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

Precision Oncology Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Phase II Clinical Trials with Biomarker-Driven, Adaptive Design

Novel clinical trial designs are conducted in the precision medicine era. This study aimed to evaluate biomarker-driven, adaptive phase II trials in precision oncology, focusing on infrastructure, efficacy, and safety. We systematically reviewed and analyzed the target studies. EMBASE and PubMed searches from 2015 to 2023 generated 29 eligible trials. Data extraction included infrastructure, biomarker screening methodologies, efficacy, and safety profiles. Government agencies, cancer hospitals, and academic societies with accumulated experiences led investigator-initiated precision oncology clinical trials (IIPOCTs), which later guided sponsor-initiated precision oncology clinical trials (SIPOCTs). Most SIPOCTs were international studies with basket design. IIPOCTs primarily used the central laboratory for biomarker screening, but SIPOCTs used both central and local laboratories. Most of the studies adapted next-generation sequencing and/or immunohistochemistry for biomarker screening. Fifteen studies included an independent central review committee for outcome investigation. Efficacy assessments predominantly featured objective response rate as the primary endpoint, with varying results. Nine eligible studies contributed to the United States Food and Drug Administration's marketing authorization. Safety monitoring was rigorous, but reporting formats lacked uniformity. Health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes were described in some protocols but rarely reported. Our results reveal that precision oncology trials with adaptive design rapidly and efficiently evaluate anticancer drugs' efficacy and safety, particularly in specified biomarker-driven cohorts. The evolution from IIPOCT to SIPOCT has facilitated fast regulatory approval, providing valuable insights into the precision oncology landscape.

The Dermatology Life Quality Index as the primary outcome in randomized clinical trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Primary endpoint measures in clinical trials are typically measures of disease severity, with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relegated as secondary endpoints. However, validation of some PROMs may be more rigorous than that of disease severity measures, which could provide support for a primary role for PROMs.

OBJECTIVES

This study reports on 24 peer reviewed journal articles that used the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) as primary outcome, derived from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utlizing DLQI, covering all diseases and interventions.

METHODS

The study protocol was prospectively published on the PROSPERO database, and the study followed PRISMA guidelines. Searches were made using MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsycINFO databases and records were combined into an Endnote database. Records were filtered for duplicates and selected based on study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Full-text articles were sourced and data were extracted by two reviewers into a bespoke REDCap database, with a third reviewer adjudicating disagreements. The Jadad scoring method was used to determine risk of bias.

RESULTS

Of the 3220 publications retrieved from online searching, 457 articles met the eligibility criteria and included 198 587 patients. DLQI scores were used as primary outcomes in 24 (5.3%) of these studies comprising 15 different diseases and 3436 patients. Most study interventions (17 of 24 studies, 68%) were systemic drugs, with biologics (liraglutide, alefacept, secukinumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab) accounting for 5 of 25 pharmacological interventions (20%). Topical treatments comprised 32% (8 studies), whereas nonpharmacological interventions (n = 8) were 24% of the total interventions (N = 33). Three studies used nontraditional medicines. Eight studies were multicentred (33.3%), with trials conducted in at least 14 different countries, and four studies (16.7%) were conducted in multiple countries. The Jadad risk of bias scale showed that bias was uncertain or low, as 87.5% of studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence for use of the DLQI as a primary outcome in clinical trials. Researchers and clinicians can use this data to inform decisions about further use of the DLQI as a primary outcome.

U-PRO-CRM: designing patient-centred dose-finding trials with patient-reported outcomes

BACKGROUND

Determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) remains the primary objective for the majority of dose-finding oncology trials. Whilst MTD determination often relies upon clinicians to identify dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) experienced by patients during the trial, research suggests that clinicians may underreport patient's adverse events. Therefore, contemporary practice may be exposed to recommending intolerable doses to patients for further investigation in subsequent trials. There is increasing interest in patients self-assessing their own symptoms using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in dose-finding trials.

DESIGN

We present Utility-PRO-Continual Reassessment Method (U-PRO-CRM), a novel trial design which simultaneously uses clinician-rated and patient-rated DLTs (Clinician-DLTs and Patient-DLTs, respectively) to make dose (de-)escalation decisions and to recommend an MTD. U-PRO-CRM contains the published PRO-CRM as a special case and provides greater flexibility to trade-off the rate of Patient-DLTs and Clinician-DLTs to find an optimal dose. We present simulation results for U-PRO-CRM.

RESULTS

For specified trade-offs between Clinician-DLT and Patient-DLT rate, U-PRO-CRM outperforms the PRO-CRM design by identifying the true MTD more often. In the special case where U-PRO-CRM generalises to PRO-CRM, U-PRO-CRM performs as well as its published counterpart. U-PRO-CRM minimises the number of patients overdosed whilst maintaining a similar proportion of patients allocated to the true MTD.

CONCLUSIONS

By using a utility-based dose selection approach, U-PRO-CRM offers the flexibility to define a trade-off between the risk of patient-rated and clinician-rated DLTs for an optimal dose. Patient-centric dose-finding strategies, which integrate PROs, are poised to assume an ever more pivotal role in significantly advancing our understanding of treatment tolerability. This bears significant implications in shaping the future landscape of early-phase trials.

Amplifying the Patient's Voice in Oncology Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Solutions to Burdens and Barriers

Dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs) provide early access to novel compounds of potential therapeutic benefit in addition to providing critical safety and dosing information. While access to trials for which a patient is eligible remains the largest barrier to enrollment on clinical trials, additional direct and indirect barriers unique to enrollment on DFOTs are often overlooked but worthy of consideration. Direct barriers including financial costs of care, travel and time investments, and logical challenges including correlative study designs are important to bear in mind when developing strategies to facilitate the patient experience on DFOTs. Indirect barriers such as strict eligibility criteria, washout periods, and concomitant medication restrictions should be accounted for during DFOT design to maintain the fidelity of the trial without being overly exclusionary. Involving patients and advocates and incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) throughout the process, from initial DFOT design, through patient recruitment and participation, is critical to informing strategies to minimize identified barriers to offer the benefit of DFOTs to all patients.

Analysis of oncological drugs authorised in Spain in the last decade: association between clinical benefit and reimbursement

BACKGROUND

Our study aimed to assess whether there was a relationship between clinical benefits and reimbursement decisions as well as the inclusion of economic evaluations in  therapeutic positioning reports (IPTs) and to explore factors influencing reimbursement decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed all anti-cancer drugs approved in Spain from 2010 to September 2022. The clinical benefit of each drug were evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 1.1. The characteristics of these drugs were obtained from the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices. Reimbursement status information was obtained using BIFIMED, a web resource available in Spanish and consulted the agreements of the Interministerial Committee on Pricing of Medicines (CIPM).

RESULTS

In total, 73 drugs were included involving 197 indications. Almost half of the indications had substantial clinical benefit (49.8% yes vs. 50.3% no). Of the 153 indications with a reimbursement decision, 61 (56.5%) reimbursed indications had substantial clinical benefit compared to 14 (31.1%) of the non-reimbursed (p < 0.01). The median gain of overall survival was 4.9 months (2.8-11.2) for reimbursed indications and 2.9 months (1.7-5) in non-reimbursed (p < 0.05). Only six (3%) indications had an economic evaluation in the IPT.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that there is a relationship between substantial clinical benefit and the reimbursement decision in Spain. However, we also found that the overall survival gain was modest, and a significant proportion of the reimbursed indications had no substantial clinical benefit. Economic evaluations in IPTs are infrequent and cost-effectiveness analysis is not provided by CIPM.

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.

Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Industry-Sponsored Phase I Oncology Studies: Considerations for Translating Theory Into Practice

An increasing interest in the identification of optimal dosage for oncology therapies has prompted key opinion leaders and regulators to encourage the integration of patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments in phase I oncology clinical trials. Although the potential benefits of assessing PROs in early-phase studies have been acknowledged, the difficulties that arise from such a radical shift have been largely overlooked in the public discussion. In this commentary, the authors provide insight into the challenges that industry sponsors face in integrating PRO assessments into phase I oncology trials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating conversations that may help to resolve some of these issues.

Are neurologic symptoms associated with worse QoL in non-CNS cancer patients?

BACKGROUND

The burden of having neurologic symptoms (NS) in cancer patients has scantly been studied; therefore, we performed a study whose purpose was to measure the impact of having clinically active (NS) on the quality of life (QoL) of non-primary CNS cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients with systemic cancer (non-primary CNS cancer) sent for neurological evaluation at a single cancer center (INCAN) were prospectively invited to respond the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and BN20 questionnaires. Associations of the questionnairés items were blindly measured for the following groups: NS+ or not (NS-) and having active cancer (AC+) or not (AC-).

RESULTS

Of 205 patients aged 55.4 ± 15.4 years, 122 (60%) had NS+ and 107 (52%) AC +. The NS+ group (compared with the NS-) showed a significant worse perception in the following scales/items of the EORTC QLQ-C30: physical functioning (median 86 vs. 92, P = 0.012), role functioning (66 vs. 100, P < 0.001), emotional functioning (75 vs. 83, P = 0.005), cognitive functioning (66 vs. 83, P < 0.001), fatigue (33 vs. 22, P < 0.001), nausea and vomiting (P = 0.021), pain (33 vs. 16, P < 0.001), insomnia (33 vs. 0, P = 0.011), appetite loss (P = 0.021), and global health (66 vs. 75, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with systemic (non-CNS) cancer, the QoL is significantly worse for patients with active neurologic symptoms.

Evaluation of the patient experience of symptomatic adverse events on Phase I clinical trials using PRO-CTCAE

BACKGROUND

Adverse event (AE) reporting in early-phase clinical trials is essential in determining the tolerability of experimental anticancer therapies. The patient-reported outcome version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) evaluates AE components such as severity and interference in daily life. The aim of this study was to correlate the grade of clinician-reported AEs with patients' reported experience of these toxicities using PRO-CTCAE.

METHODS

Patients with advanced solid tumours enrolled on Phase I clinical trials were surveyed using the PRO-CTCAE. Symptomatic AEs were recorded by physicians using the CTCAE. A logistic regression model was used to assess associations between CTCAE grade and PRO responses.

RESULTS

Of 219 evaluable patients, 81 experienced a high-grade (3/4) clinician-reported symptom, and of these, only 32 (40%) and 26 (32%) patients concordantly reported these as either severe or very severe, and interfering with daily life either 'quite a bit' or 'very much', respectively. Of the 137 patients who experienced a low-grade (1/2) clinician-reported AE as their worst symptom, 98 (72%) and 118 (86%) patients concordantly reported these as either mild-moderate severity and minimally interfering with daily life, respectively. There was a statistically significant association between clinician-reported AE grade and interference. Interference scores were also associated with dose reductions.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to explore patient-reported severity and interference from symptomatic toxicities and compare clinician grading of the same toxicities. The study provided further evidence to support the added value of the PRO-CTCAE in Phase I oncology trials, which would make AE reporting patient-centred. Further work is needed to determine how this would affect the assessment of tolerability.

Clinical endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy: A systematic meta-research analysis

PURPOSE

Up to 50% of radiotherapy courses are delivered in palliative intent for various indications. Despite the large number of treated patients, we know little about the choice of endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy. Our primary aim was, therefore, to analyze primary endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a pre-registered (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GMCAF) meta-research analysis searching Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and "ClinicalTrials.gov" for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published 1990-2020. Endpoints were categorized in "patient-centered endpoints", including overall survival and patient-reported outcomes, and "tumor-centered endpoints" such as local control. The remainder were "other endpoints" including toxicity or observer-rated symptoms. We applied descriptive statistics to summarize data and logistic regression to assess if year of publication predicted the choice of primary endpoints.

RESULTS

Of 7379 records screened, 292 were eligible. Trials were characterized by small sample sizes and use of external beam radiotherapy for metastases or thoracic primaries. Median patient age was 64 and median ECOG was 1. Only 64.4%(145/225) of published trials clearly stated their primary endpoint. Published trials employed a "patient-centered primary endpoint" in 45.5%(66/145) and a "tumor-centered primary endpoint" in 17.3%(25/145) of the cases. There was no statistically significant trend in time for the use of "patient-centered primary endpoints". Registered ongoing trials used a "patient-centered primary endpoint" in 32.8%(22/67) and a "tumor-centered primary endpoint" in 26.9%(18/67) of the cases.

CONCLUSION

Although "patient-centered primary endpoints" appear relatively prevalent in published trials of palliative radiotherapy, their use is still suboptimal and appears to be lower in currently ongoing trials.

Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Oncology Trials: Surveys of Key Stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute Consumer Forum

Background

Patient-reported adverse events may be a useful adjunct for assessing a drug’s tolerability in dose-finding oncology trials (DFOT). We conducted surveys of international stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Consumer Forum to understand attitudes about patient-reported outcome (PRO) use in DFOT.

Methods

A 35-question survey of clinicians, trial managers, statisticians, funders, and regulators of DFOT was distributed via professional bodies examining experience using PROs, benefits/barriers, and their potential role in defining tolerable doses. An 8-question survey of the NCRI Consumer Forum explored similar themes.

Results

International survey: 112 responses from 15 September–30 November 2020; 103 trialists [48 clinicians (42.9%), 38 statisticians (34.0%), 17 trial managers (15.2%)], 7 regulators (6.3%), 2 funders (1.8%)]. Most trialists had no experience designing (73, 70.9%), conducting (52, 50.5%), or reporting (88, 85.4%) PROs in DFOT. Most agreed that PROs could identify new toxicities (75, 67.0%) and provide data on the frequency (86, 76.8%) and duration (81, 72.3%) of toxicities. The top 3 barriers were lack of guidance regarding PRO selection (73/103, 70.9%), missing PRO data (71/103, 68.9%), and overburdening staff (68/103, 66.0%). NCRI survey: 57 responses on 21 March 2021. A total of 28 (49.1%) were willing to spend <15 min/day completing PROs. Most (55, 96.5%) preferred to complete PROs online. 61 (54.5%) trialists and 57 (100%) consumers agreed that patient-reported adverse events should be used to inform dose-escalation decisions.

Conclusion

Stakeholders reported minimal experience using PROs in DFOT but broadly supported their use. Guidelines are needed to standardize PRO selection, analysis, and reporting in DFOT.

Patient reported outcomes in oncology: changing perspectives-a systematic review

In public health context, oncology is associated with severe negative impact on patients and on their relatives’ quality of life. Over the last decades, survival has remained at 50% worldwide for some tumor locations. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) assessment and, the corresponding use in clinical practice, help establishing patient individualized profiling involving caregivers. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine critical success factors for PROs assessment in daily clinical oncology practice. Additionally, we investigated how PROs collection can change oncology perspectives for patients and caregivers. According to PRISMA guidelines, 83 studies were included in this systematic review, whether related with implementation in daily clinical practice or associated with its use in oncology. PROs assessment gathers multi-professional teams, biomedical and clinical expertise, patients, families and caregivers. Institutional involvement, first line for caregiver’s adherence, team continuous formation, encompassing training and support, design of clear workflows, continuous monitoring, and data analysis are crucial for implementation. PROs measures are decisive in oncology. Several items were improved, including caregiver–patient–physician communication, patient risk groups identification, unmet problems and needs detection, disease course and treatment tracking, prognostic markers, cost-effectiveness measurement and comfort/support provision for both patients and caregivers. Routine assessment and implementation of PROs in clinical practice are a major challenge and a paradigm transformation for future.

Validation of the BC-Brain Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire for Patients with Central Nervous System Tumours Treated with Radiotherapy

The BC-brain questionnaire was developed by BC Cancer to detect health problems in patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumours in routine clinical care, treated with radiotherapy (RT), as part of the Prospective Outcomes and Support Initiative (POSI). This study aimed to present and validate the BC-brain questionnaire in patients with brain metastases (BrM) treated with RT. The BC-brain questionnaire was constructed with three subscales: mobility, thinking and CNS symptoms. Patients with BrM from five BC Cancer centres completed this questionnaire at first visit and subsequent follow-up appointments. A total of 365 patients finished the first and 105 finished the follow-up questionnaire. Summary scores of each subscale were calculated. Mobility, thinking and subtotal score showed good reliability with Cronbach’s α > 0.7. Multitrait scaling analysis showed good convergent and divergent validity. The correlations between subscales ranged from 0.262 to 0.456 for baseline and from 0.378 to 0.597 for follow-up. Patients on dexamethasone had worse performance. Patients with a KPS of </=70 had worse performance than patients with a KPS of >70. In general, this BC-brain questionnaire has good reliability and validity, and is proper to use as an option for a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to measure the quality of life in BrM patients treated with RT.

Adding a fatigue item to the EQ-5D-5L improves its psychometric performance in the general population

Background

Fatigue is a common and often disturbing sequela of serious chronic health conditions. In the widely applied HRQL instrument, the EQ-5D, this aspect is not included directly, for its assumed lack of additional information. We investigated the validity of this assumption by determining the gain—if any—of an additional fatigue item to the EQ-5D-5L in a general population sample.

Methods

A Dutch general population sample (including diseased people) completed a web-based survey including the EQ-5D-5L and the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ). The RPQ fatigue item was used to create the EQ-5D-5L + Fatigue. We head-to-head compared the psychometric performance contrasting the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-5L + Fatigue: distribution (e.g. ceiling), informativity cf. Shannon's indices, convergent validity, domain dependency, and explanatory power. Results were compared between subgroups with and without ≥ 1 chronic health condition.

Results

The study population consisted of 3027 persons of whom 52% had a chronic health condition. The mean EQ-5D-5L utility score was 0.83 and 48% experienced some degree of fatigue. Adding the fatigue item to the EQ-5D-5L decreased the ceiling effect, increased absolute informativity (Hʹ = 6.44 vs. Hʹ = 4.90) and relative informativity (Jʹ = 0.46 vs. Jʹ = 0.42). The extra fatigue item slightly increased convergent validity (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = − 0.61 vs. − 0.62). Domain dependency analysis showed that all EQ-5D-5L domains are dominant over the fatigue item. Explanatory power of the EQ-5D-5L + Fatigue was higher compared to the EQ-5D-5L (R² = 0.42 vs. 0.39). The gain is substantially larger in the subgroup with chronic health conditions.

Conclusions

Adding a fatigue item to the EQ-5D-5L improved all psychometric performance criteria of the enriched instrument in the general population. Effects are substantially larger in the subgroup with chronic health conditions, indicating that adding a fatigue item to the EQ-5D-5L is especially relevant in evaluating the HRQL of diseased people.

Cardiopulmonary-related patient-reported outcomes in a randomized clinical trial of radiation therapy for breast cancer

Background

Long-term prospective patient-reported outcomes (PRO) after breast cancer adjuvant radiotherapy is scarce. TomoBreast compared conventional radiotherapy (CR) with tomotherapy (TT), on the hypothesis that TT might reduce lung-heart toxicity.

Methods

Among 123 women consenting to participate, 64 were randomized to CR, 59 to TT. CR delivered 50 Gy in 25 fractions/5 weeks to breast/chest wall and regional nodes if node-positive, with a sequential boost (16 Gy/8 fractions/1.6 weeks) after lumpectomy. TT delivered 42 Gy/15 fractions/3 weeks to breast/chest wall and regional nodes if node-positive, 51 Gy simultaneous-integrated-boost in patients with lumpectomy. PRO were assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaire QLQ-C30. PRO scores were converted into a symptom-free scale, 100 indicating a fully symptom-free score, 0 indicating total loss of freedom from symptom. Changes of PRO over time were analyzed using the linear mixed-effect model. Survival analysis computed time to > 10% PRO-deterioration. A post-hoc cardiorespiratory outcome was defined as deterioration in any of dyspnea, fatigue, physical functioning, or pain.

Results

At 10.4 years median follow-up, patients returned on average 9 questionnaires/patient, providing a total of 1139 PRO records. Item completeness was 96.6%. Missingness did not differ between the randomization arms. The PRO at baseline were below the nominal 100% symptom-free score, notably the mean fatigue-free score was 64.8% vs. 69.6%, pain-free was 75.4% vs. 75.3%, and dyspnea-free was 84.8% vs. 88.5%, in the TT vs. CR arm, respectively, although the differences were not significant. By mixed-effect modeling on early ≤2 years assessment, all three scores deteriorated, significantly for fatigue, P ≤ 0.01, without effect of randomization arm. By modeling on late assessment beyond 2 years, TT versus CR was not significantly associated with changes of fatigue-free or pain-free scores but was associated with a significant 8.9% improvement of freedom from dyspnea, P = 0.035. By survival analysis of the time to PRO deterioration, TT improved 10-year survival free of cardiorespiratory deterioration from 66.9% with CR to 84.5% with TT, P = 0.029.

Conclusion

Modern radiation therapy can significantly improve long-term PRO.

Trial registration

Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.govNCT00459628, April 12, 2007 prospectively.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08916-z.

Trends in patient-reported outcome use in early phase dose-finding oncology trials - an analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported adverse events (AEs) may be a useful adjunct to clinician-assessed AEs for assessing tolerability in early phase, dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). We reviewed DFOTs on ClinicalTrials.gov to describe trends in patient-reported outcome (PRO) use.

METHODS

DFOTs commencing 01 January 2007 - 20 January 2020 with 'PROs' or 'quality of life' as an outcome were extracted and inclusion criteria confirmed. Study and PRO characteristics were extracted. Completed trials that reported PRO outcomes and published manuscripts on ClinicalTrials.gov were identified, and PRO reporting details were extracted.

RESULTS

5.3% (548/10 372) DFOTs included PROs as an outcome. 231 (42.2%) were eligible: adult (224, 97%), solid tumour (175, 75.8%), and seamless phase 1/2 (108, 46.8%). PRO endpoints were identified in more trials (2.3 increase/year, 95% CI: 1.6-2.9) from an increasing variety of countries (0.7/year) (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) over time. PROs were typically secondary endpoints (207, 89.6%). 15/77 (19.5%) completed trials reported results on the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, and of those eight included their PRO results. Eighteen trials had published manuscripts available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Three (16.7%) used PROs to confirm the maximum tolerated dose. No trials identified who completed the PROs or how PROs were collected.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO use in DFOT has increased but remains limited. Future work should explore the role of PROs in DFOT and determine what guidelines are needed to standardise PRO use.

Comprehensive review of statistical methods for analysing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used as primary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published by the UK's Health Technology Assessment (HTA) journal (1997-2020)

OBJECTIVES

To identify how frequently patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used as primary and/or secondary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to summarise what statistical methods are used for the analysis of PROs.

DESIGN

Comprehensive review.

SETTING

RCTs funded and published by the United Kingdom's (UK) National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme.

DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY

HTA reports of RCTs published between January 1997 and December 2020 were reviewed.

DATA EXTRACTION

Information relating to PRO use and analysis methods was extracted.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The frequency of using PROs as primary and/or secondary outcomes; statistical methods that were used for the analysis of PROs as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

In this review, 37.6% (114/303) of trials used PROs as primary outcomes, and 82.8% (251/303) of trials used PROs as secondary outcomes from 303 NIHR HTA reports of RCTs. In the 114 RCTs where the PRO was the primary outcome, the most used PRO was the Short-Form 36 (8/114); the most popular methods for multivariable analysis were linear mixed model (45/114), linear regression (29/114) and analysis of covariance (13/114); logistic regression was applied for binary and ordinal outcomes in 14/114 trials; and the repeated measures analysis was used in 39/114 trials.

CONCLUSION

The majority of trials used PROs as primary and/or secondary outcomes. Conventional methods such as linear regression are widely used, despite the potential violation of their assumptions. In recent years, there is an increasing trend of using complex models (eg, with mixed effects). Statistical methods developed to address these violations when analysing PROs, such as beta-binomial regression, are not routinely used in practice. Future research will focus on evaluating available statistical methods for the analysis of PROs.

The relation between EQ-5D and fatigue in a Dutch general population sample: an explorative study

Background

Fatigue negatively influences health-related quality of life. It is questionable whether fatigue is sufficiently covered by the EQ-5D. This study investigated whether fatigue is covered by the existing domains of the EQ-5D.

Methods

A Dutch general population sample completed the EQ-5D (3L and 5L version) and the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ), of which the fatigue item was used. Outcomes were compared between participants with and without a chronic health condition. Convergent validity was assessed, and multivariate regression analyses was used to predict the RPQ fatigue item from the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L domains separately.

Results

3027 people completed the survey, of whom 52% had ≥ 1 chronic health condition. Fatigue was reported by 48% of the participants. Fatigue was moderately correlated to the EQ-5D domains ‘pain/discomfort’, ‘usual activities’, and ‘anxiety/depression’ for the 3L (r = 0.379–0.426) and 5L version (r = 0.411–0.469). For the 5L, also a moderate correlation with ‘mobility’ (r = 0.335) was observed. The remaining correlations were weak. All EQ-5D-3L and 5L domains except for ‘mobility’ were significantly associated with the RPQ fatigue item (unstandardized Beta = − 0.20–0.67; p < 0.01 to p = 0.04). Comparable outcomes were found for participants with and without ≥ 1 chronic health condition.

Conclusions

The extent to which fatigue is covered by the EQ-5D domains is small to moderate, with the EQ-5D-5L being slightly more sensitive to capture fatigue compared to the EQ-5D-3L. An extra fatigue item for the EQ-5D may add value, as fatigue is not fully captured by the existing domains, both in people with and without a chronic health condition.

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Phase I Oncology Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patient-reported outcome (PRO) usage in phase I oncology clinical trials, including types of PRO measures and changes over time.

METHODS

We analyzed ClinicalTrials.gov records of phase I oncology clinical trials completed by December 2019.

RESULTS

Of all eligible trials, 2.3% (129/5,515) reported ≥1 PRO, totaling 181 instances of PRO usage. PRO usage increased over time, from 0.6% (trials initiated before 2000) to 3.4% (trials starting between 2015 and 2019). The most common PRO measures were unspecified (29%), tumor-specific (24%), and generic cancer (19%).

CONCLUSION

Although uncommon in phase I oncology clinical trials, PRO usage is increasing over time. PRO measures were often unspecified on ClinicalTrials.gov, suggesting that more precise reporting and standardization are needed.

Quality of Life of Patients With Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the organisation of medical care.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is the first prospective observational study on patient-reported outcomes, quality of life (HRQOL) and satisfaction in patients with cancer with their care management in a day hospital during the period of May-June 2020. The Generalised Anxiety Disorder Screener and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey were used.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 189 of 267 patients. They were generally aged 61 to 70 years and women and presented with lung, breast, or colorectal cancer. Patients had low anxiety scores (mean: 3.2±4.5), with only 11.1% showing anxiety. Risk factors of anxiety included female gender (p=0.03) and lifestyle (residence, family environment) (p=0.01). The patient's physical health was stable, whereas mental health had deteriorated (p<0.0001). Risk factors of altered HRQOL included age and lifestyle. Patients greatly appreciated all the facilities of the day hospital and its organisation.

CONCLUSION

This study shows a preserved HRQOL and low anxiety of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparison of Sleep Quality before and after Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Preservation of sleep quality is a modifiable and treatable factor, which may enhance the patient's adherence to other supportive and palliative care procedures. The outcome of sleep disturbances in lung cancer patients before and after treatment aren't reported. The aim of this study was to investigate changes in sleep quality before and after chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients.

METHODS

It was a prospective study including 64 patients with stage III or IV nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Patients answered the Tunisian dialectal version of the following questionnaires: PSQI and QLQ-C30 in order to evaluate, respectively, the sleep quality and the quality of life. The assessments took place before chemotherapy and then repeated after the chemotherapy course was over.

RESULTS

The mean age was 62.9 years. All patients were active smokers. Before chemotherapy, there were 10 patients (15%) with poor sleep quality. The most frequent complaints were daytime sleepiness (70%) and nocturnal arousals (100%). After chemotherapy, the mean PSQI score increased from 2.9 to 5.4, and 45% of all patients had poor sleep quality. Most frequent complaints were the extension of sleep latency (69%), daytime sleepiness (98%), and nocturnal arousals (100%). Predicting factors of sleep disturbance according to statistical univariate analysis were delayed diagnosis confirmation (p = 0.05), delayed treatment onset (p < 10-3), depressive mood (p = 0.001), and anxious mood (p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis had shown a significant and independent correlation between sleep quality and shortened diagnosis and treatment delays. Sociodemographic parameters, clinical parameters, and factors related to treatment procedure had no correlation with sleep quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates the persistence and potential intensity worsening of sleep disturbances in advanced stage nonsmall-cell lung cancer patients. We, hereby, reported a statistical correlation between sleep quality and quality of life in our patients.

Health-related quality of life (FACT-GP) in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Many studies have used disease-specific instruments, such as the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT), when studying health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients. Few studies however, have described normative HRQOL values in the general population using FACT - General Population (FACT-GP). The general aim of the present study is thus to describe the normative HRQOL values in the general Swedish population by using the FACT-GP instrument and to investigate to what degree sociodemographic factors and status of self-rated health (SRH) correlate with HRQOL.

METHODS

The participants consisted of a pre-stratified (gender, age and education) sample of Swedish citizens that previously had enrolled to be a part of a web panel hosted by a research institute (SOM Institute) at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. The HRQOL was assessed by using the FACT-GP and SRH.

RESULTS

A higher FACT-GP score was mainly associated with males, higher age, higher income and better SRH. The results showed that the Swedish sample scored lower on FACT-GP than previous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Since HRQOL is frequently used as an important endpoint in healthcare research, there is an increasing need for normative data. The results from this study serve as a general population standard against which other studied HRQOL-data could be evaluated.

Exploring the relation between the EQ-5D-5L pain/discomfort and pain and itching in a sample of burn patients

BACKGROUND

The EQ-5D domain pain/discomfort (PD) uses one item to capture pain and other aspects of discomfort, like itching. This study explored how pain, itching and the EQ-5D-5L PD domain relate to each other in a sample of burn patients.

METHODS

Adult burn patients completed the EQ-5D-5L and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 5-7 years after sustaining their injury. The POSAS includes a separate pain and an itching item. Spearman's correlation coefficient established the association between the EQ-5D-5L PD and the POSAS pain and itching item. With multivariable regression analysis the linear association between the POSAS pain and itching item and EQ-5D-5L PD domain was tested.

RESULTS

Data from 245 patients were included. Mean EQ-5D-5L index value was 0.87 and 39.2% reported at least slight problems on the EQ-5D-5L PD domain. Most patients gave corresponding answers on the EQ-5D-5L PD domain and on the POSAS pain (73%) and itching (70%) item. Spearman correlation coefficients of the EQ-5D-5L PD domain with the POSAS pain and itching were 0.468 (p < 0.001) and 0.473 (p < 0.001), respectively. Among respondents with pain and without itching and respondents with itching and without pain, Spearman correlation coefficients were 0.585 (p = 0.076) and 0.408 (p = 0.001), respectively. POSAS pain (unstandardized Beta = 0.14) and POSAS itching (unstandardized Beta = 0.08) were significantly associated with EQ-5D-5L PD domain (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that, in a sample of burn patients, pain and itching are captured by the broader EQ-5D-5L PD domain. The EQ-5D-5L PD domain can thus be used to assess pain and itching in relation to HRQL, but the POSAS pain and itching items are more sensitive. The EQ-5D-5L is, however, no replacement of the POSAS when the POSAS is used for its primary aim; assessment of scar quality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register (NTR6407).