An explorative study to assess the association between health-related quality of life and the recommended phase II dose in a phase I trial: idarubicin-loaded beads for chemoembolisation of hepatocellular carcinoma

Statistical methods and data visualisation of patient-reported outcomes in early phase dose-finding oncology trials: a methodological review

Background

Traditionally, within dose-finding clinical trials, treatment toxicity and tolerability are assessed by clinicians. Research has shown that clinician reporting may have inadequate inter-rater reliability, poor correlation with patient reported outcomes, and under capture the true toxicity burden. The introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the patient can assess their own symptomatic adverse events or quality of life, has potential to complement current practice to aid dose optimisation. There are no international recommendations offering guidance for the inclusion of PROs in dose-finding trial design and analysis. Our review aimed to identify and describe current statistical methods and data visualisation techniques employed to analyse and visualise PRO data in published early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs).

Methods

DFOTs published from June 2016-December 2022, which presented PRO analysis methods, were included in this methodological review. We extracted 35 eligible papers indexed in PubMed. Study characteristics extracted included: PRO objectives, PRO measures, statistical analysis and visualisation techniques, and whether the PRO was involved in interim and final dose selection decisions.

Findings

Most papers (30, 85.7%) did not include clear PRO objectives. 20 (57.1%) papers used inferential statistical techniques to analyse PROs, including survival analysis and mixed-effect models. One trial used PROs to classify a clinicians' assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three (8.6%) trials used PROs to confirm the tolerability of the recommended dose. 25 trial reports visually presented PRO data within a figure or table within their publication, of which 12 papers presented PRO score longitudinally.

Interpretation

This review highlighted that the statistical methods and reporting of PRO analysis in DFOTs are often poorly described and inconsistent. Many trials had PRO objectives which were not clearly described, making it challenging to evaluate the appropriateness of the statistical techniques used. Drawing conclusions based on DFOTs which are not powered for PROs may be misleading. With no guidance and standardisation of analysis methods for PROs in early phase DFOTs, it is challenging to compare study findings across trials. Therefore, there is a crucial need to establish international guidance to enhance statistical methods and graphical presentation for PRO analysis in the dose-finding setting.

Funding

EA has been supported to undertake this work as part of a PhD studentship from the Institute of Cancer Research within the MRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership. AM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, the Institute of Cancer Research and Imperial College.

Transarterial Radioembolization Versus Atezolizumab-Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Time to Deterioration in Quality of Life

Introduction

Given the relatively short life expectancy of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), quality of life (QOL) plays a significant role in treatment selection. This analysis aimed to compare time to deterioration (TTD) in QOL with transarterial radioembolization (TARE) and atezolizumab–bevacizumab, as well as sorafenib, in advanced and unresectable HCC.

Methods

Patient-level data from SARAH (TARE using SIR-Spheres^® Y-90 resin microspheres [SIR-Spheres] versus sorafenib) and aggregate data from IMbrave150 (atezolizumab–bevacizumab versus sorafenib) randomized controlled trials were used to conduct an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Patients with a Child–Pugh score B in SARAH were excluded to align with exclusion criteria in IMbrave150. To identify potential effect modifiers for adjustment, the literature was searched and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were implemented using SARAH data. Patients from SARAH were then weighted to balance with baseline characteristics from IMbrave150. Median TTD in QOL and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated.

Results

Four potential effect modifiers were identified and used for adjustment: cause of disease (viral/non-viral), macrovascular invasion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, and alpha-fetoprotein level. The MAIC included 217 patients from SARAH (TARE = 94; sorafenib = 123). Median TTD in QOL was 11.23 and 8.64 months for atezolizumab–bevacizumab and TARE, respectively (HR = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–1.50; p = 0.725). A sensitivity analysis was conducted adjusting for cause of disease defined as hepatitis B/hepatitis C/non-viral: median TTD in QOL was higher for TARE compared with atezolizumab–bevacizumab (19.88 vs 11.23 months; HR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.36–1.19; p = 0.163). Sorafenib resulted in the shortest TTD in QOL, with statistically significant differences in both base case and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

TARE using SIR-Spheres may achieve similar TTD in QOL compared with atezolizumab–bevacizumab, as the analyses found no statistically significant differences between these two interventions. Both TARE using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab–bevacizumab seem to be more efficacious than sorafenib in maintaining QOL.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02099-0.

For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as physicians treating hepatocellular carcinoma, the quality of life that different treatments can offer represents an increasingly important aspect to consider when choosing treatments. Transarterial radioembolization and atezolizumab–bevacizumab are two potential treatments for advanced and unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, but no clinical trials have directly compared the outcomes of these two therapeutic options. With the data available (patient-level data from a clinical trial of transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres^® Y-90 resin microspheres [SIR-Spheres] versus sorafenib and data from a trial of atezolizumab–bevacizumab versus sorafenib from the literature), this study indirectly compared the time to deterioration of quality of life (i.e., how long quality of life is maintained) after treatment with transarterial radioembolization and atezolizumab–bevacizumab. The study showed that quality of life may be preserved over a similar time period with transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab–bevacizumab; also, both transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab–bevacizumab seem to maintain patients’ quality of life over a longer period of time compared with sorafenib. These results are expected to enrich the existing evidence on which patients and physicians can base their decisions, allowing them to choose the most appropriate treatment by assessing the treatments’ characteristics as a whole.

Systematic Review of Studies Assessing the Health-Related Quality of Life of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients from 2009 to 2018

We reviewed all studies assessing the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between 2009 and 2018 (n = 45). Most studies assessed HRQoL as an outcome, and evaluated or compared the HRQoL of HCC patients depending on the type of treatment or stage of disease. HCC patients had a worse HRQoL than the general population, including in those with early-stage HCC. Patients commonly experienced pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, distress, and lack of appetite, and these symptoms remained problematic even a few years after treatment. TNM classification of malignant tumors stage, tumor stage, presence of cirrhosis, being Asian, being female, living alone, or being unemployed were associated with a poor HRQoL. While recent studies have included a more diverse patient population, various topics, and different study designs, there were limited studies on supportive interventions. Given the increase in HCC cases and HCC survivors, addressing the HRQoL of HCC patients requires more attention.

Contemporary Systematic Review of Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in Locoregional Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Health-related quality of life has become an important aspect in oncologic decision making. Recent data suggest that Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) measurements can play an important prognostic role in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Locoregional therapies (LRTs) such as radiofrequency ablation, transarterial chemoembolization, and radioembolization (TARE) are important parts of HCC management. Results demonstrated that radiofrequency ablation treatment results in improving HRQoL compared to surgery for up to 3 years after treatment. Between TARE and transarterial chemoembolization, TARE provides the most benefit in terms of HRQoL. This systematic review investigated contemporary data surrounding HRQoL in patients undergoing LRTs and its impact on clinical decision making.

Health-related quality of life as an endpoint in oncology phase I trials: a systematic review

Background

Phase I trials aim to identify the recommended dose for further development. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could be a complement to the usual National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) scale to detect adverse events and define the doses. The objective of this study is to review the phase I in oncology which used HRQoL as endpoint.

Methods

A search in PubMed database identified phase I trials in oncology with HRQoL as endpoint, published between January 2012 to May 2016. Hematological and pediatric phase I were excluded.

Results

A total of 1333 phase I were identified and 15 trials were identified with HRQoL as endpoint (1.1%). The European Organisation for Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was the most frequently used instrument: 5 studies (33.3%). The targeted dimensions of HRQoL and the minimal clinically important difference were prespecified in 1 study (6.7%) and 2 studies (13.3%), respectively. Twelve studies (80%) described the statistical approach to analyze HRQoL data. Eight studies used the mean change from baseline (60%) to analyse longitudinal HRQoL data, two the mean score at certain times (13.3%), one the linear mixed model for repeated measures (6.7%), one the time to HRQoL score deterioration (6.7%), one percentage of patient-reported symptoms (6.7%). None of the studies used HRQoL to determine the recommended doses.

Conclusion

Few phase I studies used HRQoL as endpoint and among studies with HRQoL as endpoint, the methodology of HRQoL measurement and statistical analysis was heterogeneous. HRQoL.

endpoint not used for assessing the recommended phase II doses.

Quality of life in patients undergoing repetitive TACE for the treatment of intermediate stage HCC

PURPOSE

With a limited overall survival (OS) of 20 months in patients diagnosed with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the preservation of quality of life (QoL) during transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) procedures remains a primary goal. The aim of our study was to evaluate the change in QoL amongst patients undergoing repetitive TACE and to identify specific risk factors that may predict change in QoL.

METHODS

QoL was assessed in 82 patients undergoing at least two TACE, before and 14 days after TACE, using validated EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC HCC18 questionnaires. Tumour response was assessed using established response criteria. Laboratory and clinical parameters were analysed.

RESULTS

Functional scores decreased due to first TACE treatment (p < 0.01), conversely symptom scores increased significantly (p < 0.01). During repetitive TACE no statistically significant changes were observed. Higher Global Health- and Physical Functioning scores at baseline were identified as independent prognostic factors for greater decrease in QoL. Tumour response did not alter QoL at all. Furthermore higher symptom scales including pain (p = 0.00), nausea and vomiting (p = 0.00) and fever (p < 0.01 for repetitive TACE) at baseline were predictive of a significantly lesser increase of symptom severity, and a greater reduction in pain during a course of TACE. Higher C-reactive protein (CRP) at baseline and female gender were associated with a greater decrease of functional scales and increase of symptom scales.

CONCLUSION

QoL amongst patients receiving repetitive TACE showed neither significant nor clinically relevant changes over time. Pre-treatment assessment of QoL-scores, clinical and laboratory parameters can improve patient selection for TACE whilst optimizing QoL.

Intra-arterial idarubicin_lipiodol without embolisation in hepatocellular carcinoma: The LIDA-B phase I trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Idarubicin shows high cytotoxicity against hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells, a high hepatic extraction ratio, and high lipophilicity leading to stable emulsions with lipiodol. A dose-escalation phase I trial of idarubicin_lipiodol (without embolisation) was conducted in patients with cirrhotic HCC to estimate the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and to assess the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of the drug, and the health-related quality of life achieved by patients.

METHODS

Patients underwent two sessions of treatment with a transarterial idarubicin_lipiodol emulsion without embolisation. The idarubicin dose was escalated according to a modified continuous reassessment method. The MTD was defined as the dose closest to that causing dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in 20% of patients.

RESULTS

A group of 15 patients were enrolled, including one patient at 10 mg, four patients at 15 mg, seven patients at 20 mg, and three patients at 25 mg. Only two patients experienced DLT: oedematous ascitic decompensation and abdominal pain at 20 and 25 mg, respectively. The calculated MTD of idarubicin was 20 mg. The most frequent grade ≥3 adverse events were biological. One month after the second session, the objective response rate was 29% (complete response, 0%; partial response, 29%) based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours. The median time to progression was 5.4 months [95% confidence limit (CI) 3.0-14.6 months] and median overall survival was 20.6 months (95% CI 5.7-28.7 months). Pharmacokinetic analysis of idarubicin showed that the mean C_max of idarubicin after intra-arterial injection of the idarubicin-lipiodol emulsion is approximately half the C_max after intravenous administration. Health-related quality of life results confirmed the good safety results associated with use of the drug.

CONCLUSIONS

The MTD of idarubicin was 20 mg after two chemolipiodolisation sessions. Encouraging safety results, and patient responses and survival were observed. A phase II trial has been scheduled.

LAY SUMMARY

There is a need for transarterial regimens that improve the responses and survival of patients with unresectable HCC. In this phase I trial, we showed that two sessions of treatment with a transarterial idarubicin_lipiodol emulsion without embolisation was well tolerated and gave promising efficacy in terms of tumour control and patient survival.

Value of quality of life analysis in liver cancer: A clinician’s perspective

Health related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly recognized as an important clinical parameter and research endpoint in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HRQOL in HCC patients is multifaceted and affected by medical factor which encompasses HCC and its complications, oncological and palliative treatment for HCC, underlying liver disease, as well as the psychological, social or spiritual reaction to the disease. Many patients presented late with advanced disease and limited survival, plagued with multiple symptoms, rendering QOL a very important aspect in their general well being. Various instruments have been developed and validated to measure and report HRQOL in HCC patients, these included general HRQOL instruments, e.g., Short form (SF)-36, SF-12, EuroQoL-5D, World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment 100 (WHOQOL-100), World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment abbreviated version; general cancer HRQOL instruments, e.g., the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-General, Spitzer Quality of Life Index; and liver-cancer specific HRQOL instruments, e.g., EORTC QLQ-HCC18, FACT-Hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep), FACT-Hep Symptom Index, Trial Outcome Index. Important utilization of HRQOL in HCC patients included description of symptomatology and HRQOL of patients, treatment endpoint in clinical trial, prognostication of survival, benchmarking of palliative care service and health care valuation. In this review, difficulties regarding the use of HRQOL data in research and clinical practice, including choosing a suitable instrument, problems of missing data, data interpretation, analysis and presentation are examined. Potential solutions are also discussed.

Patient-reported tolerability of adverse events in phase 1 trials

BACKGROUND

Phase I experts recommend revisiting dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition to include chronic and cumulative toxicities induced by new molecularly targeted therapies. Patient's assessment of late toxicities' tolerability is, however, unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective survey on adverse events (AEs) tolerability on 23 National Cancer InstituteCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event, Version 4 (NCI-CTCAE.v4) items was conducted at Gustave Roussy's Phase I department. Patients' maximum tolerability duration was recorded at baseline, during trial and at trial completion. Results were compared with the corresponding physicians' survey.

RESULTS

52 patients enrolled in 27 Phase I trials between May 2014 and November 2015 completed 102 forms. At baseline, the most feared G2/G3 AEs were haematuria (74%), vomiting (71%) and hyperglycemia (64%)/dry mouth (94%), hyperglycemia (92%) and vomiting (92%). At trial completion, the most feared G2/G3 AEs were personality change (83.3%), haematuria (82%) and fever (80%)/dry mouth, fever and dizziness (100% each). Tolerability score did not differ over time. More previous treatments and occurrence of severe AEs were associated with better tolerability at study completion (p=0.0234 and p=0.0153, respectively, in multivariate analysis). Patient's tolerability differed from physician's assessment.

CONCLUSION

AEs considered intolerable by patients are toxicities that directly impact their quality of life and differ from those feared by physicians or included in DLT definition. Patient-reported tolerability of AEs may help in optimising drug development.