Health-related quality of life and other clinical outcome assessments in brain tumor patients: challenges in the design, conduct and interpretation of clinical trials

Updated Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) for Gliomas

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The response assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria and its versions were developed by expert opinion consensus to standardize response evaluation in glioma clinical trials. New patient-based data informed the development of updated response assessment criteria, RANO 2.0.

RECENT FINDINGS

In a recent study of patients with glioblastoma, the post-radiation brain MRI was a superior baseline MRI compared to the pretreatment MRI, and confirmation scans were only beneficial within the first 12 weeks of completion of radiation in newly diagnosed disease. Nonenhancing disease evaluation did not improve the correlation between progression-free survival and overall survival in newly diagnosed and recurrent settings. RANO 2.0 recommends a single common response criteria for high- and low-grade gliomas, regardless of the treatment modality being evaluated. It also provides guidance on the evaluation of nonenhancing tumors and tumors with both enhancing and nonenhancing components.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Intracranial Meningioma: Current Evidence and Future Directions

Historically, largely due to the good prognosis for survival, there has been little attention paid to the possible impact of meningiomas and their treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, in the last decade there has been increasing evidence that patients with intracranial meningiomas suffer from long-term decreases in their HRQoL. Compared with controls and normative data, meningioma patients have worse HRQoL scores both before and after intervention and continuing long term (even after >4 years of follow-up). Overall, surgery results in improvements in many aspects of HRQoL. The limited available studies investigating the impact of radiotherapy suggest that this type of treatment decreases HRQoL scores, especially in the long term. There is however only limited evidence on additional determinants of HRQoL. Patients with anatomically complex skull base meningiomas and severe comorbidities, including epilepsy, report the lowest HRQoL scores. Other tumor and sociodemographic characteristics have shown weak associations with HRQoL. Furthermore, about one-third of caregivers of meningioma patients report caregiver burden, warranting interventions to improve caregiver HRQoL. As antitumor interventions may not improve HRQoL scores to be comparable to those of the general population, more attention should be paid to the development of integrative rehabilitation and supportive care programs for meningioma patients.

Quality of life, out-of-pocket expenditures, and indirect costs among patients with the central nervous system tumors in Thailand

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures, indirect costs, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with the central nervous system (CNS) tumors in Thailand.

Materials and Methods

A prospective study of CNS tumor patients who underwent first tumor resection at a tertiary care institution in Thailand was conducted. Patients were interviewed during hospitalization for undergoing first surgery. Within 6 months, they were interviewed once more if the disease continued to progress. Costs collected from a patient perspective and converted to 2019 US dollars. For dealing with these skewed data, a generalized linear model was used to investigate the effects of disease severity (malignancy, progressive disease, Karnofsky performance status score, and histology) and other factors on costs (OOP, informal care, productivity loss, and total costs). P < 0.05 was considered statistical significant for all analysis.

Results

Among a total of 123 intracranial CNS tumor patients, there were 83 and 40 patients classified into benign and malignant, respectively. In the first brain surgery, there was no statistical difference in HRQoL between patients with benign and malignant tumors (P = 0.072). However, patients with progressive disease had lower HRQoL mean scores at pre-operative and progressive disease periods were 0.711 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.662-0.760) and 0.261 (95% CI: 0.144-0.378), respectively. Indirect expenditures were the primary cost driver, accounting for 73.81% of annual total costs. The total annual costs accounted for 59.81% of the reported patient's income in malignant tumor patients. The progressive disease was the only factor that was significantly increases in all sorts of costs, including the OOP (P = 0.001), the indirect costs (P = 0.013), and the total annual costs (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

Although there was no statistical difference in HRQoL and costs between patients with benign and malignant tumor, the total costs accounted for more than half of the reported income in malignant tumor patients. The primary cause of significant increases in all costs categories was disease progression.

Health-related quality of life in meningioma

Background. Meningiomas are the most common primary intracranial tumor in adults. Although frequently histologically benign, the clinical severity of a lesion may range from being asymptomatic to causing severe impairment of global function and well-being. The diversity of intracranial locations and clinical phenotypes poses a challenge when studying functional impairments, however, more recent attention to patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) have helped to improve our understanding of how meningioma may impact a patient’s life.Methods. Treatment strategies such as observation, surgery, radiation, or a combination thereof have been examined to ascertain their contributions to symptoms, physical and cognitive functioning, disability, and general aspects of daily functioning.Results. This review explores the multidimensional nature of HRQOL and how patients may be influenced by meningiomas and their treatment.Conclusion. Overall, treatment of symptomatic meningiomas is associated with improved HRQOL, cognitive functioning, and seizure control while tumor size, location, histologic grade, and epileptic burden are associated with worse HRQOL.

Systematic review on the use of patient-reported outcome measures in brain tumor studies: part of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) initiative

Background

The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date.

Methods

A systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis.

Results

A total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215).

Conclusion

Many different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients.

Research Objectives, Statistical Analyses and Interpretation of Health-Related Quality of Life Data in Glioma Research: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has become an increasingly important patient-reported outcome in glioma studies. Ideally, collected HRQoL data should be exploited to the full, with proper analytical methods. This systematic review aimed to provide an overview on how HRQoL data is currently evaluated in glioma studies, focusing on the research objectives and statistical analyses of HRQoL data.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in the databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane was conducted up to 5 June 2020. Articles were selected based on predetermined inclusion criteria and information on study design, HRQoL instrument, HRQoL research objective and statistical methods were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 170 articles describing 154 unique studies were eligible, in which 17 different HRQoL instruments were used. HRQoL was the primary outcome in 62% of the included articles, and 51% investigated ≥1 research question with respect to HRQoL, for which various analytical methods were used. In only 42% of the articles analyzing HRQoL results over time, the minimally clinical important difference was reported and interpreted. Eighty-six percent of articles reported HRQoL results at a group level only, and not at the individual patient level.

CONCLUSION

Currently, the assessment and analysis of HRQoL outcomes in glioma studies is highly variable. Opportunities to maximize information obtained with HRQoL data include appropriate and complementary analyses at both the group and individual level, comprehensive reporting of HRQoL results in separate articles or supplementary material, and adherence to existing guidelines about the assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes.

Moving from clinician-defined to patient-reported outcome measures for survivors of high-grade glioma

BACKGROUND

Persons with high-grade glioma face both neurological and cancer-related symptoms from the tumor itself and its treatment affecting their daily lives. Survival alone is not an adequate outcome, the quality of the survivorship experience needs to be regarded with equal importance. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can be used to evaluate treatment effects and symptom management interventions.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was to identify the use, challenges, and potential of PRO measures in survivors of high-grade glioma.

METHODS

A narrative expert opinion review was performed on the subject. In addition to our own experiences we searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO for brain tumor-specific PRO measures used in the population of adult patients with high-grade glioma, both original articles and reviews were included.

RESULTS

There are several PRO measures that have been validated for patients with primary brain tumors including high-grade glioma. PRO measures are used both in clinical trials to evaluate the effect of treatment on health-related quality of life, and in daily clinical practice for holistic needs assessment and symptom management. Common PRO measures used for patients with high-grade glioma are European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer general instrument for patients with cancer together with brain tumor module, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain, and MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for Brain Tumor. Neurologic and cognitive disorders often occur in patients with high-grade glioma, which affects patients' ability to self-report over time, making it more challenging in this population. PRO as a primary outcome seems underutilized.

CONCLUSION

For clinical research, PRO measures need to be used together with other clinical outcome measures rather than replacing traditional outcome measures. Moving to more use of PRO measures in survivorship care has potential to improve patient-caregiver-healthcare team communication, symptom management, and quality of care. Implementing PROs in survivorship care should also involve caregivers and a response based on the results.

A randomised trial to compare cognitive outcome after gamma knife radiosurgery versus whole brain radiation therapy in patients with multiple brain metastases: research protocol CAR-study B

BACKGROUND

Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) is increasingly applied in patients with multiple brain metastases and is expected to have less adverse effects in cognitive functioning than whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). Effective treatment with the least negative cognitive side effects is increasingly becoming important, as more patients with brain metastases live longer due to more and better systemic treatment options. There are no published randomized trials yet directly comparing GKRS to WBRT in patients with multiple brain metastases that include objective neuropsychological testing.

METHODS

CAR-Study B is a prospective randomised trial comparing cognitive outcome after GKRS or WBRT in adult patients with 11-20 newly diagnosed brain metastases on a contrast-enhanced MRI-scan, KPS ≥70 and life expectancy of at least 3 months. Randomisation by the method of minimization, is stratified by the cumulative tumour volume in the brain, systemic treatment, KPS, histology, baseline cognitive functioning and age. The primary endpoint is the between-group difference in the percentage of patients with significant memory decline at 3 months. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, local control, development of new brain metastases, cognitive functioning over time, quality of life, depression, anxiety and fatigue. Cognitive functioning is assessed by a standardised neuropsychological test battery. Assessments (cognitive testing, questionnaires and MRI-scans) are scheduled at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 months after treatment.

DISCUSSION

Knowledge gained from this trial may be used to inform individual patients with BM more precisely about the cognitive effects they can expect from treatment, and to assist both doctors and patients in making (shared) individual treatment decisions. This trial is currently recruiting. Target accrual: 23 patients at 3-months follow-up in both groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Netherlands Trials Register number NTR5463. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02953717 , first received October 27, 2016, 8 patients were enrolled in this study on 31 July 2017.

Health-related quality of life of cranial WHO grade I meningioma patients: are current questionnaires relevant?

BACKGROUND

The clinical relevance of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in meningioma patients has been increasingly acknowledged in recent years. Various questionnaires have been used. However, almost none of these questionnaires has been particularly developed for and/or validated in this patient group. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the relevance and comprehensiveness of existing HRQoL questionnaires used in meningioma research and to assess the agreement between patients and health care professionals (HCPs) on the most relevant and important HRQoL issues.

METHODS

A systematic literature search, following the PRISMA statement, was conducted to identify all HRQoL questionnaires used in meningioma research. Semi-structured interviews were organized with patients and HCPs to (1) assess the relevance of all issues covered by the questionnaires (score 0-3: not relevant-highly relevant), (2) assess the ten most important issues, and (3) identify new relevant HRQoL issues.

RESULTS

Fourteen different questionnaires were found in the literature, comprising 140 unique issues. Interviews were conducted with 20 patients (median age 57, 71% female) and 10 HCPs (4 neurosurgeons, 2 neurologists, 2 radiotherapists, 1 rehabilitation specialist, 1 neuropsychologist; median experience 13 years). Meningioma patients rated 17-80% of the issues in each of the questionnaires as relevant, HCPs 90-100%. Patients and HCPs agreed on the relevance of only 49 issues (35%, Cohen's kappa: 0.027). Both patients and HCPs considered lack of energy the most important issue. Patients and HCPs suggested five additional relevant issues not covered by current HRQoL questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing HRQoL questionnaires currently used in meningioma patients do not fully cover all relevant issues to these patients. Agreement between patients and HCPs on the relevance of issues was poor. Both findings support the need to develop and validate a meningioma-specific HRQoL questionnaire.

Compliance with patient-reported outcome assessment in glioma patients: predictors for drop out

Background

Patient-reported outcomes are of high importance in clinical neuro-oncology. However, assessment is still suboptimal. We aimed at exploring factors associated with the probability for a) drop out of study and b) death during follow-up.

Methods

Patients were assessed twice during follow-up visits scheduled within 3 to 5 months of each other by using 3 validated patient-reported outcome measures (t1: first assessment, t2: second assessment). As "death" was seen as a competing risk for drop out, univariate competing risk Cox regression models were applied to explore factors associated with dropping out (age, gender, WHO grade, living situation, recurrent surgery, Karnofsky Performance Status, time since diagnosis, and patient-reported outcomes assessed by Distress Thermometer, EORTC-QLQ-C30, EORTC-QLQ-BN20, and SCNS-SF-34G).

Results

Two hundred forty-six patients were eligible, 173 (70%) participated. Patients declining participation were diagnosed with glioblastomas more often than with other gliomas (56% vs 39%). At t2, 32 (18%) patients dropped out, n = 14 death-related, n = 18 for other reasons. Motor dysfunction (EORTC-QLQ-BN20) was associated with higher risk for non-death-related drop out (HR: 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = .03). Death-related drop out was associated with age (HR: 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14; P = .002), Karnofsky Performance Status (HR: 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96; P < .001), lower physical functioning (EORTC-QLQ-C30; HR: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-1.00; P = .04) and lower motor functioning (EORTC-QLQ-BN20; HR: 1.020; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04; P = .02).

Conclusion

Patients with motor dysfunction and poorer clinical condition seem to be more likely to drop out of studies applying patient-reported outcome measures. This should be taken into account when planning studies assessing glioma patients and for interpretation of results of patient-reported outcome assessments in clinical routine.

Impaired health-related quality of life in meningioma patients-a systematic review

While surgical and radiotherapeutic improvements increased life expectancy of meningioma patients, little is known about these patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Therefore, the objectives of this systematic review were to assess HRQoL in meningioma patients, the methodological quality of the used questionnaires (COSMIN criteria), and the reporting level of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the included studies (International Society of Quality of Life Research criteria).Nineteen articles met our inclusion criteria. HRQoL was measured with 13 different questionnaires, 3 validated in meningioma patients. According to our predefined cutoff, HRQoL data were reported sufficiently in 5 out of 19 studies. Both findings hamper interpretation of the PRO results.In general, meningioma patients reported clinically worse HRQoL than healthy controls. Although meningioma patients had better HRQoL than glioma patients, this difference was not clinically relevant. Radiotherapy seemed to improve some domains of HRQoL in the short term, while HRQoL decreased to pre-radiotherapy levels in the long term. Tumor resection increased HRQoL, but long-term follow-up showed persistent reduced HRQoL compared with healthy controls. These results suggest an impaired HRQoL in meningioma patients, even years after anti-tumor treatment. Results of this systematic review warrant high quality prospective studies, better instruments to assess HRQoL, and improved level of reporting for this group of patients.

Quality of survival and cognitive performance in children treated for medulloblastoma in the PNET 4 randomized controlled trial

Background

The relationship between direct assessments of cognitive performance and questionnaires assessing quality of survival (QoS) is reported to be weak-to-nonexistent. Conversely, the associations between questionnaires evaluating distinct domains of QoS tend to be strong. This pattern remains understudied.

Methods

In the HIT-SIOP PNET4 randomized controlled trial, cognitive assessments, including Full Scale, Verbal and Performance IQ, Working Memory, and Processing Speed, were undertaken in 137 survivors of standard-risk medulloblastoma from 4 European countries. QoS questionnaires, including self-reports and/or parent reports of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), the Health Utilities Index, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, were completed for 151 survivors. Correlations among direct cognitive assessments, QoS questionnaires, and clinical data were examined in participants with both assessments available (n = 86).

Results

Correlations between direct measures of cognitive performance and QoS questionnaires were weak, except for moderate correlations between the BRIEF Metacognition Index (parent report) and working memory (r = .32) and between health status (self-report) and cognitive outcomes (r = .35-.44). Correlations among QoS questionnaires were moderate to strong both for parent and self-report (r = .39-.76). Principal Component Analysis demonstrated that questionnaires and cognitive assessments loaded on 2 separate factors.

Conclusions

We hypothesize that the strong correlations among QoS questionnaires is partially attributable to the positive/negative polarity of all questions on the questionnaires, coupled with the relative absence of disease-specific questions. These factors may be influenced by respondents' personality and emotional characteristics, unlike direct assessments of cognitive functioning, and should be taken into account in clinical trials.

Reporting of patient-reported health-related quality of life in adults with diffuse low-grade glioma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) analysis can provide important information for managing the balance between treatment benefits and treatment-related adverse effects on quality of life (QoL). This systematic review sought to identify the range of HRQoL measures used for patients with diffuse hemispheric WHO grade II glioma (DLGG) and assess the quality of HRQoL reporting.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases were searched for full-text English articles reporting HRQoL outcomes in adult patients with DLGG.

RESULTS

Eleven different QoL measures were used across the 26 included studies, none of which has been validated in patients with DLGG. Heterogeneity of study design prevented pooled analysis of data investigating the effect of interventions or establishing long-term HRQoL. Low rates of participation at baseline (mean: 64.0%) and high rates of subsequent dropout (2.1% per month) were identified. Five studies gave statistical methods to deal with missing data or provided evidence of clinical significance of HRQoL results.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate a paucity and heterogeneity of reporting of HRQoL in the DLGG literature, highlighting the need for a standardized assessment schedule and set of validated quality-of-life measures for future studies.

Assessment of function and quality of life in a phase II multi-institutional clinical trial of fractionated simultaneous in-field boost radiotherapy for patients with 1-3 metastases

We examined functional outcomes and quality of life of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with integrated fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy boost (FSRT) for brain metastases treatment. Eighty seven people with 1-3 brain metastases (54/87 lung primary, 42/87 single brain metastases) were enrolled on this Phase II trial of WBRT (30 Gy/10) + simultaneous FSRT, (60 Gy/10). Median overall follow-up and survival was 5.4 months, 6 month actuarial intra-lesional control was 78 %; only 1 patient exhibited grade 4 toxicity (worsened seizures); most treatment related toxicity was grade 1 or 2; 2/87 patients demonstrated asymptomatic radiation necrosis on follow-up imaging. Mean (Min-Max) baseline KPS, Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) and FACT-BR quality of life were 83 (70-100), 28 (21-30) and 143 (98-153). Lower baseline MMSE (but not KPS or FACT-Br) was associated with worse survival after adjusting for age, number of metastases, primary and extra-cranial disease status. Crude rates of deterioration (>10 points decrease from baseline for KPS and FACT-Br, MMSE fall to <27) ranged from 26 to 38 % for KPS, 32-59 % for FACT-Br and 0-16 % for MMSE depending on the time-point assessed with higher rates generally noted at earlier time points (≤6 months post-treatment). Using a linear mixed models analysis, significant declines from baseline were noted for KPS and FACT-Br (largest effects at 6 weeks to 3 months) with no significant change in MMSE. The effects on function and quality of life of this integrated treatment of WBRT + simultaneous FSRT were similar to other published series combining WBRT + radiosurgery.

Clinical outcome assessments in neuro-oncology: a regulatory perspective

Overall survival, progression-free survival, and to a lesser extent objective response rate, have long been the most widely accepted endpoints used to evaluate clinical benefit in oncology trials. More recently, clinical outcome assessments (COAs) that measure the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms and function have been recognized as having potential to be an integral component of the risk/benefit analysis of new therapies. Although COAs have been used to evaluate cognitive and physical functioning in neurological diseases, assessing patient-centered outcomes in individuals with malignant brain tumors presents unique challenges. The approach to developing appropriate instruments to measure COAs in neuro-oncology should include identifying areas requiring new tools, reviewing existing tools that may be suitable or adapted for use in clinical trials, and engaging early with regulatory agencies to standardize a set of well-defined and reliable instruments to quantify important patient-centered outcomes.