaceutical industry and trials including patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease had the highest rates of patient-reported outcome use (40/87 (46%) and 44/102 (43%), respectively). Among the 83 trials that collected patient-reported outcome measures, 36 were completed a minimum of 2 years before our analysis; of these 36 studies, 19 (53%) had published patient-reported outcome data.

LIMITATIONS

Data were limited to self-reported descriptions of trials listed on the ClinicalTrial.gov database, which is the best compendium of trial information available, but it is neither a complete nor a fully accurate record of all trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported outcome use and reporting in breast cancer drug trials has remained relatively low despite calls for more patient-centered research. Increasing the collection and availability of patient-reported outcome data to guide clinical decisions will require aligned support from trial sponsors, researchers, journal editors, regulators and patient advocacy groups, who can all play important roles in implementing change.