Quality of life assessment and reporting in colorectal cancer: A systematic review of phase III trials published between 2012 and 2018

Leveraging patient experience data to guide medicines development, regulation, access decisions and clinical care in the EU

Patient experience data (PED), provided by patients/their carers without interpretation by clinicians, directly capture what matters more to patients on their medical condition, treatment and impact of healthcare. PED can be collected through different methodologies and these need to be robust and validated for its intended use. Medicine regulators are increasingly encouraging stakeholders to generate, collect and submit PED to support both scientific advice in development programs and regulatory decisions on the approval and use of these medicines. This article reviews the existing definitions and types of PED and demonstrate the potential for use in different settings of medicines' life cycle, focusing on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) and Patient Preferences (PP). Furthermore, it addresses some challenges and opportunities, alluding to important regulatory guidance that has been published, methodological aspects and digitalization, highlighting the lack of guidance as a key hurdle to achieve more systematic inclusion of PED in regulatory submissions. In addition, the article discusses opportunities at European and global level that could be implemented to leverage PED use. New digital tools that allow patients to collect PED in real time could also contribute to these advances, but it is equally important not to overlook the challenges they entail. The numerous and relevant initiatives being developed by various stakeholders in this field, including regulators, show their confidence in PED's value and create an ideal moment to address challenges and consolidate PED use across medicines' life cycle.

Harnessing the Potential of Real-World Evidence in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

OPINION STATEMENT

Treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) are primarily based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the gold standard methodology to evaluate safety and efficacy of oncological treatments. However, generalizability of trial results is often limited due to stringent eligibility criteria, underrepresentation of specific populations, and more heterogeneity in clinical practice. This may result in an efficacy-effectiveness gap and uncertainty regarding meaningful benefit versus treatment harm. Meanwhile, conduct of traditional RCTs has become increasingly challenging due to identification of a growing number of (small) molecular subtypes. These challenges-combined with the digitalization of health records-have led to growing interest in use of real-world data (RWD) to complement evidence from RCTs. RWD is used to evaluate epidemiological trends, quality of care, treatment effectiveness, long-term (rare) safety, and quality of life (QoL) measures. In addition, RWD is increasingly considered in decision-making by clinicians, regulators, and payers. In this narrative review, we elaborate on these applications in CRC, and provide illustrative examples. As long as the quality of RWD is safeguarded, ongoing developments, such as common data models, federated learning, and predictive modelling, will further unfold its potential. First, whenever possible, we recommend conducting pragmatic trials, such as registry-based RCTs, to optimize generalizability and answer clinical questions that are not addressed in registrational trials. Second, we argue that marketing approval should be conditional for patients who would have been ineligible for the registrational trial, awaiting planned (non) randomized evaluation of outcomes in the real world. Third, high-quality effectiveness results should be incorporated in treatment guidelines to aid in patient counseling. We believe that a coordinated effort from all stakeholders is essential to improve the quality of RWD, create a learning healthcare system with optimal use of trials and real-world evidence (RWE), and ultimately ensure personalized care for every CRC patient.

Updated Management of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Scientific Advances Driving Modern Therapeutic Innovations

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and accounts for an estimated 1 million deaths annually worldwide. The liver is the most common site of metastatic spread from colorectal cancer, significantly driving both morbidity and mortality. Although remarkable advances have been made in recent years in the management for patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases, significant challenges remain in early detection, prevention of progression and recurrence, and in the development of more effective therapeutics. In 2017, our group held a multidisciplinary state-of-the-science symposium to discuss the rapidly evolving clinical and scientific advances in the field of colorectal liver metastases, including novel early detection and prognostic liquid biomarkers, identification of high-risk cohorts, advances in tumor-immune therapy, and different regional and systemic therapeutic strategies. Since that time, there have been scientific discoveries translating into therapeutic innovations addressing the current management challenges. These innovations are currently reshaping the treatment paradigms and spurring further scientific discovery. Herein, we present an updated discussion of both the scientific and clinical advances and future directions in the management of colorectal liver metastases, including adoptive T-cell therapies, novel blood-based biomarkers, and the role of the tumor microbiome. In addition, we provide a comprehensive overview detailing the role of modern multidisciplinary clinical approaches used in the management of patients with colorectal liver metastases, including considerations toward specific molecular tumor profiles identified on next generation sequencing, as well as quality of life implications for these innovative treatments.

Interventions to improve nutritional status for older patients with cancer - a holistic approach is needed

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Older adults with cancer frequently experience malnutrition and sarcopenia resulting in lower treatment efficacy, increased risk of toxicities and healthcare costs, lower quality of life and shorter survival. Improving nutritional status in this rapidly growing population is an urgent need globally. We reviewed randomized controlled trials from the last 18 months focusing on nutritional status and applying multimodal interventions in older adults with cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several randomized controlled trials have been reported recently elucidating the impact of nutritional interventions as a part of multimodal interventions through different stages of cancer care. Although multimodal interventions rarely demonstrate survival benefit, they improve several important aspects of cancer care, including patient-centred endpoints such as physical functioning, adherence, patient satisfaction and quality of life.

SUMMARY

Multimodal interventions including nutrition have the potential to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with cancer during the continuum of care, from prehabilitation to palliative care. Early, integrated supportive care applying the right intervention in the right setting at the proper time along with personalized antitumor treatment is the cornerstone of optimal holistic cancer care.

Improving the patient-reported outcome sections of clinical trial protocols: a mixed methods evaluation of educational workshops

Introduction

Failure to incorporate key patient-reported outcome (PRO) content in trial protocols affects the quality and interpretability of the collected data, contributing to research waste. Our group developed evidence-based training specifically addressing PRO components of protocols. We aimed to assess whether 2-day educational workshops improved the PRO completeness of protocols against consensus-based minimum standards provided in the SPIRIT-PRO Extension in 2018.

Method

Annual workshops were conducted 2011–2017. Participants were investigators/trialists from cancer clinical trials groups. Although developed before 2018, workshops covered 15/16 SPIRIT-PRO items. Participant feedback immediately post-workshop and, retrospectively, in November 2017 was summarised descriptively. Protocols were evaluated against SPIRIT-PRO by two independent raters for workshop protocols (developed post-workshop by participants) and control protocols (contemporaneous non-workshop protocols). SPIRIT-PRO items were assessed for completeness (0 = not addressed, 10 = fully addressed). Mann–Whitney U tests assessed whether workshop protocols scored higher than controls by item and overall.

Results

Participants (n = 107) evaluated the workshop positively. In 2017, 16/41 survey responders (39%) reported never applying in practice; barriers included role restrictions (14/41, 34%) and lack of time (5/41, 12%). SPIRIT-PRO overall scores did not differ between workshop (n = 13, median = 3.81/10, interquartile range = 3.24) and control protocols (n = 9, 3.51/10 (2.14)), (p = 0.35). Workshop protocols scored higher than controls on two items: ‘specify PRO concepts/domains’ (p = 0.05); ‘methods for handling missing data’ (p = 0.044).

Conclusion

Although participants were highly satisfied with these workshops, the completeness of PRO protocol content generally did not improve. Additional knowledge translation efforts are needed to assist protocol writers address SPIRIT-PRO guidance and avoid research waste that may eventuate from sub-optimal PRO protocol content.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03127-w.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Curative Resection and/or Local Ablative Therapy or Systemic Therapy in the Finnish RAXO-Study

Metastasectomy and/or local ablative therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients often provide long-term survival. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in curatively treated mCRC are limited. In the RAXO-study that evaluated repeated resectability, a multi-cross-sectional HRQoL substudy with 15D, EQ-5D-3L, QLQ-C30, and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires was conducted. Mean values of patients in different treatment groups were compared with age- and gender-standardized general Finnish populations. The questionnaire completion rate was 444/477 patients (93%, 1751 questionnaires). Mean HRQoL was 0.89−0.91 with the 15D, 0.85−0.87 with the EQ-5D, 68−80 with the EQ-5D-VAS, and 68−79 for global health status during curative treatment phases, with improvements in the remission phase (disease-free >18 months). In the remission phase, mean EQ-5D and 15D scores were similar to the general population. HRQoL remained stable during first- to later-line treatments, when the aim was no longer cure, and declined notably when tumour-controlling therapy was no longer meaningful. The symptom burden affecting mCRC survivors’ well-being included insomnia, impotence, urinary frequency, and fatigue. Symptom burden was lower after treatment and slightly higher, though stable, through all phases of systemic therapy. HRQoL was high in curative treatment phases, further emphasizing the strategy of metastasectomy in mCRC when clinically meaningful.

Effect of Bevacizumab in Combination With Standard Oxaliplatin-Based Regimens in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Although bevacizumab is a standard of care in combination treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), its clinical benefit has been limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether sequential scheduling of bevacizumab administration in combination with chemotherapy improves treatment efficacy in patients with mCRC, in keeping with the tumor vascular normalization hypothesis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This open-label, randomized clinical phase 3 trial was conducted from May 8, 2012, to December 9, 2015, at 3 Italian centers. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with unresectable, previously untreated, or single line-treated mCRC were recruited. Follow-up was completed December 31, 2019, and data were analyzed from February 26 to July 24, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received 12 biweekly cycles of standard oxaliplatin-based regimens (modified FOLFOX-6 [levo-folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin]/modified CAPOX [capecitabine and oxaliplatin]) plus bevacizumab administered either on the same day as chemotherapy (standard arm) or 4 days before chemotherapy (experimental arm).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR) measured with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

Overall, 230 patients (136 men [59.1%]; median age, 62.3 [interquartile range, 53.3-67.6] years) were randomly assigned to the standard arm (n = 115) or the experimental arm (n = 115). The median duration of follow-up was 68.3 (95% CI, 61.0-70.0) months. No difference in ORR (57.4% [95% CI, 47.8%-66.6%] in the standard arm and 56.5% [95% CI, 47.0-65.7] in the experimental arm; P = .89) or progression-free survival (10.5 [95% CI, 9.1-12.3] months in the standard arm and 11.7 [95% CI, 9.9-12.9] months in the experimental arm; P = .15) was observed. However, the median overall survival was 29.8 (95% CI, 22.5-41.1) months in the experimental arm compared with 24.1 (95% CI, 18.6-29.8) months in the standard arm (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .04). Moreover, the experimental arm was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of severe diarrhea (6 [5.3%] vs 19 [16.5%]; P = .006) and nausea (2 [1.8%] vs 8 [7.0%]; P = .05) and improved physical functioning (mean [SD] change from baseline, 0.65 [1.96] vs -7.41 [2.95] at 24 weeks; P = .02), and constipation scores (mean [SD] change from baseline, -17.2 [3.73] vs -0.62 [4.44]; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, sequential administration of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy did not improve ORR, the primary end point. However, the overall survival advantage, fewer adverse effects, and better health-related QOL associated with sequential bevacizumab administration might provide the basis for exploring antiangiogenic combination treatments with innovative perspectives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT Identifier: 2011-004997-27; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01718873.

SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

Quality of Life in Vulnerable Older Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Receiving Palliative Chemotherapy-The Randomized NORDIC9-Study

Quality of life data from randomized trials are lacking in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the randomized NORDIC9-study, reduced-dose S1+oxaliplatin (SOx) showed superior efficacy compared to full-dose S1 monotherapy. We hypothesized that treatment with SOx does not result in inferior quality of life. Patients with mCRC aged ≥70 years and that were not a candidate for standard combination chemotherapy were included and randomly assigned to receive either S1 or SOx. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was completed at baseline, after 9, and 18 weeks. The primary endpoint was global Quality of Life (QoL) at 9 weeks. For statistical analysis, a non-inferiority design was chosen applying linear mixed effects models for repeated measurements. The results were interpreted according to statistical significance and anchor-based, clinically relevant between-group minimally important differences (MID). A total of 160 patients aged (median (Interquartile range (IQR))) 78 years (76-81) were included. The QLQ-C30 questionnaire was completed by 150, 100, and 60 patients at baseline, at 9, and 18 weeks, respectively. The difference at 9 weeks in global QoL was 6.85 (95%CI-1.94; 15.65) and 7.37 (0.70; 14.05) in the physical functioning domain in favor of SOx exceeding the threshold for MID. At 18 weeks, the between-group MID in physical functioning was preserved. Dose-reduced combination chemotherapy may be recommended in vulnerable older patients with mCRC, rather than full-dose monotherapy.

Quality of life assessment in renal cell carcinoma Phase II and III clinical trials published between 2010 and 2020: a systematic review

Aims: Quality of life (QoL) assessment is frequently not included among the end points of clinical trials (CTs) on renal cell carcinoma. Herein we aimed to describe the assessment and reporting of QoL in Phase II and Phase III CTs published between 2010 and 2020. Methods: A total of 25 CTs were included; 76% of trials included were conducted in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients, while 20% of studies evaluated adjuvant systemic treatments. Results: In 13/25 publications, QoL was not listed among the end points, with secondary publications dedicated to QoL present in a minority of cases. Conclusions: QoL was not included among the end points of a large percentage of CTs. Implementing the inclusion of QoL represents an urgent need.

STX2 drives colorectal cancer proliferation via upregulation of EXOSC4

AIMS

To explore the biological function and mechanism of Syntaxin2 (STX2) in Colorectal cancer (CRC) proliferation.

MAIN METHODS

A series of gain- and loss-of-function analysis were conducted the to explore the biological function of STX2 in CRC proliferation in vivo and in vitro. Western blot, Co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) and the functional analyses were taken to analyze the regulative role of STX2 on Exosome Complex 4 (EXOSC4) in CRC proliferation; Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) were used to further verify the relationship between the expression of STX2 and EXOSC4 in human CRC samples.

KEY FINDINGS

Our study revealed that the over-expression of STX2 promoted CRC proliferation, while knockdown of STX2 repressed CRC proliferation; STX2 promoted CRC proliferation via increasing EXOSC4 protein; There was a positive correlation between STX2 and EXOSC4 expression.

SIGNIFICANCE

The current data verify that STX2 drives the proliferation of CRC via increasing the expression of EXOSC4.

Associations between safety, tolerability, and toxicity and the reporting of health-related quality of life in phase III randomized trials in common solid tumors

Background

Anti‐cancer drugs are approved typically on the basis of efficacy and safety as evaluated in phase III randomized trials (RCTs). Health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) is a direct measure of patient benefit, but is under‐reported. Here we explore associations with reporting of HRQoL data in phase III RCTs in common solid tumors.

Methods

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify phase III RCTs evaluating new drugs in adults with advanced cancers that completed accrual between January 2005 and October 2016. Data on HRQoL, safety, and tolerability comprising treatment‐related death, treatment discontinuation and commonly reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) were extracted. Associations between these measures and reporting of HRQoL data were explored using logistic regression.

Results

Of 377 phase III RCTs identified initially, 143 studies were analysed and comprised 55% positive trials and 90% industry sponsored trials. HRQoL was listed as an endpoint in 59% trials; and of these, only 65% reported HRQoL data. There were higher odds of reporting HRQoL data for positive trials (OR 2.05, P = .04) and trials published in journals with higher impact factor (OR 1.35, P = .01). Reporting of HRQoL was not associated with treatment‐related death (OR 1.25, P = .40) or treatment discontinuation (OR 1.12, P = .61), but was positively associated with dyspnea and dermatological adverse events.

Conclusions

HRQoL is reported in only two‐thirds of RCTs that describe collecting such data. Reporting of HRQoL is associated with positive trial outcome and higher journal impact factor, but not associated with overall safety and tolerability of anti‐cancer drugs.

The Complex Cancer Care Coverage Environment - What is the Role of Legislation? A Case Study from Massachusetts

Over the past decades, anti-cancer treatments have evolved rapidly from cytotoxic chemotherapies to targeted therapies including oral targeted medications and injectable immuno-oncology and cell therapies. New anti-cancer medications come to markets at increasingly high prices, and health insurance coverage is crucial for patient access to these therapies. State laws are intended to facilitate insurance coverage of anti-cancer therapies.Using Massachusetts as a case study, we identified five current cancer coverage state laws and interviewed experts on their perceptions of the relevance of the laws and how well they meet the current needs of cancer care given rapid changes in therapies. Interviewees emphasized that cancer therapies, as compared to many other therapeutic areas, are unique because insurance legislation targets their coverage. They identified the oral chemotherapy parity law as contributing to increasing treatment costs in commercial insurance. For commercial insurers, coverage mandates combined with the realities of new cancer medications - including high prices and often limited evidence of efficacy at approval - compound a difficult situation. Respondents recommended policy approaches to address this challenging coverage environment, including the implementation of closed formularies, the use of cost-effectiveness studies to guide coverage decisions, and the application of value-based pricing concepts. Given the evolution of cancer therapeutics, it may be time to evaluate the benefits and challenges of cancer coverage mandates.