Reliability, validity, and change thresholds of the NCCN/FACT Bladder Symptom Index (NFBlSI-18) in patients with advanced urothelial cancer

BACKGROUND

The NCCN/FACT Bladder Symptom Index-18 (NFBlSI-18) is a bladder cancer-specific instrument. We aimed to psychometrically evaluate the reliability and validity of NFBlSI-18 and estimate change thresholds for total, disease-related symptoms-physical (DRS-P), DRS-emotional (DRS-E), and function/well-being (F/WB) scales in patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC).

METHODS

JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial data were analyzed. Anchors to evaluate validity included: 5-level EuroQoL-5D utility index (EQ-5D-5L UI), visual analog scale (VAS), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and number of symptoms. Responsiveness to change was tested by anchoring to time to tumor progression (TTP), best overall response (BOR), and differences in means between ECOG categories to estimate meaningful between-group differences. Meaningful within-group change thresholds were estimated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, anchoring to change in EQ-5D-5L UI. Significant within-individual patient change thresholds were estimated with reliable and likely change indexes.

RESULTS

Correlations with EQ-5D-5L UI and VAS ranged from 0.53 to 0.73. Standardized effect sizes were >0.20. Compared with patients with TTP of ≥6 months, patients with TTP of >0-2 and 3-5 months had larger declines; results for BOR were similar. Thresholds (points) for meaningful between-group differences were: total, 6-11; DRS-P, 3-6; and DRS-E and F/WB, 1. Thresholds (points) for meaningful within-group worsening were: total, 4; and DRS-P, 3, and for significant individual change they were: total, 3-9; DRS-P, 2-6; DRS-E, 1-3; and F/WB, 2-4.

CONCLUSIONS

NFBlSI-18 exhibited evidence of reliability, validity, and responsiveness to assess quality of life in studies of la/mUC, and change thresholds are established for future studies.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The NCCN/FACT Bladder Symptom Index-18 (NFBlSI-18) is a questionnaire used to assess quality of life for people with advanced bladder cancer. People with advanced bladder cancer who took part in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study completed the NFBlSI-18 when they joined the study and after each treatment with avelumab maintenance or best supportive care. This study showed that NFBlSI-18 is suitable for capturing bladder cancer symptoms and is able to detect important changes in a person's quality of life over time. This study also provides thresholds for changes in NFBlSI-18 scores, which will be useful for future studies.

Patient-reported outcomes of maintenance rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

To compare NFOSI-18 Disease Related Symptoms - Physical (DRSP), Total score, and side effect bother between maintenance rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) vs. placebo in the phase III ARIEL3 trial.

METHODS

ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) included patients with ovarian carcinoma who responded to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. The NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were secondary endpoints. The NFOSI-18 contains a side effect impact item (GP5): "I am bothered by side effects of treatment." We compared treatment arms on change from baseline of DRS-P and Total scores using mixed models with repeated measures (MRMM). Time to first and confirmed deterioration of NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were analyzed using Cox regression. We also calculated the proportion of patients reporting moderate to high side effect bother on GP5.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat (ITT) cohort, mean change from baseline favored the placebo. Compared to placebo, rucaparib was associated with higher risk of deterioration [e.g., 4-point deteriorator definition hazard ratio (HR): 1.85; 95% CI: 1.46, 2.36; median time to first deterioration on DRSP: 1.9 vs. 7.0 months]. Confirmed deterioration results resembled those for first deterioration. Proportions of patients reporting moderate/high side effect bother on GP5 fluctuated around 20% across treatment cycles. Results in BRCA mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts were generally similar to those from the ITT cohort.

CONCLUSION

This placebo-controlled study in the maintenance therapy setting provides a unique view of the impact of PARP inhibition on the patient-reported outcomes that are commonly used in ovarian cancer clinical trials. Information regarding the adverse side effect impact of PARP inhibitors should be weighed against their clinical benefit.

Patient-reported experiences with side effects of kidney cancer therapies and corresponding information flow

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have improved over recent years. Various therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma are currently approved for first and successive lines. Having various treatment options makes it important to reflect how patients experience side effects in the real-world setting. So far, data on the side effects of these treatments have only been collected within clinical trials, and have been mostly assessed by the investigator and not as patient-reported outcomes. Our aim was to determine patient-reported experiences of side effects in the real-world setting and to evaluate the doctor-patient communication regarding side effects. Data were collected via an anonymous, voluntary online survey given to members of a support group for RCC; the questionnaire was completed by 104 mRCC patients.

RESULTS

89.1% of participants were suffering from side effects of any grade. These appeared to be higher for patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors compared to those treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (98.4% vs. 68.4%). However, information on side effects is scarce: 4.0% had never heard anything about them while only 18.8% of participants received detailed information on possible side effects. Although 85.6% of participants reported side effects to their physician, 34.6% did not encounter an improvement. Limitations of the study include the design as an online questionnaire and the small sample, consisting only of members of a support group.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences can be seen between patient-reported side effects within our survey and those based on clinical trials. A shift towards more patient-reported outcomes is needed. In addition, patients seeking the advice of their physician on side effects are in need of more-or better-information and support.