The role of the estimand framework in the analysis of patient-reported outcomes in single-arm trials: a case study in oncology

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play an increasing role in the evaluation of oncology treatments. At the same time, single-arm trials are commonly included in regulatory approval submissions. Because of the high risk of biases, results from single-arm trials require careful interpretation. This benefits from a clearly defined estimand, or target of estimation. In this case study, we demonstrated how the ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework can be implemented in SATs with PRO endpoints.

METHODS

For the global quality of life outcome in a real single-arm lung cancer trial, a range of possible estimands was defined. We focused on the choice of the variable of interest and strategies to deal with intercurrent events (death, treatment discontinuation and disease progression). Statistical methods were described for each estimand and the corresponding results on the trial data were shown.

RESULTS

Each intercurrent event handling strategy resulted in its own estimated mean global quality of life over time, with a specific interpretation, suitable for a corresponding clinical research aim. In the setting of this case study, a 'while alive' strategy for death and a 'treatment policy' strategy for non-terminal intercurrent events were deemed aligned with a descriptive research aim to inform clinicians and patients about expected quality of life after the start of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that decisions made in the estimand framework are not trivial. Trial results and their interpretation strongly depend on the chosen estimand. The estimand framework provides a structure to match a research question with a clear target of estimation, supporting specific clinical decisions. Adherence to this framework can help improve the quality of data collection, analysis and reporting of PROs in SATs, impacting decision making in clinical practice.

Comparison of statistical methods for the analysis of patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials: A simulation study

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that aim to measure patients' subjective attitudes towards their health or health-related conditions in various fields have been increasingly used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). PRO data is likely to be bounded, discrete, and skewed. Although various statistical methods are available for the analysis of PROs in RCT settings, there is no consensus on what statistical methods are the most appropriate for use. This study aims to use simulation methods to compare the performance (in terms of bias, empirical standard error, coverage of the confidence interval, Type I error, and power) of three different statistical methods, multiple linear regression (MLR), Tobit regression (Tobit), and median regression (Median), to estimate a range of predefined treatment effects for a PRO in a two-arm balanced RCT. We assumed there was an underlying latent continuous outcome that the PRO was measuring, but the actual scores observed were equally spaced and discrete. This study found that MLR was associated with little bias of the estimated treatment effect, small standard errors, and appropriate coverage of the confidence interval under most scenarios. Tobit performed worse than MLR for analysing PROs with a small number of levels, but it had better performance when analysing PROs with more discrete values. Median showed extremely large bias and errors, associated with low power and coverage for most scenarios especially when the number of possible discrete values was small. We recommend MLR as a simple and universal statistical method for the analysis of PROs in RCT settings.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): long-term, health-related quality-of-life results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 study, adjuvant pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival and distant-metastasis-free survival in patients with resected stage III melanoma. Earlier results showed no effect of pembrolizumab on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Little is known about HRQOL after completion of treatment with pembrolizumab, an important research area concerning patients who are likely to become long-term survivors. This study reports long-term HRQOL results.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial compared adjuvant pembrolizumab with placebo in patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0, recruited from 123 academic centres and community hospitals in 23 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographical region to receive 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses. Investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, measured with the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30. All patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation available who were alive 108 weeks from randomisation were included in this analysis of long-term HRQOL. Long-term HRQOL included assessments measured every 6 months between 108 weeks and 48 months after randomisation. The threshold of clinical relevance for all HRQOL scales used was an average change of 5 points. The trial is ongoing, recruitment is completed, and HRQOL data collection is finalised. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Completion of the HRQOL evaluation at baseline exceeded 90% (481 [94%] patients in the pembrolizumab group and 467 [92%] in the placebo group), and ranged between 60% and 90% for post-baseline timepoints. Among patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation, 365 (39%) were female and 583 (61%) were male. The mean change from baseline to long-term HRQOL was -0·56 (95% CI -2·33 to 1·22) in the pembrolizumab group and 1·63 (-0·12 to 3·38) in the placebo group. The difference between the two groups was -2·19 (-4·65 to 0·27, p=0·081). Differences for all other scales were smaller than 5 and not statistically significant.

INTERPRETATION

Adjuvant pembrolizumab did not have a significant impact on long-term HRQOL compared with placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma. These findings, together with earlier results on efficacy and HRQOL, support the use of pembrolizumab in this setting.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme.

National Estimates of the Participation of Patients With Cancer in Clinical Research Studies Based on Commission on Cancer Accreditation Data

PURPOSE

National estimates of cancer clinical trial participation are nearly two decades old and have focused solely on enrollment to treatment trials, which does not reflect the willingness of patients to contribute to other elements of clinical research. We determined inclusive, contemporary estimates of clinical trial participation for adults with cancer using a national sample of data from the Commission on Cancer (CoC).

METHODS

The data were obtained from accreditation information submitted by the 1,200 CoC programs, which represent more than 70% of all cancer cases diagnosed in the United States each year. Deidentified, institution-level aggregate counts of annual enrollment to treatment, biorepository, diagnostic, economic, genetic, prevention, quality-of-life (QOL), and registry studies were examined. Overall, study-type estimates for the period 2013-2017 were estimated. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to account for missing data, with summary estimates calculated separately by type of program (eg, National Cancer Institute [NCI]-designated cancer centers) and pooled.

RESULTS

The overall estimated patient participation rate to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%. Patients with cancer participated in a wide variety of other studies, including biorepository (12.9%), registry (7.3%), genetic (3.6%), QOL (2.8%), diagnostic (2.5%), and economic (2.4%) studies. Treatment trial enrollment was 21.6% at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers, 5.4% at academic (non-NCI-designated) comprehensive cancer programs, 5.7% at integrated network cancer programs, and 4.1% at community programs. One in five patients (21.9%) participated in one or more cancer clinical research studies.

CONCLUSION

In a first-time use of national accreditation information from the CoC, enrollment to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%, higher than historical estimates of <5%. Patients participated in a diverse set of other study types. Contributions of adult patients with cancer to clinical research is more common than previously understood.

The role of quality of life data as an endpoint for collecting real-world evidence within geroscience clinical trials

With geroscience research evolving at a fast pace, the need arises for human randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of geroprotective interventions to prevent age-related adverse outcomes, disease, and mortality in normative aging cohorts. However, to confirm efficacy requires a long-term and costly approach as time to the event of morbidity and mortality can be decades. While this could be circumvented using sensitive biomarkers of aging, current molecular, physiological, and digital endpoints require further validation. In this review, we discuss how collecting real-world evidence (RWE) by obtaining health data that is amenable for collection from large heterogeneous populations in a real-world setting can help speed up validation of geroprotective interventions. Further, we propose inclusion of quality of life (QoL) data as a biomarker of aging and candidate endpoint for geroscience clinical trials to aid in distinguishing healthy from unhealthy aging. We highlight how QoL assays can aid in accelerating data collection in studies gathering RWE on the geroprotective effects of repurposed drugs to support utilization within healthy longevity medicine. Finally, we summarize key metrics to consider when implementing QoL assays in studies, and present the short-form 36 (SF-36) as the most well-suited candidate endpoint.

Single-arm studies involving patient-reported outcome data in oncology: a literature review on current practice

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in single-arm cancer studies. We reviewed 60 papers published between 2018 and 2021 of single-arm studies of cancer treatment with PRO data for current practice on design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation. We further examined the studies' handling of potential bias and how they informed decision making. Most studies (58; 97%) analysed PROs without stating a predefined research hypothesis. 13 (22%) of the 60 studies used a PRO as a primary or co-primary endpoint. Definitions of PRO objectives, study population, endpoints, and missing data strategies varied widely. 23 studies (38%) compared the PRO data with external information, most often by using a clinically important difference value; one study used a historical control group. Appropriateness of methods to handle missing data and intercurrent events (including death) were seldom discussed. Most studies (51; 85%) concluded that PRO results supported treatment. Conducting and reporting of PROs in cancer single-arm studies need standards and a critical discussion of statistical methods and possible biases. These findings will guide the Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) in developing recommendations for the use of PRO-measures in single-arm studies.

Health-related Quality of Life of Patients Treated With Different Fractionation Schedules for Early Prostate Cancer Compared to the Age-standardized General Male Population

BACKGROUND

The effects of radiotherapy (RT) patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are usually compared to those of other treatment modalities instead of HRQoL of the general population in oncological studies. We examined HRQoL of patients with an early prostate cancer (PC) not receiving hormonal treatment up to 3 years after RT using the 15D instrument and the FACT-P questionnaire.

METHODS

The 15D results were compared to those in the age-standardized general male population (N = 952) using an independent-sample t test. The study population (N = 73) received RT either with 78/2 Gy, 60/3 Gy or 36.25/7.25 Gy fractionation.

RESULTS

No significant differences in the mean total HRQoL scores were found between the RT groups and the general male population at any time point. Patients with PC had more depression (P = .015) and distress (P = .029) than the general male population before the treatment and depression up to 3 months after treatment (P = .019), which did not persist at 3 years. The sexual activity dimension had declined by the end of treatment, and this decline persisted 3 years later (P = .033). Excretion functions were worse compared to those in peers at the end of treatment (P < .001) but no longer at 3 months and later after RT. Regarding the FACT-P, HRQoL remained good at 3 years after RT in all the treatment groups and there were no significant differences between the different RT groups at this time point.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that patients treated with RT for early PC had similar HRQoL compared to the age-standardized general male population at 3 years after treatment.

Common methods of determining meaningful change in clinical practice: implications for precision patient-reported outcomes

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical practice for several purposes, including to monitor whether a treatment is working or whether a patient is experiencing adverse events from treatment. This study surveyed oncology providers (OP) and mental health providers (MHP) to determine how clinicians from different disciplines determine individual-level meaningful change on PROs. Understanding how clinicians determine change on PROs could help inform methods for individualizing meaningful change definitions, an approach we have dubbed "Precision PROs".

METHODS

Three hundred and forty-seven providers utilizing PROs completed an online survey about PRO use to monitor patients in clinical practice. A question on methods used to determine individual-level meaningful change on PROs was developed with input from clinicians. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether specific methods were associated with clinician characteristics.

RESULTS

The most commonly reported method was comparing the previous score to the current score (65%). Other methods included examining the numerical scores without a visual aid (59%), considering other factors affecting scores (42%), comparing scores to norms (31%) and using a graph of scores (29%). Provider age was negatively associated with odds of using a graph (OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.91, 1.0) but no other method. Provider gender, hours per week in clinical practice and years in practice were not associated with odds of using a specific method.

CONCLUSIONS

Most providers determined individual-level meaningful change without a visual aid and used only the previous score and current score, the minimum number (2 scores) to determine change. Consistent with current practice, future research on methods of determining within-individual meaningful change for clinical use should focus on methods requiring two rather than three or more scores. When attempting to personalize within-individual change definitions (Precision PROs), methods examining a baseline and single follow-up may be most useful for clinical practice.

Feasibility of a patient-centered method to determine meaningful change in pain intensity on a survey of patients with a history of cancer

Introduction

Current methods of determining minimally important differences (MIDs) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) do not incorporate individual patient values.

Objectives

This study tested the feasibility of having cancer patients define a personally meaningful change in pain intensity, a method we have termed Precision PROs.

Methods

Adults with cancer and pain (n = 231) completed an electronic questionnaire twice over 2 weeks. Participants were then given their pain intensity scores with an explanation of score meaning. Participants then defined their own MIDs for an increase and decrease in pain intensity. Participants also answered 3 questions testing their understanding of the MID concept.

Results

The majority of participants could define an individually meaningful increase (97% [n = 223]) and individually meaningful decrease (98% [n = 226]) in pain intensity. Seventy-two percent of participants (n = 166) answered all test questions correctly and 26% (n = 60) answered 2 of 3 correctly. Using the individual MID, 32% (95% CI: 25.3, 40.0) of the sample experienced a meaningful change between the 2 surveys, more than other methods (z-test: 14%, 95% CI: 9.4, 20.6; distribution-based method: 24%, 95% CI: 17.7, 31.1).

Conclusions

This study showed the feasibility of the Precision PRO individual MID, which could be used in clinical care or clinical trials. Further studies are needed to compare the individual MID to current methods.

Quality-of-life methodology in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: Current tools and perspectives for the future

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly recognized as important when evaluating cancer treatments. The use, reporting, and analysis of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), however, are not standardized in clinical trials and are often poorly implemented in clinical practice. We report the results of a systematic literature review (PubMed search: January 1, 2000 to August 15, 2020) of PROM use, reporting, and analysis in phase 3 clinical trials of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Further inspection of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor publications was performed to examine PROMs in the HR+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative setting. A total of 88 results were identified in the initial search; 32 were included in the final analysis. Among included studies, most (66%) had been published in the last 5 years (2015 to 2020). CDK4/6 inhibitors (38%) were the most common agents reported. No clear standard for PROM use, reporting, or analysis was found. The most common PROMs were European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30; 59%) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B; 34%). Important differences, among studies that reported them, ranged from 5 to 10 points for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and 8 points for the FACT-B total score. This review showed that a lack of clear consistency remains for PROM use, reporting, and analysis in phase 3 clinical trials of HR+ ABC. However, HRQOL is of high interest in the literature, including for CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Evaluating health related quality of life in outpatients receiving anti-cancer treatment: results from an observational, cross-sectional study

Background

The aim of the study was to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in outpatients receiving anti-cancer treatment.

Methods

Observational, cross-sectional, single-center study that assessed HRQOL in cancer patients receiving antineoplastic treatment.

Results

A total of 184 patients were included in the study; the median total FACT-G score was 66 ± 12.9; the scores for the physical well-being, social/family well-being, emotional well-being and functional well-being domains were 17.8 + 4.8, 19.1 ± 4.4, 14.8 ± 3.8 and 14.3 ± 4.7 respectively. Patients with adverse events had poorer HRQOL compared to those without them (FACT-G score 62.2 vs. 67.3; p < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis the variables associated with poorer HRQOL in the form of a gradient were tumor stage and performance status (ECOG); female sex was also associated with poorer HRQOL.

Conclusion

In our study, the neoplastic disease and anti-cancer treatment toxicities had an impact on HRQOL. Patients had poorer scores in the functional well-being domain and higher ones in the social/family well-being domain. Variables associated with worse HRQOL were tumor stage, performance status (ECOG) and female sex.

Health-related quality of life using the FACT-M questionnaire in patients with malignant melanoma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Since there are no formal definition of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) there may be a lack of coherence and understanding of how to interpret HRQOL-data. The aim of this study is to summarize HRQOL-results that have used the FACT-M questionnaire in patients with melanoma, and specifically to summarize FACT-M between tumor stage.

METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

original studies on cutaneous melanoma between 2005 and 2020, written in English, containing "Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Melanoma" OR "Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy M" OR FACT-M OR FACT/M OR FACTM OR "FACT M" OR FACT-melanoma OR "FACT Melanoma" together with FACT-M numbered data and basic patient characteristics, using the databases Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and PsycINFO.

RESULTS

16 articles describing 14 patient cohorts published 2008-2020 were included. The majority of the studies did not report subscale scores in accordance with FACT-M guidelines. The results did indicate that FACT-M total scores were inversely correlated with AJCC stage. Subscale analysis demonstrated varying degrees of correlation with AJCC stage. The Melanoma Surgery Subscale score was lowest in stage III patients, probably reflecting more advanced surgical procedures in this group of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Though this review is based on a questionnaire limited to the assessment of melanoma patients, it highlights the universal need for clinical studies to describe their selected HRQOL-questionnaires, its definition of HRQOL and its dimensions, as well as comply with the questionnaire's guidelines when reporting HRQOL-data.

International perspectives on suboptimal patient-reported outcome trial design and reporting in cancer clinical trials: A qualitative study

PURPOSE

Evidence suggests that the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of cancer trial protocols is frequently inadequate and non-reporting of PRO findings is widespread. This qualitative study examined the factors influencing suboptimal PRO protocol content, implementation, and reporting, and use of PRO data during clinical interactions.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four stakeholder groups: (1) trialists and chief investigators; (2) people with lived experience of cancer; (3) international experts in PRO cancer trial design; (4) journal editors, funding panelists, and regulatory agencies. Data were analyzed using directed thematic analysis with an iterative coding frame.

RESULTS

Forty-four interviews were undertaken. Several factors were identified that could influenced effective integration of PROs into trials and subsequent findings. Participants described (1) late inclusion of PROs in trial design; (2) PROs being considered a lower priority outcome compared to survival; (3) trialists' reluctance to collect or report PROs due to participant burden, missing data, and perceived reticence of journals to publish; (4) lack of staff training. Strategies to address these included training research personnel and improved communication with site staff and patients regarding the value of PROs. Examples of good practice were identified.

CONCLUSION

Misconceptions relating to PRO methodology and its use may undermine their planning, collection, and reporting. There is a role for funding, regulatory, methodological, and journalistic institutions to address perceptions around the value of PROs, their position within the trial outcomes hierarchy, that PRO training and guidance is available, signposted, and readily accessible, with accompanying measures to ensure compliance with international best practice guidelines.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): health-related quality-of-life results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 trial in patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma demonstrated improved recurrence-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo (hazard ratio 0·57 [98·4% CI 0·43-0·74]; p<0·0001). This study reports the results from the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) exploratory endpoint.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 123 academic centres and community hospitals across 23 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated histologically confirmed stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a central interactive voice-response system on the basis of a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographic region to receive intravenously 200 mg pembrolizumab or placebo. Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for 1 year, or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, with global health/quality of life (GHQ) over 2 years measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 as the primary analysis. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37, and long-term follow-up is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Median follow-up was 15·1 months (IQR 12·8-16·9) at the time of this analysis. HRQOL compliance was greater than 90% at baseline, greater than 70% during the first year, and greater than 60% thereafter for both groups. Because of low absolute compliance numbers at later follow-up, the analysis was truncated to week 84. Baseline GHQ scores were similar between groups (77·55 [SD 18·20] in the pembrolizumab group and 76·54 [17·81] in the placebo group) and remained stable over time. The difference in average GHQ score between the two groups over the 2 years was -2·2 points (95% CI -4·3 to -0·2). The difference in average score during treatment was -1·1 points (95% CI -3·2 to 0·9) and the difference in average score after treatment was -2·2 points (-4·8 to 0·4). These differences are within the 5-point clinical relevance threshold for the QLQ-C30 and are therefore clinically non-significant.

INTERPRETATION

Pembrolizumab does not result in a clinically significant decrease in HRQOL compared with placebo when given as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma. These results support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab in this setting.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Factors predicting missing instruments in three cancer randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

Missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data can seriously threaten the validity of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Identifying which factors predict missing instruments may help researchers develop strategies to prevent it from happening. This study examined the association of factors with time to the first missing instrument after randomization in three cooperative group RCTs.

METHODS

We performed descriptive analyses and Cox proportional hazards regressions for three RCTs selected from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group: MA17 (breast cancer), PR7 (prostate cancer), and LY12 (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma). The outcome was the time from randomization to the first missing instrument. Variables for 15 factors were used as covariates based on availability and previously-reported putative associations with missing PRO data.

RESULTS

Nine percent of 1352 subjects on MA17, 37% of 923 subjects on PR7, and 59% of 477 subjects on LY12 had a missing instrument. Twenty-five percent of subjects on MA17 had first missing instrument within 4.6 years. The median time to first missing instrument was: not observed for MA17, 7.3 years for PR7, 0.12 years for LY12. Cox regression revealed statistically significant independent associations with outcome for only five factors: baseline age (PR7) and level of well-being (LY12), and centre level of activity (LY12), presence of post-graduate residency training program (MA17, PR7), and centre geographic location (PR7, LY12).

CONCLUSION

Many factors reported to have association with missing instruments do not seem to predict time to the first missing instrument after randomization in RCTs. Context is important in understanding the few that may.

Incorporating patient centered benefits as endpoints in randomized trials of maintenance therapies in advanced ovarian cancer: A position paper from the GCIG symptom benefit committee

BACKGROUND

Quality of life and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important secondary endpoints and incorporated in most contemporary clinical trials. There have been deficiencies in their assessment and reporting in ovarian cancer clinical trials, particularly in trials of maintenance treatment where they are of particular importance. The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) symptom benefit committee (SBC) recently convened a brainstorming meeting with representation from all collaborative groups to address questions of how to best incorporate PROMs into trials of maintenance therapies to support the primary endpoint which is usually progression free survival (PFS). These recommendations should harmonize the collection, analysis and reporting of PROM's across future GCIG trials.

METHODS

Through literature review, trials analysis and input from international experts, the SBC identified four relevant topics to address with respect to promoting the role of PROMs to support the PFS endpoint in clinical trials of maintenance treatment for OC.

RESULTS

The GCIG SBC unanimously accepted the importance of integrating PROM's in future maintenance trials and developed four guiding principles to be considered early in trial design. These include 1) adherence to SPIRIT-PRO guidelines, 2) harmonization of selection, collection and reporting of PROM's; 3) combining Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) measures with clinical endpoints and 4) common approaches to dealing with incomplete HRQL data.

CONCLUSIONS

Close attention to incorporating HRQL and PROM's is critical to interpret the results of ovarian cancer clinical trials of maintenance therapies. There should be a consistent approach to assessing and reporting patient centered benefits across all GCIG trials to enable cross trial comparisons which can be used to inform practice.

Impact of gastric cancer treatment on quality of life of patients

Treatment of gastric cancer is stage specific and ranges from endoscopic resections in early gastric cancer to gastrectomy and multimodal treatment in locally advanced tumour situations. Palliative systemic treatment has the potential to prolong survival in advanced tumour stages. However, tumour-directed therapies and their side-effects potentially worsen the general condition of a patient. Treatment discussions and decisions, especially when trading-off the options with the patient, have widened their focus from 'technical' terms like overall survival, disease-free survival and progression-free survival to patient reported outcomes (PROs) including quality of life (QoL). The assessment of PROs has evolved as important endpoint in clinical studies. A precise definition of QoL seems impossible. Its multiple dimensions can be evaluated by various validated questionnaires like the QLQ-C30 and FACT-G focusing on different priorities. Special additional tools have been developed and validated to assess QoL in gastric cancer patients (QLQ-STO22, FACT-Ga). We herein give an overview on the options to evaluate QoL in patients with gastric cancer and on published data on the impact of tumour-targeted therapy on QoL in these patients.

Health-Related Quality of Life Data in Cancer Clinical Trials for Drug Registration: The Value Beyond Reimbursement

PURPOSE

A review of the literature was performed to evaluate how quality of life measures are collected, analyzed, and reported in cancer clinical trials intended to support drug registration.Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data points are one of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments used in clinical trials to evaluate the effects of treatments from the patient perspective. The use of PROs has gained focus in cancer clinical trials as more options become available for greater longevity of patients on treatment. Standardization of PRO data is evolving and involves unique challenges when used for assessing biologic and chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of cancer.

METHODS

In this study, a review of literature published between 2009 and 2019 was conducted using PubMed, COCHRANE Library, and Medline. The research focus was on the current guidance, implementation, and reporting as well as highlighting the issues, and recommendations for the inclusion of HRQoL end points in cancer clinical trials intended for use in drug registration.

RESULTS

Although there exist many levels of guidance for HRQoL measures in cancer drug trials, challenges to operational implementation, the current inconsistent adherence to reporting standards, and the lack of consensus and understanding of analyses limit the value and potential of the resulting data collected.

CONCLUSION

The results of HRQoL data collected from cancer clinical trials can be difficult to interpret and apply to inform clinical decision making. Increased reporting and access to these data can provide opportunities for potential applications to improve translatability of HRQoL data collected in clinical trials into practice.

Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: review of reviews from 2008 to 2018

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer still is a topic. This overview of the literature aimed to update the current knowledge on quality of life in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

A review of literature in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar were carried out to identify review papers on health-related quality of life in breast cancer during the 2008 to 2018. All publications were screened using the PRISMA guideline. The methodological quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR. The findings were summarized and tabulated accordingly.

RESULTS

Within over a decade, a total of 974 review papers were identified which according to the study selection criteria finally we have evaluated 82 reviews. Of these about 85% had a reasonable methodological quality. The findings were mainly summarized on several headings including instruments used to measure quality of life, treatment, supportive care, psychological distress, and symptoms. Questionnaires had a good performance to quantify quality of life in breast cancer patients. Most reviews were focused on the impact of treatment including endocrine therapy as well as integrating complementary and alternative medicine into the current practice. According to the reviews, yoga was the most recommended exercise to improve quality of life in breast cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the findings from this overview indicated that quality of life in breast cancer patients enhanced during the last decade. Several simple but effective interventions such as physical activity and psychosocial interventions proved to be effective in improving quality of life in this population. However, management of symptoms such as pain, and lymphedema, issues related to worry, sexual function especially for young patients, and the future outlooks all are among topics that deserve further consideration. Also, this overview indicated that methodological issues in measuring quality of life in breast cancer patients improved greatly, but still there is a long way to go to understand what really matter to patients.

Randomized Clinical Trial on Reduction of Radiotherapy Dose to the Elective Neck in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Results on the Quality of Life

PURPOSE

A randomized trial was initiated to investigate whether a reduction of the dose to the elective nodal sites would result in less toxicity and improvement in Quality of Life (QoL) without compromising tumor control. This paper aimed to compare QoL in both treatment arms.

METHODS

Two-hundred head and neck cancer patients treated with radiotherapy (RT) or chemo-RT were randomized (all stages, mean age: 60 years, M/F: 82%/18%). The elective nodal volumes of patients randomized in the experimental arm were treated up to a 40 Gy equivalent dose. In the standard arm, the elective nodal volumes were treated up to a 50 Gy equivalent dose. The QoL data were collected using The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire QLQ-C30 and the EORTC Head and Neck Cancer module (H&N35).

RESULTS

A trend toward less decline in QoL during treatment was observed in the 40 Gy arm compared to the 50 Gy arm. Statistically significant differences for global health status, physical functioning, emotional functioning, speech problems, and trouble with social eating in favor of the 40 Gy arm were observed. A clinically relevant better outcome in the 40 Gy arm was found for physical functioning at the end of therapy.

CONCLUSION

QoL during RT for head and neck cancer tends to be less impaired in the 40 Gy arm. However, reducing the dose only on the elective neck does not result in clinically relevant improvement of QoL. Therefore, additional treatment strategies must be examined to further improve the QoL of HNSCC patients.

Handling informative dropout in longitudinal analysis of health-related quality of life: application of three approaches to data from the esophageal cancer clinical trial PRODIGE 5/ACCORD 17

Background

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has become a major endpoint to assess the clinical benefit of new therapeutic strategies in oncology clinical trials. Typically, HRQoL outcomes are analyzed using linear mixed models (LMMs). However, longitudinal analysis of HRQoL in the presence of missing data remains complex and unstandardized. Our objective was to compare the modeling alternatives that account for informative dropout.

Methods

We investigated three alternative methods—the selection model (SM), pattern-mixture model (PMM), and shared-parameters model (SPM)—in relation to the LMM. We first compared them on the basis of methodological arguments highlighting their advantages and drawbacks. Then, we applied them to data from a randomized clinical trial that included 267 patients with advanced esophageal cancer for the analysis of four HRQoL dimensions evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

Results

We highlighted differences in terms of outputs, interpretation, and underlying modeling assumptions; this methodological comparison could guide the choice of method according to the context. In the application, none of the four models detected a significant difference between the two treatment arms. The estimated effect of time on HRQoL varied according to the method: for all analyzed dimensions, the PMM estimated an effect that contrasted with those estimated by the SM and SPM; the LMM estimated effects were confirmed by the SM (on two of four HRQoL dimensions) and SPM (on three of four HRQoL dimensions).

Conclusions

The PMM, SM, or SPM should be used to confirm or invalidate the results of LMM analysis when informative dropout is suspected. Of these three alternative methods, the SPM appears to be the most interesting from both theoretical and practical viewpoints.

Trial registration

This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861094.

Investigating the impact of open label design on patient-reported outcome results in prostate cancer randomized controlled trials

Background

While open‐label randomized controlled trials (RCT) are common in oncology, some concerns have been expressed with regard to Patient‐Reported Outcomes (PRO)‐based claims stemming from these studies. We aimed to investigate the impact of open‐label design in the context of prostate cancer (PCa) RCTs with PRO data.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials of PCa with a PRO endpoint published between 2004 and 2018 were considered. RCTs were systematically evaluated on the basis of previously defined criteria, including international PRO reporting quality standards and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing Risk of Bias. The rate of concordance was estimated and compared between traditional clinical outcomes (eg, survival or tumor response) and PRO in open and blinded RCTs.

Results

We identified 110 RCTs published between 2004 and 2018, of which 62% (n = 68) were open‐label. The general characteristics of PCa RCTs were not different according to their design (open‐label vs blinded). The proportion of PCa RCTs with high‐quality PRO reporting was not different between open‐label RCTs and blinded RCTs (41.2% vs 38.1%; P = .75). No statistically significant difference was found between PRO results and concordance with traditional clinical outcomes according to the study design.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that there is no evidence of significant bias for PROs due to the absence of blinding in the context of PCa RCTs. Further analyses should be conducted in other cancer disease sites.

Longitudinal analysis of health-related quality of life in cancer clinical trials: methods and interpretation of results

PURPOSE

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is assessed by self-administered questionnaires throughout the care process. Classically, two longitudinal statistical approaches were mainly used to study HRQoL: linear mixed models (LMM) or time-to-event models for time to deterioration/time until definitive deterioration (TTD/TUDD). Recently, an alternative strategy based on generalized linear mixed models for categorical data has also been proposed: the longitudinal partial credit model (LPCM). The objective of this article is to evaluate these methods and to propose recommendations to standardize longitudinal analysis of HRQoL data in cancer clinical trials.

METHODS

The three methods are first described and compared through statistical, methodological, and practical arguments, then applied on real HRQoL data from clinical cancer trials or published prospective databases. In total, seven French studies from a collaborating group were selected with longitudinal collection of QLQ-C30. Longitudinal analyses were performed with the three approaches using SAS, Stata and R software.

RESULTS

We observed concordant results between LMM and LPCM. However, discordant results were observed when we considered the TTD/TUDD approach compared to the two previous methods. According to methodological and practical arguments discussed, the approaches seem to provide additional information and complementary interpretations. LMM and LPCM are the most powerful methods on simulated data, while the TTD/TUDD approach gives more clinically understandable results. Finally, for single-item scales, LPCM is more appropriate.

CONCLUSION

These results pledge for the recommendation to use of both the LMM and TTD/TUDD longitudinal methods, except for single-item scales, establishing them as the consensual methods for publications reporting HRQoL.

Weekly platinum-based chemotherapy versus 3-weekly platinum-based chemotherapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ICON8): quality-of-life results of a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The ICON8 study reported no significant improvement in progression-free survival (a primary endpoint) with weekly chemotherapy compared with standard 3-weekly treatment among patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. All ICON8 patients were eligible to take part in the accompanying health-related quality-of-life study, which measured the effect of treatment on self-reported wellbeing, reported here.

METHODS

In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, three-arm, Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) trial done at 117 hospital sites in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Republic of Ireland, women (aged at least 18 years) with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC-IV ovarian cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally using minimisation to group 1 (intravenous carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 intravenous paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 weekly and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Randomisation was stratified by GCIG group, disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients underwent immediate or delayed primary surgery according to clinicians' choice. Patients were asked to complete European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OV28 questionnaires at enrolment, before each chemotherapy cycle, then 6-weekly up to 9 months, 3-monthly up to 2 years, and 6-monthly up to 5 years. Quality of life was a prespecified secondary outcome of the ICON8 study. Within the quality-of-life study, the co-primary endpoints were QLQ-C30 global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) and mean QLQ-C30 global health score from randomisation to 9 months (longitudinal analysis). Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146 and ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is currently in long-term follow up.

FINDINGS

Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were recruited into ICON8 (522 were included in group 1, 523 in group 2, and 521 in group 3). Baseline quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by 1438 (92%) of 1566 patients and 9-month questionnaires by 882 (69%) of 1280 patients. We observed no significant difference in global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) between study groups (group 2 vs group 1, difference in mean score 2·3, 95% CI -0·4 to 4·9, p=0·095; group 3 vs group 1, -0·8, -3·8 to 2·2, p=0·61). Using longitudinal analysis, we found lower global health scores for those receiving weekly paclitaxel than for those receiving 3-weekly chemotherapy (group 2 vs group 1, mean difference -1·8, 95% CI -3·6 to -0·1, p=0·043; group 3 vs group 1, -2·9, -4·7 to -1·1, p=0·0018).

INTERPRETATION

We found no evidence of a difference in global quality of life between treatment groups at 9 months; however, patients receiving weekly treatment reported lower mean quality of life across the 9-month period after randomisation. Taken together with the lack of progression-free survival benefit, these findings do not support routine use of weekly paclitaxel-containing regimens in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Harnessing the patient voice in prostate cancer research: Systematic review on the use of patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials to support clinical decision-making

Background

Given the growing importance of patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) as part of “big data” in improving patient care, there is a need to provide a state‐of‐the‐art picture of the added value of using PROs in prostate cancer (PCa) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to synthetize the most recent high‐quality PRO evidence‐based knowledge from PCa RCTs and to examine whether quality of PRO reporting in PCa research improved over time.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search using PubMed, from April 2012 until February 2019. For benchmarking purposes, we also included RCTs identified in our previously published review of RCTs (2004‐2012). Methodology for study identification and evaluation followed standardized criteria and a predefined data extraction form was used to abstract information. PRO quality of the studies was evaluated using the International Society of Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) recommended criteria.

Results

A total of 55 new RCTs were published between April 2012 and February 2019. About 24 (43.6%) RCTs were found to be of high‐quality regarding PRO assessments. Of these, 13 (54.2%) have been reported in the most recent European Association of Urology (EAU) PCa Guidelines. Overall QoL and sexual, urinary, and bowel function were the most commonly reported PROs. FACT‐P, EPIC‐26, and EORTC QLQ‐C30 and/or its module PR25 were most frequently used as measurement tools. An overall improvement in the completeness of PRO reporting was noted over time.

Conclusion

Many PRO trials are currently not included in the EAU guidelines. Our findings suggest that there has to be a better consensus on the use of PRO data for PCa patients, which will then be reflected in the PCa Guidelines and future data collection. Homogeneity in PROs collection and measurement tools will in turn enable “big data” Consortia to increase the patients’ voice in clinical research.

Reporting of health-related quality of life endpoints in National Cancer Institute-supported cancer treatment trials

BACKGROUND

The importance of capturing and reporting health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in clinical trials has been increasingly recognized in the oncology field. As a result, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) began to provide support for correlative HRQOL studies in cancer treatment trials. The current study was conducted to assess the publication rate of HRQOL correlative studies in NCI-supported treatment trials and to identify potential factors positively or negatively associated with publication rates.

METHODS

The NCI conducted a retrospective review of existing NCI databases to identify cancer treatment trials that had obtained additional NCI funding for the assessment of HRQOL and to determine the extent to which funded HRQOL studies have been completed and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

RESULTS

Of the 108 included trials, 58 (54%) had a parent trial (PT) publication; of these, 36 trials (62%) had a published HRQOL result: 20 as an independent publication and 16 that were included and/or reported in the PT publication. The length of time between trial activation and closure, as well as the specific cancer, appeared to be associated with the publication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study demonstrated that approximately 45% of the PT publications were followed by a HRQOL publication within 1 year, to allow the knowledge to be used in patient treatment decision making. The authors believe the current analysis is an important first step toward a better understand of the challenges that researchers face when reporting HRQOL endpoints.

Exploration of baseline patient-reported side effect bother from cancer therapy

BACKGROUND

Patient reports of expected treatment side effects are increasingly collected as part of the assessment of patient experience in clinical trials. A global side effect item that is patient-reported has the potential to inform overall tolerability. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the completion and distribution of such a global single-item measure of side effect burden in five cancer clinical trials.

METHODS

Data from five trials from internal Food and Drug Administration databases that included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General single-item measure of overall side effect burden (i.e. impact on degree of bother) were analyzed. Completion rates for the side effect bother item, items adjacent to this item, and two non-adjacent items on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General that are related to health-related quality of life were calculated at the baseline assessment and at the 3-month assessment. To evaluate the distribution, the percentage of patients reporting high levels (quite a bit or very much bother) of side effect bother at baseline and 3 months was assessed.

RESULTS

Completion rates for all items were at least 80% regardless of time point or trial population. However, in three of the five trials, completion rates for the side effect bother item were lower at baseline compared to adjacent and non-adjacent items. This difference was not observed at 3 months. Up to 9.4% of patients reported high levels of side effect bother at baseline.

CONCLUSION

Patients may enter trials already reporting some bother from side effects. This can make interpretation of results with respect to the investigational agent under study challenging. Patients may skip an item evaluating side effect bother at baseline, suggesting some difficulty with interpretation of what is being asked. Further study of the wording and utility of a baseline side effect bother assessment is warranted.

Introducing patient-reported outcome in the acute leukemia quality registries in Sweden

OBJECTIVES

The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measured outside clinical trials is not well defined. We report the first analysis of the prospective PRO study within the Swedish acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and the acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) registries.

METHODS

PRO was requested 6 months after diagnosis. The EORTC Quality of life Questionnaire Core 30-item, the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), and questions from a Swedish National Cancer Questionnaire were used.

RESULTS

An invitation letter was sent to 398 patients; 255 (64%) responded, 60% web-based, and 40% on paper. The ALL cohort had lower physical, role and social functioning, higher symptom burden, and more financial difficulties compared to the AML cohort. A PHQ-8 score ≥ 10p, which indicates depression, was reported in 18% of the patients; 33% of these patients reported being prescribed antidepressants. The patients' overall experience of care was satisfying, but more psychological and practical support was desired. There was no difference in survival between patients who reported their PRO and those who did not. Follow-up at 2 and 4 years is ongoing.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO collected in a registry-based setting is feasible, but the selection of time points and questionnaires are delicate in a diverse patient population.

International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

Including the patient voice in the development and implementation of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

CONTEXT

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in parallel with clinical evidence to inform decisions made by industry, clinicians, regulators, health technology assessment bodies and other health-care decision-makers. In addition, PRO data can also guide shared decision making and individual patient choice. Yet, the quality of many PROs in cancer clinical trials is suboptimal and requires improvement to add value to health care and policy decision making.

OBJECTIVE

To show how the integration of the patient and/or patient advocate at all stages of PRO development can help to realize the full potential of PROs.

METHODS

We examined the literature to show that the patient voice is often absent from the planning and implementation of PROs in cancer clinical trials. Good practice examples from the literature were combined with guideline recommendations, training or educational resources, and our own experience to create detailed practical steps for the inclusion of patients and/or patient advocates throughout PRO development.

RESULTS

Patient or patient advocates can play an active role in shaping PROs that are meaningful to the patient. They can contribute to content, choice of medium and implementation in a way that may support PRO completion and minimize missing data. Patients and their advocates can work to ensure PRO findings are disseminated appropriately in a way that is accessible to patients.

CONCLUSION

This practical guidance aims to optimize PRO development and implementation in clinical trials, resulting in robust, relevant data that reflect the patient experience and that support decisions made by all stakeholders involved in research and health care.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Treatment of Older Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia: a Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology Review Paper

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The treatment landscape for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is evolving. Many treatments have comparable efficacy making their impact on quality of life (QoL) an important differentiating factor. In this review, we discuss QoL in older adults with AML, focusing on therapeutic and observational trials that have incorporated QoL assessments.

RECENT FINDINGS

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a multi-dimensional concept incorporating physical, mental, emotional, and social functioning domains. HRQoL components overlap with components of geriatric assessment, a multidisciplinary diagnostic process that identifies underlying vulnerabilities of older adults and guides subsequent management strategies. HRQoL questionnaires may be general, cancer-specific, leukemia-specific, or symptom-focused. Therapeutic and observational cohort studies suggest HRQoL improves, or at least remains stable, during intensive and lower-intensity therapies. Nonetheless, HRQoL is not routinely incorporated in AML therapeutic trials. HRQoL assessments can inform both decision-making and management for older adults with AML.

Patient-reported outcomes in the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium

Members of the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium conducted an expert-driven literature review to identify a list of domains and to evaluate potential measures of these domains for inclusion in a list of preferred measures. Measures were included if they were easily available, free of charge, and had acceptable psychometrics based on published peer-reviewed analyses. A total of 22 domains and 52 measures were identified during the selection process. Taken together, these measures form a reliable and validated list of measurement tools that are easily available and used in multiple cancer trials to assess patient-reported outcomes in relevant patients.

Efficacy and Safety in the Continued Treatment With a Biosimilar Drug in Patients Receiving Infliximab: A Systematic Review in the Context of Decision-Making From a Latin-American Country

Introduction: Biological products, including infliximab (INF), are a therapeutic option for various medical conditions. In the Peruvian Social Security (EsSalud), infliximab is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthropathy, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease (in cases refractory to conventional treatment). Biosimilars are a safe and effective alternative approved for these diseases in patients who start treatment with infliximab. Nevertheless, there are people in treatment with the biological reference product (BRP), in whom the continuing therapy with a biosimilar biological product (BBP) must be evaluated.

Objectives: To synthesize the best available evidence, calculate a preliminary financial impact and conduct technical discussions about the interchangeability into biosimilar in patients receiving treatment with original infliximab for medical conditions approved in EsSalud.

Methodology: We carried out a systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Primary search was performed in Pubmed- MEDLINE, SCOPUS, WOS, EMBASE, TRIPDATABASE, DARE, Cochrane Library, NICE, AHRQ, SMC, McMaster-PLUS, CADTH, and HSE until June-2018. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias. Also, we implemented a preliminary financial analysis about the impact of biosimilar introduction on institutional purchasing budget. Moreover, technical meetings with medical doctors specialized in rheumatology, gastroenterology and dermatology were held for discussing findings.

Results: In primary search, 1136 records were identified, and 357 duplicates were removed. From 799 records, we excluded 765 after title and abstract evaluation. From 14 full-text appraised documents, we included five clinical trials in the risk of bias assessment: four studies evaluated CTP-13 and one tested SB2. Two double-blind clinical trials reported no differences in efficacy and safety profiles between maintenance group (INF/INF) and interchangeability group in all diseases included (INF/CTP-13) and rheumatoid arthritis (CTP13 and SB2). In the other three studies, open-label extension of primary clinical trials, no differences were founded in efficacy and safety profiles between CTP-13/CTP-13 and INF/CTP-13 groups. In financial analysis, the inclusion of biosimilars implied savings around S/7´642,780.00 (1USD=S/3.30) on purchasing budget of EsSalud. In technical meetings, beyond certain concerns, specialists agreed with the findings.

Conclusions: Evidence from clinical trials support that there are no differences in efficacy or safety of continuing the treatment with Infliximab BRP or exchanging into its biosimilar in patients with medical conditions approved in EsSalud. Financial analysis shows that the biosimilar introduction produce savings in purchasing institutional budget. Therefore, based on cost-opportunity principle, exchanging into biosimilar in patients receiving the original Infliximab, is a valid therapeutic alternative in the Peruvian Social Security.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Turner Syndrome and the Influence of Growth Hormone Therapy: A 20-Year Follow-Up

CONTEXT

The factors that affect the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women with Turner syndrome (TS) are controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to describe the HRQoL of women with TS with a focus on how given GH treatment and comorbidity influence HRQoL in adulthood and to compare HRQoL of women with TS with that of women in the general population.

DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort study, up to 20 years.

SETTING

The Turner Center at the Section for Endocrinology and Department of Reproductive Medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

Women with TS (n = 200), age range 16 to 78 years, were included consecutively and monitored every fifth year between 1995 and 2018. Women from the World Health Organization MONItoring of trends and determinants for CArdiovascular disease project were used as reference populations.

INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

HRQoL was measured using the Psychological General Well-Being index and the Nottingham Health Profile. Associations with somatic variables were assessed using longitudinal linear regression models.

RESULTS

HRQoL was not associated with GH treatment in TS in spite of a mean 5.7 cm taller height. HRQoL was only associated with height per se in one of 13 subscales (P < 0.01). HRQoL was negatively affected by higher age, higher age at diagnosis, and hearing impairment in TS. Women with TS reported a similar HRQoL to the reference population.

CONCLUSIONS

No association between previous GH treatment and HRQoL was found during the up to 20 years of follow-up in women with TS. HRQoL of women with TS and the reference population was similar.

The Statistical Evaluation of Treatment and Outcomes in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Clinical Trials

The purpose of this article is two-fold: to help statisticians confronted with the design, implementation and analysis of clinical trials and new to the field of head and neck cancer; but also to sensitize research physicians with the role, the tasks and the challenges faced by the medical statisticians. These two purposes altogether will hopefully encourage and enable fluid communication between the research physician and the medical statistician and the understanding of each other's field and concerns. In particular, the methodological challenges resulting from the heterogeneity of the head and neck cancer, the complexity of the treatments and the associated comorbidities are presented with examples borrowed from medical literature and from the practical experience of the authors in this field.

Comparison between different instruments for measuring health-related quality of life in a population sample, the WHO MONICA Project, Gothenburg, Sweden: an observational, cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

The general aim was to meet the need for empirical comparative studies of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment instruments, by evaluating and comparing the psychometric properties and results of three different, widely used, generic HRQoL instruments in a population sample. The specific aims were to evaluate the subscales of the different instruments that measure the same domain and to assess the association between the HRQoL measures and a single-item self-rated health scale.

DESIGN

An observational cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A population-based sample from Gothenburg, Sweden, was studied in 2008 in the WHO MONItoring of trends and determinants for CArdiovascular disease.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 414 subjects were included, 77% women, age range 39-78 years.

INTERVENTIONS

The Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), the Short Form-36 questionnaire (SF-36), the Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWB) and a self-rated health scale were used.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Scores were analysed for their psychometric properties, internal consistency (Cronbach's α), construct validity (Spearman's rank correlations and R2 coefficients) and discriminative ability for the presence of self-rated ill-health.

RESULTS

PGWB and SF-36 had higher Cronbach's α scores than NHP. All correlations calculated between the subscales that were conceptually similar were significant (p<0.01). All subscales could differentiate the presence of self-rated ill-health according to the self-rated health scale (p<0.001). The self-rated health scale correlated strongly with all of the three HRQoL instruments used.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high concordance between the instruments within each domain that was conceptually similar. All three HRQoL instruments (PGWB, SF-36 and NHP) could discriminate the presence of self-rated ill-health. The simple and quick self-rated health scale correlated strongly with the more time-consuming PGWB, SF-36 and NHP. The result supports the existence of a strong association between the self-rated health scale and HRQoL in the general population.

The use of patient-reported outcome research in modern ophthalmology: impact on clinical trials and routine clinical practice

This review article considers the rising demand for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in modern ophthalmic research and clinical practice. We review what PROMs are, how they are developed and chosen for use, and how their quality can be critically appraised. We outline the progress made to develop PROMs in each clinical subspecialty. We highlight recent examples of the use of PROMs as secondary outcome measures in randomized controlled clinical trials and consider the impact they have had. With increasing interest in using PROMs as primary outcome measures, particularly where interventions have been found to be of equivalent efficacy by traditional outcome metrics, we highlight the importance of instrument precision in permitting smaller sample sizes to be recruited. Our review finds that while there has been considerable progress in PROM development, particularly in cataract, glaucoma, medical retina, and low vision, there is a paucity of useful tools for less common ophthalmic conditions. Development and validation of item banks, administered using computer adaptive testing, has been proposed as a solution to overcome many of the traditional limitations of PROMs, but further work will be needed to examine their acceptability to patients, clinicians, and investigators.

Methodological aspects of health-related quality of life measurement and analysis in patients with multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable but treatment-sensitive cancer. For most patients, this means treatment with multiple lines of anti-myeloma therapy and a life with disease- and treatment-related symptoms and complications. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues play an important role in treatment decision-making. Methodological challenges in longitudinal HRQoL measurements and analyses have been identified, including non-responses (NR) to scheduled questionnaires. Publications were identified for inclusion in a systematic review of longitudinal HRQoL studies in MM, focussing on methodological aspects of HRQoL measurement and analysis. Diversity in timing of HRQoL data collection and applied statistical methods were noted. We observed a high rate of NR, but the impact of NR was investigated in only 8/23 studies. Thus, evidence-based knowledge of HRQoL in patients with MM is compromised. To improve quality of HRQoL results and their implementation in daily practice, future studies should follow established guidelines.