David Osoba

Methods to Explain the Clinical Significance of Health Status Measures

One can classify ways to establish the interpretability of quality-of-life measures as anchor based or distribution based. Anchor-based measures require an independent standard or anchor that is itself interpretable and at least moderately correlated with the instrument being explored. One can further classify anchor-based approaches into population-focused and individual-focused measures. Population-focused approaches are analogous to construct validation and rely on multiple anchors that frame an individuals response in terms of the entire population (eg, a group of patients with a score of 40 has a mortality of 20%). Anchors for population-based approaches include status on a single item, diagnosis, symptoms, disease severity, and response to treatment. Individual-focused approaches are analogous to criterion validation. These methods, which rely on a single anchor and establish a minimum important difference in change in score, require 2 steps. The first step establishes the smallest change in score that patients consider, on average, to be important (the minimum important difference). The second step estimates the proportion of patients who have achieved that minimum important difference. Anchors for the individual-focused approach include global ratings of change within patients and global ratings of differences between patients. Distribution-based methods rely on expressing an effect in terms of the underlying distribution of results. Investigators may express effects in terms of between-person standard deviation units, within-person standard deviation units, and the standard error of measurement. No single approach to interpretability is perfect. Use of multiple strategies is likely to enhance the interpretability of any particular instrument.

Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes evaluation is becoming an important component of clinical trials of new pharmaceuticals and medical devices. HRQL research provides patients, providers, and decision makers with important information on the impact of disease and treatment on physical, psychological, and social functioning and well-being. These outcomes are also useful to the pharmaceutical and device industries as they attempt to understand and communicate product value to physicians, patients, health insurers and others. HRQL labeling and promotional claims in the US are likely to increase over the next few years. The evidentiary requirements to make such a claim should be based on accepted scientific standards of HRQL evaluation and consistent with the regulatory requirements for clinical efficacy. This report outlines the scientific practices that should be considered in the evaluation of evidence for an HRQL claim, including the selection of appropriate domains, evidence to support the reliability and validity of HRQL measurement, considerations in research design and statistical analyses, and the issue of clinical significance. Representatives from the pharmaceutical and device industries, regulatory agencies, and the HRQL scientific community should work together to make certain the use of HRQL in labeling and promotion are based on sound scientific evidence, and that these messages are clearly and accurately reported to the consumers.

The development and psychometric validation of a brain cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for use in combination with general cancer-specific questionnaires

A self-report questionnaire module consisting of 24 items, comprising 5 scales and 7 single items, has been developed for measuring health-related quality of life in patients with brain cancer. Module development proceeded through several stages, including a listing of patient, family and health care professional concerns, the writing of items, field testing in 105 patients with brain cancer and subsequent item reduction and scale construction after multitrait scaling analysis and assessment of internal consistency (Cronbachs coefficient α). The final version of the module exhibits reasonable test-retest stability over a period of one week. Differences in the responses between patients with recently-diagnosed and recurrent cancer and between patients with a Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) of 50–70 and 80–100 were in the expected direction, indicating that the module of questions is responsive to differing conditions. Patients with either mental confusion, motor deficit or dysphasia indicated problems in several domains and single items as compared to patients without these neurological deficits. Thus, differences in the responses to the items in the brain cancer module appear to reflect differences in neurological status. In adclition, deteriorating neurological status was accompanied by a marked increase in emotional distress, future uncertainty and motor dysfunction. A comparison of the responses in the module with the KPS and with a modified Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index (BADLI) shows moderate correlations, primarily with scales and items that pertain to motor dysfunction, while other scales (such as emotional distress, visual disorder and communication deficit) and most single items are not associated with the KPS or BADLI. Since the emotional distress scale of the module was found to be highly correlated with the emotional function scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30, it could be omitted when the module is used in combination with the QLQ-C30. This would reduce the module to a total of 20 items with four scales and seven single items. The intention is to combine this module of questions with other core or general quality-of-life questionnaires when studying patients with brain cancer in clinical trials.

Beyond the Development of Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQOL) Measures: A Checklist for Evaluating HRQOL Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials—Does HRQOL Evaluation in Prostate Cancer Research Inform Clinical Decision Making?

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the inclusion of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), as a part of the trial design in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) setting, has supported clinical decision making for the planning of future medical treatments in prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS A minimum standard checklist for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials was devised to assess the quality of the HRQOL reporting and to classify the studies on the grounds of their robustness. It comprises 11 key HRQOL issues grouped into four broader sections: conceptual, measurement, methodology, and interpretation. Relevant studies were identified in a number of databases, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Both their HRQOL and traditional clinical reported outcomes were systematically analyzed to evaluate their consistency and their relevance for supporting clinical decision making. RESULTS Although 54% of the identified studies did not show any differences in traditional clinical end points between treatment arms and 17% showed a difference in overall survival, 74% of the studies showed some difference in terms of HRQOL outcomes. One third of the RCTs provided a comprehensive picture of the whole treatment including HRQOL outcomes to support their conclusions. CONCLUSION A minimum set of criteria for assessing the reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials is necessary to make informed decisions in clinical practice. Using a checklist developed for this study, it was found that HRQOL is a valuable source of information in RCTs of treatment in metastatic prostate cancer.

VP-16 and cisplatin as first-line therapy for small-cell lung cancer.

Thirty-one patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) were treated with VP-16 and cisplatin as first-line therapy. In the majority of cases an Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio) containing regimen was contraindicated because of severe cardiac or hepatic disease. Eight patients who presented with cerebral metastases were also included in the series. Eleven patients had limited disease (LD), and 20 had extensive disease (ED). Of the 28 evaluable patients, 12 (43%) achieved a complete response (CR) and 12 (43%) had a partial response (PR). Four patients (14%) either had no response or progressed on treatment. The median duration of response for patients with LD was 39 weeks and for those with ED, 26 weeks. The median survival time (MST) for the whole group of responding (CR and PR) LD patients was 70 weeks (range, 28 to 181 + weeks), and for responding ED patients, it was 43 weeks (range, 17 to 68 weeks). Gastrointestinal toxicity was mild, but leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were common. There were four febrile episodes during periods of drug-induced neutropenia and this led to one treatment-related death. Nephrotoxicity occurred in 15 patients and required discontinuation of cisplatin in two. These results compare favorably with reports of standard induction chemotherapy regimens and provide further evidence of the activity of the VP-16 and cisplatin regimen in patients with SCLC.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer Treated With Prednisone Alone or Mitoxantrone and Prednisone

PURPOSE A combination of mitoxantrone plus prednisone is preferable to prednisone alone for reduction of pain in men with metastatic, hormone-resistant, prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of these treatments on health-related quality of life (HQL). PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with metastatic prostate cancer (n = 161) were randomized to receive either daily prednisone alone or mitoxantrone (every 3 weeks) plus prednisone. Those who received prednisone alone could have mitoxantrone added after 6 weeks if there was no improvement in pain. HQL was assessed before treatment initiation and then every 3 weeks using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Quality of Life Module-Prostate 14 (QOLM-P14), a trial-specific module developed for this study. An intent-to-treat analysis was used to determine the mean duration of HQL improvement and differences in improvement duration between groups of patients. RESULTS At 6 weeks, both groups showed improvement in several HQL domains, and only physical functioning and pain were better in the mitoxantrone-plus-prednisone group than in the prednisone-alone group. After 6 weeks, patients taking prednisone showed no improvement in HQL scores, whereas those taking mitoxantrone plus prednisone showed significant improvements in global quality of life (P =.009), four functioning domains, and nine symptoms (.001 < P <. 01), and the improvement (> 10 units on a scale of 0 to100) lasted longer than in the prednisone-alone group (.004 < P <.05). The addition of mitoxantrone to prednisone after failure of prednisone alone was associated with improvements in pain, pain impact, pain relief, insomnia, and global quality of life (.001 < P <.003). CONCLUSION Treatment with mitoxantrone plus prednisone was associated with greater and longer-lasting improvement in several HQL domains and symptoms than treatment with prednisone alone.

Etoposide (VP-16) and cisplatin: an effective treatment for relapse in small-cell lung cancer.

Seventy-eight patients with evaluable small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) were treated with etoposide (VP-16) and cisplatin after their disease failed to respond to, or relapsed after, induction combination chemotherapy, consisting primarily of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin (Adriamycin), and vincristine (CAV). Twenty-four patients had limited disease (LD) and 54 had extensive disease (ED). In six (8%) patients, a complete response (CR) was achieved and in 37 (47%), there was a partial response (PR). The median duration of response for responding patients was 22 weeks (range, 4 to 50 weeks) for patients with LD and 18 weeks (range, 4 to 49 weeks) for those with ED. Twelve percent of patients demonstrated stable disease, and 33% of patients had progressive disease on treatment. The median survival times of LD patients achieving a CR or PR were 59 and 34 weeks, respectively, whereas the comparable figures for ED patients were 45 and 23 weeks, respectively. Gastrointestinal toxicity was mild, but myelosuppression, predominantly leukopenia and thrombocytopenia, was common. Mild to moderate nephrotoxicity occurred in 11 patients, but was reversible in all cases. Two febrile episodes occurred during periods of drug-induced neutropenia, but no other significant toxicities were identified. These results provide further evidence that VP-16 and cisplatin is an effective and tolerable combination chemotherapy regimen for SCLC resistant to CAV.

An international validation study of the EORTC brain cancer module (EORTC QLQ-BN20) for assessing health-related quality of life and symptoms in brain cancer patients

AIMS The psychometric properties of the EORTC QLQ-BN20, a brain cancer-specific HRQOL questionnaire, have been previously determined in an English-speaking sample of patients. This study examined the validity and reliability of the questionnaire in a multi-national, multi-lingual study. METHODS QLQ-BN20 data were selected from two completed phase III EORTC/NCIC clinical trials in brain cancer (N=891), including 12 languages. Experimental treatments were surgery followed by radiotherapy (RT) and adjuvant PCV chemotherapy or surgery followed by concomitant RT plus temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy and adjuvant TMZ chemotherapy. Standard treatment consisted of surgery and postoperative RT alone. The psychometrics of the QLQ-BN20 were examined by means of multi-trait scaling analyses, reliability estimation, known groups validity testing, and responsiveness analysis. RESULTS All QLQ-BN20 items correlated more strongly with their own scale (r>0.70) than with other QLQ-BN20 scales. Internal consistency reliability coefficients were high (all alpha0.70). Known-groups comparisons yielded positive results, with the QLQ-BN20 distinguishing between patients with differing levels of performance status and mental functioning. Responsiveness of the questionnaire to changes over time was acceptable. CONCLUSION The QLQ-BN20 demonstrates adequate psychometric properties and can be recommended for use in conjunction with the QLQ-C30 in assessing the HRQOL of brain cancer patients in international studies.

Canadian multicenter randomized trial comparing sequential and alternating administration of two non-cross-resistant chemotherapy combinations in patients with limited small-cell carcinoma of the lung.

In order to assess the effect of scheduling of chemotherapy on the outcome of patients with limited small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), the Clinical Trials Group of the National Cancer Institute of Canada carried out a randomized trial comparing the alternation of cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH; doxorubicin) and vincristine (CAV) with etoposide (VP-16) and cisplatin for six cycles to the administration of these two combinations in a sequential fashion (three cycles of CAV followed by three of VP-16/cisplatin). Three hundred eligible patients were enrolled on the trial from September 1981 to October 1984. All responding patients were also treated after completion of chemotherapy with thoracic irradiation in randomly allocated doses of 2,000 and 3,750 cGy. The complete response (CR) rate to chemotherapy was slightly, but not significantly, higher on the alternating arm (52% v 44%, P = .20). However, there was no difference in disease-free or overall survival on the alternating and sequential arms, respectively (47.3 weeks v 45.1 weeks, P = .26; 61.7 weeks v 59.5 weeks, P = .56). Data on the effect of radiotherapy dose on survival are not yet mature, but it does not appear the results of this portion of the trial will alter the interpretation of the chemotherapy comparison. Patient characteristics favorably influencing survival were female sex, good performance status, younger age, and absence of supraclavicular node involvement. Two interpretations of these and other results in SCLC are suggested: (1) the difference between the schedules used is too small for the predictions of the Goldie-Coldman model to be realized in a trial of this size, or (2) VP-16/cisplatin is actually a superior regimen and any schedule that exposes patients to these drugs early in treatment will produce improved results.

The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: a summary for clinicians

BackgroundA series of six manuscripts with an introduction appeared in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, based upon the collective effort of 30 individuals with an interest and expertise in assessing the clinical significance of quality of life (QOL) assessments. The series of manuscripts described the state of the science of QOL assessments in oncology clinical research and practice and included extensive literature and theoretical justification for the continued inclusion of QOL in oncology clinical research and practice.ObjectivesThe purpose of this paper is to produce a summary of these articles and to supplement these works with additional information that was gleaned from subsequent meetings and discussions of this material. The primary aim of this paper is to present a cogent and concise description for clinicians to facilitate the incorporation of QOL assessments into oncology clinical research and practice. The theoretical discussion is supplemented with an example of how the various ideas can be operationalized in an oncology clinical trial.