A systematic review of quality of life associated with standard chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:1091-1097. [PMID: 18090580 DOI: 10.1097/jto.0b013e31815cff64]

Assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-related outcomes in randomized cancer clinical trials for older adults: Results of DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative

As older adults with cancer are underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCT), there is limited evidence on which to rely for treatment decisions for this population. Commonly used RCT endpoints for the assessment of treatment efficacy are more often tumor-centered (e.g., progression-free survival). These endpoints may not be as relevant for the older patients who present more often with comorbidities, non-cancer-related deaths, and treatment toxicity. Moreover, their expectation and preferences are likely to differ from younger adults. The DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative combines a broad expertise, in geriatric oncology and clinical research, with interest in cancer RCT that include older patients with cancer. In order to guide researchers and clinicians coordinating cancer RCT involving older patients with cancer, the experts reviewed the literature on relevant domains to assess using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and patient-related outcomes, as well as available tools related to these domains. Domains considered relevant by the panel of experts when assessing treatment efficacy in RCT for older patients with cancer included functional autonomy, cognition, depression and nutrition. These were based on published guidelines from international societies and from regulatory authorities as well as minimum datasets recommended to collect in RCT including older adults with cancer. In addition, health-related quality of life, patients' symptoms, and satisfaction were also considered by the panel. With regards to tools for the assessment of these domains, we highlighted that each tool has its own strengths and limitations, and very few had been validated in older adults with cancer. Further studies are thus needed to validate these tools in this specific population and define the minimum clinically important difference to use when developing RCTs in this population. The selection of the most relevant tool should thus be guided by the RCT research question, together with the specific properties of the tool.

Clinical Outcomes of First-line Therapies for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review of Trials Published Between 2010 and 2020

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the evolution of clinical outcomes derived from clinical trials on first-line therapies for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) published between 2010 and 2020, focusing on how these outcomes impact survival rates and management of patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of phase III and pivotal phase II clinical trials was conducted by a structured search on Medline and Embase. A comprehensive set of variables was collected to assess their influence on survival rates. We also estimated the clinical benefit by applying the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 and extracted the authors' conclusions.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies involving 34,951 patients were included. Best survival outcomes were found for nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (OS and progression-free survival medians: 19.4 and 10.2 mo) and for those expressing molecular targets (OS and progression-free survival medians: 23.8 and 11.0 mo). No significant influence on survival rates was observed for industry funding and disease stage (IIIB/IV vs. IV). ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was applied in 45 positive studies and resulted in a meaningful clinical benefit score in 37.8%. Quality of life (QoL) was reported in 57.6% of the original publications and showed statistical significance favoring the experimental arm in 33.3%. Positive authors' conclusions (75.7% of trials) were based on OS and/or QoL in 34% and on surrogate endpoints in 66%.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended survival times and a steady improvement in QoL have been observed. However, there were more than twice as many studies reporting positive authors' conclusions as studies meeting the ESMO threshold for meaningful clinical benefit.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Utility Scores of Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Traditional Chinese Medicine in China

PURPOSE

To assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and utility scores of lung cancer patients treated with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in China.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included lung cancer patients treated with TCM in seven tertiary hospitals in Shanghai, China. The HRQoL and utility scores of these patients were measured using the five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). The EQ-5D-5L utility scores were derived from the Chinese EQ-5D-5L Value Set. The relationships between HRQoL and the socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of these patients were further explored by Tobit regression.

RESULTS

This study included a total of 347 patients. Their mean ± SD and median EQ-5D-5L utility scores were 0.851 ± 0.198 and 0.893, respectively. The highest proportion of participants reporting problems was observed in pain/discomfort dimension (57.9%) and anxiety/depression (45.5%). Lung cancer patients treated with TCM had poor HRQoL, influenced by cancer clinical stage.

CONCLUSION

Lung cancer patients treated with TCM have poor HRQoL, with many patients reporting problems in the pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions. The information on health utility scores and HRQoL of lung cancer patients treated with TCM could be useful for future supportive care, economic evaluations and decision-making in China.

Quality of life after VATS lung resection and SABR for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: A longitudinal study

INTRODUCTION

Video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) lung resection is the recommended curative treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients considered at high surgical risk, are treated with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) as a lower morbidity alternative. This study aims to investigate the impact of SABR and VATS resection on patients' quality of life (QoL) over the first year after treatment.

METHODS

A prospective longitudinal observational study recruiting early-stage NSCLC patients from a single UK centre. QoL was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30 and Lung Cancer Module LC13 at baseline, 6 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment.

RESULTS

From 01.03.2017 till 01.03.2018, 244/281 patients (87%) consented to participate, 225 (95 SABR and 130 VATS) were included in the analysis. SABR patients had significantly worse baseline QoL scores than VATS patients, even after adjusting for preoperative clinical factors (C-30 Global Health mean: SABR = 53.8, VATS = 71.2; Physical Functioning mean: SABR = 57, VATS = 82.2; Fatigue mean: SABR = 43.5, VATS = 23.7; C30 Dyspnea mean: SABR = 49.5, VATS = 26.2). During the 12 months post SABR treatment patients' QoL scores remained stable. In the VATS group, there was a deterioration 6-weeks after treatment in Role, Physical, Social Functions, Global Health, Fatigue, C30/LC13 Dyspnoea, Pain, Appetite loss, Constipation, LC13 Pain in Chest and Arms. The scores improved by 12 months without reaching the preoperative values.

CONCLUSIONS

Although QoL outcomes for SABR and VATS are not comparable due to different medical selection criteria, the QoL impact of the two treatments during the first year showed different trends which will inform patients and clinicians during decision-making discussions.

Navigating Diagnostic and Treatment Decisions in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Expert Commentary on the Multidisciplinary Team Approach

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately one in five cancer-related deaths, and management requires increasingly complex decision making by health care professionals. Many centers have therefore adopted a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, using the expertise of various specialists to provide the best evidence-based, personalized treatment. However, increasingly complex disease staging, as well as expanded biomarker testing and multimodality management algorithms with novel therapeutics, have driven the need for multifaceted, collaborative decision making to optimally guide the overall treatment process. To keep up with the rapidly evolving treatment landscape, national-level guidelines have been introduced to standardize patient pathways and ensure prompt diagnosis and treatment. Such strategies depend on efficient and effective communication between relevant multidisciplinary team members and have both improved adherence to treatment guidelines and extended patient survival. This article highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and staging, treatment decision making, and adverse event management in NSCLC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This review highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to the diagnosis and staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and makes practical suggestions as to how multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can be best deployed at individual stages of the disease to improve patient outcomes and effectively manage common adverse events. The authors discuss how a collaborative approach, appropriately leveraging the diverse expertise of NSCLC MDT members (including specialist radiation and medical oncologists, chest physicians, pathologists, pulmonologists, surgeons, and nursing staff) can continue to ensure optimal per-patient decision making as treatment options become ever more specialized in the era of biomarker-driven therapeutic strategies.

A randomized trial of the electronic Lung Cancer Symptom Scale for quality-of-life assessment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Introduction

Improving health-related quality of life (hrqol) is a key goal of systemic therapy in advanced lung cancer, although routine assessment remains challenging. We analyzed the impact of a real-time electronic hrqol tool, the electronic Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (elcss-ql), on palliative care (pc) referral rates, patterns of chemotherapy treatment, and use of other supportive interventions in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) receiving first-line chemotherapy.

Methods

Patients with advanced nsclc starting first-line chemotherapy were randomized to their oncologist receiving or not receiving their elcss-ql data before each clinic visit. Patients completed the elcss-ql at baseline, before each chemotherapy cycle, and at subsequent follow-up visits until disease progression. Prospective data about the pc referral rate, hrqol, and use of other supportive interventions were collected.

Results

For the 95 patients with advanced nsclc who participated, oncologists received real-time elcss-ql data for 44 (elcss-ql arm) and standard clinical assessment alone for 51 (standard arm). The primary endpoint, the pc referral rate, was numerically higher, but statistically similar, for patients in the elcss-ql and standard arms. The hrqol scores over time were not significantly different between the two study arms.

Conclusions

The elcss-ql is feasible as a tool for use in routine clinical practice, although no statistically significant effect of its use was demonstrated in our study. Improving access to supportive care through the collection of patient-reported outcomes and hrqol should be an important component of care for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Methodological Appraisal Based on a Systematic Literature Review

Background: The majority of lung cancer patients are diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the bulk of which receive palliative systemic treatment with the goal to provide effective symptom palliation and safeguard health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Advanced NSCLC trials with HRQoL endpoints face methodological constraints limiting interpretability.

Objectives: We provide a comprehensive overview of recent clinical trials evaluating the impact of systemic therapies on HRQoL in advanced NSCLC, focusing on the methodological quality, with the ultimate goal to improve interpretation, comparison and reporting of HRQoL data.

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed. Prospective studies published over the last decade evaluating the impact of systemic treatments on HRQoL in advanced NSCLC were included. Methodological quality of HRQoL reporting was assessed with the CONSORT-PRO extension.

Results: Hundred-twelve manuscripts describing 85 trials met all criteria. No formal conclusion can be drawn regarding the impact on HRQoL of different treatments. We report an important variety in methodological quality in terms of definitions of HRQoL, missing data points, lack of standardization of analyzing and presenting HRQoL and no standard follow-up time. The quality of HRQoL data reporting varies substantially between studies but improves over time.

Conclusion: This review shows that in the heterogeneous landscape of trials addressing HRQoL in advanced stage NSCLC. Methodology reporting remains generally poor. Adequate reporting of HRQoL outcome data is equally important to support clinical decision-making as to correctly inform health policy regarding direct approval and reimbursement of the new drugs and combinations that will come online.

Efficacy of chemoradiotherapy versus radiation alone in patients with inoperable locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis compared radiotherapy (RT) versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (RT+CT) in treating patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, Google Scholar databases were searched until July 28, 2015 using the following keywords non-small cell lung cancer, advanced cancer, incurable/inoperable/unresectable, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy/chemoradiation. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two-armed prospective studies that compared combined RT+CT with RT alone in patients with locally advanced (stage III) nonresectable NSCLC were eligible for inclusion. Treatment effect on overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 13 RCT studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The 13 studies included a total of 1936 patients with incurable/inoperable stage III NSCLC, of which 975 received RT alone and 961 received RT+CT combination therapy. The average age ranged from 54 to 77 years. At 1 and 2 years after treatment, the pooled data reveal that patients receiving CT+RT combination therapy had higher overall survival (pooled hazard ratio (HR), 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84; P < .001; 1-yr: HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.84; P < .001; 2-year: HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.73; P < .001), higher PFS (pooled HR, 0.73, 95% CI, 0.60-0.89; P = .002; 1-year: HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.53; P < .001; 2-year: HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.63; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings show higher efficacy for concurrent CT+RT over RT alone in treating locally-advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC.

Trends in endpoint selection and result interpretation in advanced non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials published between 2000 and 2012: A retrospective cohort study

Background

The objective of this review was to investigate trends in clinical trial design, specifically, the primary outcomes used, interpretation of results, and the magnitude of the benefits described in phase III controlled clinical trials in the first‐line treatment of patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

Seventy‐six trials published between 2000 and 2012 were selected from a total of 122 identified in a structured search.

Results

Overall survival (OS) was evaluated as the primary study endpoint in 50 (65.8%) trials, followed by progression‐free survival (PFS) in 15 (19.7%), and other variables, such as toxicity, quality of life (QoL), and response rate in 11 (14.5%). Ten (66.7%) out of 15 clinical trials using PFS as the primary endpoint were published between 2010 and 2012. Median overall survival (mOS) was 9.90 months (interquartile range: 3.5) with an increase of 0.384 months per year of publication (P < 0.001). A statistically significant improvement in mOS was obtained in only 13 (18.8%) trials. A total of 41 (53.9%) studies concluded that the result was positive. Of these, only 16 (39.1%) showed a statistically significant benefit in OS. QoL was assessed in 46 trials (60.5%) and of these, 10 (21.7%) reported significant improvements.

Conclusions

These findings raise important questions about how clinical benefits are measured in clinical trials in advanced NSCLC. Appropriate clinically relevant outcome variables should be established and validated, and post‐marketing studies should be requested by regulatory authorities to ensure meaningful clinical benefits in OS and QoL.

Systematic literature review of health-related quality of life in locally-advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Has it yet become state-of-the-art?

Lung cancer and its treatment have an important impact on the patients' health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). A systematic literature review of prospective clinical studies published since 2005 and measuring HRQoL in patients with locally-advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA- NSCLC) was performed. Besides reviewing the HRQoL impact of LA-NSCLC treatment, it critically examined the frequency, methodology and quality of HRQoL data collection and analysis in LA-NSCLC clinical studies. Out of 814 potentially eligible publications, only 27 (representing 19 individual studies) met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies documented an impact on HRQoL. Large variability in use of HRQoL instruments, statistical analysis and methodological quality was observed. Reporting of HRQoL data lacks standardization, but recent initiatives establishing recommendations to standardize the analysis and reporting of HRQoL in cancer trials are expected to address these issues. Overall, more research is needed to evaluate the treatment impact on HRQoL in both clinical trials and daily care.

Feasibility of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events via the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in a Chemoradiotherapy Cooperative Group Multicenter Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility of measuring symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in a multicenter clinical trial using the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients enrolled in NRG Oncology's RTOG 1012 (Prophylactic Manuka Honey for Reduction of Chemoradiation Induced Esophagitis-Related Pain during Treatment of Lung Cancer) were asked to self-report 53 PRO-CTCAE items representing 30 symptomatic AEs at 6 time points (baseline; weekly ×4 during treatment; 12 weeks after treatment). Reporting was conducted via wireless tablet computers in clinic waiting areas. Compliance was defined as the proportion of visits when an expected PRO-CTCAE assessment was completed.

RESULTS

Among 226 study sites participating in RTOG 1012, 100% completed 35-minute PRO-CTCAE training for clinical research associates (CRAs); 80 sites enrolled patients, of which 34 (43%) required tablet computers to be provided. All 152 patients in RTOG 1012 agreed to self-report using the PRO-CTCAE (median age 66 years; 47% female; 84% white). Median time for CRAs to learn the system was 60 minutes (range, 30-240 minutes), and median time for CRAs to teach a patient to self-report was 10 minutes (range, 2-60 minutes). Compliance was high, particularly during active treatment, when patients self-reported at 86% of expected time points, although compliance was lower after treatment (72%). Common reasons for noncompliance were institutional errors, such as forgetting to provide computers to participants; patients missing clinic visits; Internet connectivity; and patients feeling "too sick."

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients enrolled in a multicenter chemoradiotherapy trial were willing and able to self-report symptomatic AEs at visits using tablet computers. Minimal effort was required by local site staff to support this system. The observed causes of missing data may be obviated by allowing patients to self-report electronically between visits, and by using central compliance monitoring. These approaches are being incorporated into ongoing studies.

Effectiveness of palliative care for non-small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Despite increases in the survival rate for various types of cancer over the past several decades, lung cancer remains an overwhelmingly lethal disease and the majority of patients succumb to the disease in a short period of time. A number of treatment options are available depending on the stage of lung cancer. The present review focused on palliative care and is associated with stage IIIB and IV of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Stage IIIB disease is not amenable to curative treatment and for stage IV disease, treatment is palliative in nature, with a focus on increasing survival time, controlling symptoms and improving or maintaining quality of life. Palliative treatment options include chemotherapy, radiotherapy and supportive care. The present review examines the important aspects of palliative therapy with regard to NSCLC.

Trends in phase III randomized controlled clinical trials on the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

The objective of this review was to analyze trends in outcomes and in the quality of phase III randomized controlled trials on advanced NSCLC published between 2000 and 2012, selecting 76 trials from a total of 122 retrieved in a structured search. Over the study period, the number of randomized patients per trial increased by 14 per year (P = 0.178). The sample size significantly increased between 2000 and 2012 in trials of targeted agents (460.1 vs. 740.8 patients, P = 0.009), trials of >1 drug (360.4 vs. 584.8, P = 0.014), and those including patients with good performance status (675.3 vs. 425.6; P = 0.003). Quality of life was assessed in 46 trials (60.5%), and significant improvements were reported in 10 of these (21.7%). Platinum-based regimens were the most frequently investigated (86.8% of trials). Molecular-targeted agents were studied in 25.0% of chemotherapy arms, and the percentage of trials including these agents increased each year. The median (interquartile range) overall survival (MOS) was 9.90 (3.5) months with an increase of 0.384 months per year of publication (P < 0.001). A statistically significant improvement in MOS was obtained in only 13 (18.8%) trials. The median progression-free survival was 4.9 (1.9) months, with a nonsignificant increase of 0.026 months per year (P > 0.05). There has been a continuous but modest improvement in the survival of patients with advanced NSCLC over the past 12 years. Nevertheless, the quality of clinical trials and the benefit in outcomes should be carefully considered before the incorporation of novel approaches into clinical practice.

Use of the lung cancer-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire EORTC QLQ-LC13 in clinical trials: A systematic review of the literature 20 years after its development

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) covers 13 typical symptoms of lung cancer patients and was the first module developed in conjunction with the EORTC core quality-of-life (QL) questionnaire. This review investigates how the module has been used and reported in cancer clinical trials in the 20 years since its publication. Thirty-six databases were searched with a prespecified algorithm. This search plus an additional hand search generated 770 hits, 240 of which were clinical studies. Two raters extracted data using a coding scheme. Analyses focused on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the 240 clinical studies that were identified using the LC13, 109 (45%) were RCTs. More than half of the RCTs were phase 3 trials (n = 58). Twenty RCTs considered QL as the primary endpoint, and 68 considered it as a secondary endpoint. QL results were addressed in the results section of the article (n = 89) or in the abstract (n = 92); and, in half of the articles, QL results were presented in the form of tables (n = 53) or figures (n = 43). Furthermore, QL results had an impact on the evaluation of the therapy that could be clearly demonstrated in the 47 RCTs that yielded QL differences between treatment and control groups. The EORTC QLQ-LC13 fulfilled its mission to be used as a standard instrument in lung cancer clinical trials. An update of the LC13 is underway to keep up with new therapeutic trends and to ensure optimized and relevant QL assessment in future trials.

Health-related quality of life in lung cancer survivors: Latent class and latent transition analysis

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) heterogeneity among cancer survivors may mask subgroups (classes) with different limitations and long-term outcomes. The authors determined the HRQOL classes that exist among lung cancer survivors, examined transitions among those classes over time, and compared survival outcomes of patients according to the classes present in the initial phase of care.

METHODS

Lung cancer survivors in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium completed EuroQol 5-domain quality-of-life questionnaires 4.8 months (initial phase) and >1 year (survivorship phase) after diagnosis (n = 1396). Latent class analysis and latent transition analysis were used to determine HRQOL classes and transitions across time. Correlates of class membership were tested using multinomial logistic regression. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to compare survival across class membership.

RESULTS

Latent class analysis identified 4 classes at diagnosis and follow-up: 1) poor HRQOL, 2) pain-dominant impairment, 3) mobility/usual activities impairment, and 4) good HRQOL. Probabilities of remaining in the same class were .87, .85, .82, and .73 for classes 4, 1, 3, and 2, respectively. Younger age, lower income, lower education, comorbidities, and a history of depression/emotional problems were associated with a greater likelihood of being in classes 1, 2, or 3 at follow-up. Patients in classes 1 and 3 had significantly lower median survival estimates than patients in class 4 (4.8 years, 3.8 years, and 5.5 years, respectively; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Examining the heterogeneity of HRQOL in lung cancer populations allows the identification of classes with different limitations and long-term outcomes and, thus, guides tailored and patient-centered provision of supportive care.

Is the Evaluation of Quality of Life in NSCLC Trials Important? Are the Results to be Trusted?

The majority of patients with non-small cell lung cancer present at the time of diagnosis with stage IV metastatic disease and they experience 2 or more disease-related symptoms. These symptoms may have a negative impact on their health-related quality of life (HR QOL). Data has shown many of these patients prefer a therapy to improve their symptoms rather than receive a therapy which slightly prolongs their survival without improving their symptoms. The improvement of disease-related symptoms on a specific drug or regimen augments the significance of prolongation of the progression-free survival or the response rate as well as symptom worsening. The choice of the questionnaires to evaluate patients’ reported outcomes and HR QOL benefits and the methods of collecting the data and their interpretations are very important. Only if the data are collected and analyzed properly will they be meaningful and can then be viewed as components that add the total value to a treatment and provide a comprehensive picture of the benefits and risks of a certain anticancer therapy.

Are the data on quality of life and patient reported outcomes from clinical trials of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer important?

Majority of the patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience two or more disease related symptoms, which may have a negative impact on their health-related quality of life (HR QOL). These patients prefer a therapy that would improve disease related symptoms, as opposed or treatment that slightly prolongs their survival without improving symptoms. The improvements of the symptoms augment the significance of improved response rates or progression free survivals. The choice of the questionnaires to evaluate patients-reported outcomes (PROs) and HRQOL benefits and methods of collecting the data and their interpretations are very important and are discussed in this manuscript. PROs and HR QOL outcomes are important in patients with advanced NSCLC only when the data are collected and analyzed correctly. Then they can be viewed as components of the total value of a treatment, providing a comprehensive picture of the benefits and risks of anticancer therapies. Enabling the patients to feel during the last months of their lives more comfortable and not be dependent on their loved ones is a very important task in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: development of ISOQOL reporting standards

PURPOSE

To develop expert consensus on a suite of reporting standards for HRQL outcomes of RCTs.

METHODS

A Task Force of The International Society of Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) undertook a systematic review of the literature to identify candidate reporting standards for HRQL in RCTs. Subsequently, a web-based survey was circulated to the ISOQOL membership. Respondents were asked to rate candidate standards on a 4-point Likert scale based on their perceived value in reporting studies in which HRQL was a study outcome (primary or secondary). Results were synthesized into draft reporting guidelines, which were further reviewed by the membership to inform the final guidance.

RESULTS

Forty-six existing candidate standards for reporting HRQL results in RCTs were synthesized to produce a 40 item survey that was completed electronically by 161 respondents. The majority of respondents rated all 40 items to be either 'essential' or 'desirable' when HRQL was a primary RCT outcome. Ratings changed when HRQL was a secondary study outcome. Feedback on the survey findings resulted in the Task Force generalizing the guidance to include patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The final guidance, which recommends standards for use in reporting PROs generally, and more specifically, for PROs identified as primary study outcomes, was approved by the ISOQOL Board of Directors.

CONCLUSIONS

ISOQOL has developed a suite of recommended standards for reporting PRO results of RCTs. Improved reporting of PROs will enable accurate interpretation of evidence to inform patient choice, aid clinical decision making, and inform health policy.

Cancer Pain Management and Bone Metastases: An Update for the Clinician

Breast cancer patients with bone metastases often suffer from cancer pain. In general, cancer pain treatment is far from being optimal for many patients. To date, morphine remains the gold standard as first-line therapy, but other pure μ agonists such as hydromorphone, fentanyl, or oxycodone can be considered. Transdermal opioids are an important option if the oral route is impossible. Due to its complex pharmacology, methadone should be restricted to patients with difficult pain syndromes. The availability of a fixed combination of oxycodone and naloxone is a promising development for the reduction of opioid induced constipation. Especially bone metastases often result in breakthrough pain episodes. Thus, the provision of an on-demand opioid (e.g., immediate-release morphine or rapid-onset fentanyl) in addition to the baseline (regular) opioid therapy (e.g., sustained-release morphine tablets) is mandatory. Recently, rapid onset fentanyls (buccal or nasal) have been strongly recommended for breakthrough cancer pain due to their fast onset and their shorter duration of action. If available, metamizole is an alternative non-steroid-anti-inflammatory-drug. The indication for bisphosphonates should always be checked early in the disease. In advanced cancer stages, glucocorticoids are an important treatment option. If bone metastases lead to neuropathic pain, coanalgetics (e.g., pregabalin) should be initiated. In localized bone pain, radiotherapy is the gold standard for pain reduction in addition to pharmacologic pain management. In diffuse bone pain radionuclids (such as samarium) can be beneficial. Invasive measures (e.g., neuroaxial blockage) are rarely necessary but are an important option if patients with cancer pain syndromes are refractory to pharmacologic management and radiotherapy as described above. Clinical guidelines agree that cancer pain management in incurable cancer is best provided as part of a multiprofessional palliative care approach and all other domains of suffering (psychosocial, spiritual, and existential) need to be carefully addressed («total pain»).

Treatment of cancer pain

In patients with active cancer, the management of chronic pain is an essential element in a comprehensive strategy for palliative care. This strategy emphasises multidimensional assessment and the coordinated use of treatments that together mitigate suffering and provide support to the patient and family. This review describes this framework, an approach to pain assessment, and widely accepted techniques to optimise the safety and effectiveness of opioid drugs and other treatments. The advances of recent decades suggest a future that includes increased evidence-based targeting of specific analgesic interventions within an individualised plan of care that is appropriate throughout the course of illness.

Exercise capacity, lung function, and quality of life after interventional bronchoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Malignant airway obstruction accounts for significant morbidity and mortality in patients with lung and metastatic cancer. We prospectively assessed the effects of bronchoscopic interventions for the treatment of malignant airway obstruction, with specific attention to exercise capacity and quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study. Patients with high-grade, symptomatic central malignant airway obstruction were assessed at baseline and then at days 30, 90, and 180 after bronchoscopic intervention with spirometry, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and QoL and dyspnea questionnaires (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life [C30] and Lung Cancer [LC-13] modules).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients were included in the final statistical analysis. Increases in 6MWT distance by 99.7 m (95% CI 33.2-166.2 m, p = 0.002), FEV1 by 448 ml (95% CI 203-692 ml, p < 0.001), and FVC by 416 ml (95% CI 130-702 ml, p = 0.003) were seen at day 30 compared with baseline. Clinically and statistically significant improvements were noted in composite dyspnea scores at day 30 by both QoL C30 (decrease of 39.9, 95% CI 21.4-58.4, p < 0.001) and LC-13 (decrease of 28.2, 95% CI 12.9-43.5, p < 0.001) questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

Bronchoscopic intervention for malignant airway obstruction is associated with improvement in 6MWT, spirometry, and dyspnea at 30 days.

Health-related quality of life and cancer clinical trials

The measurement of patient-reported outcomes, including health-related quality of life, is a new initiative which has emerged and grown over the past four decades. Following the development of reliable and valid self-report questionnaires, health-related quality of life has been assessed in tens of thousands of patients and a wide variety of cancers. This review is based on a selection of data published in the last decade and is intended primarily for healthcare professionals. The assessments in clinical trials have been particularly useful for elucidating the effects of various cancers and their treatments on patients' lives and have provided additional information that enhances the usual clinical endpoints used for determining the benefits and toxicity of treatment. With growing experience the quality of the health-related quality of studies has improved and, in general, recent studies are more likely to be methodologically robust than those that were performed in earlier decades. Health-related quality of life has become a more accurate predictor of survival than some other clinical parameters, such as performance status. The overall outlook for the routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials is assured and, eventually, it is likely to become a standard part of clinical practice. However, there is still a need for a clear method for determining the clinical meaningfulness of changes in scores. The answer will probably come from the greater use of patient-reported outcomes and the consequent growth of experience that is necessary to make such judgements.

Anti-tumor effect in human lung cancer by a combination treatment of novel histone deacetylase inhibitors: SL142 or SL325 and retinoic acids

Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors arrest cancer cell growth and cause apoptosis with low toxicity thereby constituting a promising treatment for cancer. In this study, we investigated the anti-tumor activity in lung cancer cells of the novel cyclic amide-bearing hydroxamic acid based HDAC inhibitors SL142 and SL325. In A549 and H441 lung cancer cells both SL142 and SL325 induced more cell growth inhibition and cell death than the hydroxamic acid-based HDAC inhibitor suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA). Moreover, the combination treatment using retinoid drugs ATRA or 9-cis RA along with SL142 or SL325 significantly induced more apoptosis and suppressed colony formation than the single use of either. The expression of the retinoic acid receptors RARα, RARβ, RXRα and RXRβ were unchanged with the treatment. However a luciferase reporter construct (pGL4. RARE 7x) containing seven tandem repeats of the retinoic acid responsible element (RARE) generated significant transcriptional activity after the combination treatment of retinoic acids and SL142 or SL325 in H441 lung cancer cells. Moreover, apoptosis-promoting Bax expression and caspase-3 activity was increased after the combination treatment. These results suggest that the combination treatment of SL142 or SL325 with retinoic acids exerts significant anti-tumor activity and is a promising therapeutic candidate to treat human lung cancer.

A randomized controlled pilot trial of "Feiji Recipe" on quality of life of non-small cell lung cancer patients

In order to pilot a study observing the feasibility of applying the Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) version 2.0 to assess the quality of life (QOL) of patients with NSCLC treated with Feiji Recipe, a randomized, parallel controlled clinical trial was conducted in the university-affiliated hospital. Seventy inpatients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized into the study, and 60 cases were available as subjects for QOL data analysis. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the Feiji Recipe group (A); the Feiji Recipe combined with chemotherapy group (B); and the chemotherapy group (C) in which the patients were treated with vinorelbine plus cisplatin (NP) or gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP). QOL was assessed with the Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30. Sixty cases that finished the questionnaires were analyzed, and we found that patients who received chemotherapy had low QOL, in terms of their global health, role, emotional, social, economic status and symptom burden including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, dyspnea, loss of appetite and abnormal bowel movements. Simultaneous treatment with Feiji Recipe and chemotherapy was able to prevent the worsening of function in terms of role, social, fatigue and global health. The Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) version 2.0 can be used to evaluate the QOL of patients with NSCLC treated by Chinese herbal medicine. Feiji Recipe might partially improve the QOL of NSCLC patients when administered alone or in combination with chemotherapy. No unexpected side effects were observed. However, further double-blinded placebo controlled studies are strongly recommended.

Active symptom control with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MS01): a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is almost always fatal, and few treatment options are available. Although active symptom control (ASC) has been recommended for the management of this disease, no consensus exists for the role of chemotherapy. We investigated whether the addition of chemotherapy to ASC improved survival and quality of life.

METHODS

409 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, from 76 centres in the UK and two in Australia, were randomly assigned to ASC alone (treatment could include steroids, analgesic drugs, bronchodilators, palliative radiotherapy [n=136]); to ASC plus MVP (four cycles of mitomycin 6 mg/m2, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks [n=137]); or to ASC plus vinorelbine (one injection of vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 every week for 12 weeks [n=136]). Randomisation was done by minimisation, with stratification for WHO performance status, histology, and centre. Follow-up was every 3 weeks to 21 weeks after randomisation, and every 8 weeks thereafter. Because of slow accrual, the two chemotherapy groups were combined and compared with ASC alone for the primary outcome of overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN54469112.

FINDINGS

At the time of analysis, 393 (96%) patients had died (ASC 132 [97%], ASC plus MVP 132 [96%], ASC plus vinorelbine 129 [95%]). Compared with ASC alone, we noted a small, non-significant survival benefit for ASC plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89 [95% CI 0.72-1.10]; p=0.29). Median survival was 7.6 months in the ASC alone group and 8.5 months in the ASC plus chemotherapy group. Exploratory analyses suggested a survival advantage for ASC plus vinorelbine compared with ASC alone (HR 0.80 [0.63-1.02]; p=0.08), with a median survival of 9.5 months. There was no evidence of a survival benefit with ASC plus MVP (HR 0.99 [0.78-1.27]; p=0.95). We observed no between-group differences in four predefined quality-of-life subscales (physical functioning, pain, dyspnoea, and global health status) at any of the assessments in the first 6 months.

INTERPRETATION

The addition of chemotherapy to ASC offers no significant benefits in terms of overall survival or quality of life. However, exploratory analyses suggested that vinorelbine merits further investigation.