Francesca Martinelli

Patient Self-Reports of Symptoms and Clinician Ratings as Predictors of Overall Cancer Survival

BACKGROUND The National Cancer Institutes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) reporting system is widely used by clinicians to measure patient symptoms in clinical trials. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancers Quality of Life core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) enables cancer patients to rate their symptoms related to their quality of life. We examined the extent to which patient and clinician symptom scoring and their agreement could contribute to the estimation of overall survival among cancer patients. METHODS We analyzed baseline data regarding six cancer symptoms (pain, fatigue, vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, and constipation) from a total of 2279 cancer patients from 14 closed EORTC randomized controlled trials. In each trial that was selected for retrospective pooled analysis, both clinician and patient symptom scoring were reported simultaneously at study entry. We assessed the extent of agreement between clinician vs patient symptom scoring using the Spearman and kappa correlation statistics. After adjusting for age, sex, performance status, cancer severity, and cancer site, we used Harrell concordance index (C-index) to compare the potential for clinician-reported and/or patient-reported symptom scores to improve the accuracy of Cox models to predict overall survival. All P values are from two-sided tests. RESULTS Patient-reported scores for some symptoms, particularly fatigue, did differ from clinician-reported scores. For each of the six symptoms that we assessed at baseline, both clinician and patient scorings contributed independently and positively to the predictive accuracy of survival prognostication. Cox models of overall survival that considered both patient and clinician scores gained more predictive accuracy than models that considered clinician scores alone for each of four symptoms: fatigue (C-index = .67 with both patient and clinician data vs C-index = .63 with clinician data only; P <.001), vomiting (C-index = .64 vs .62; P = .01), nausea (C-index = .65 vs .62; P < .001), and constipation (C-index = .62 vs .61; P = .01). CONCLUSION Patients provide a subjective measure of symptom severity that complements clinician scoring in predicting overall survival.

A global analysis of multitrial data investigating quality of life and symptoms as prognostic factors for survival in different tumor sites.

The objective of this study was to examine the prognostic value of baseline health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) for survival with regard to different cancer sites using 1 standardized and validated patient self‐assessment tool.

Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients

BACKGROUND We aimed to determine the smallest changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 and the Brain Cancer Module (QLQ-BN20), which could be considered as clinically meaningful in brain cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS World Health Organisation performance status (PS) and mini-mental state examination (MMSE) were used as clinical anchors appropriate to related subscales to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in HRQoL change scores (range 0-100) in the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20. A threshold of 0.2 standard deviation (SD) (small effect) was used to exclude anchor-based MCID estimates considered too small to inform interpretation. RESULTS Based on PS, our findings support the following integer estimates of the MCID for improvement and deterioration, respectively: physical (6, 9), role (14, 12), and cognitive functioning (8, 8); global health status (7, 4*), fatigue (12, 9), and motor dysfunction (4*, 5). Anchoring with MMSE, cognitive functioning MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were (11, 2*) and for communication deficit were (9, 7). Estimates with asterisks were <0.2 SD and were excluded from our MCID range of 5-14. CONCLUSION These estimates can help clinicians evaluate changes in HRQoL over time, assess the value of a health care intervention and can be useful in determining sample sizes in designing future clinical trials.

Minimal important differences for interpreting health-related quality of life scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 in lung cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to determine the smallest changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores in a subset of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scales, which could be considered as clinically meaningful in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsWHO performance status (PS) and weight change were used as clinical anchors to determine minimal important differences (MIDs) in HRQOL change scores (range, 0–100) in the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Selected distribution-based methods were used for comparison.FindingsIn a pooled dataset of 812 NSCLC patients undergoing treatment, the values determined to represent the MID depended on whether patients were improving or deteriorating. MID estimates for improvement (based on a one-category change in PS, 5 − <20% weight gain) were physical functioning (9, 5); role functioning (14, 7); social functioning (5, 7); global health status (9, 4); fatigue (14, 5); and pain (16, 2). The respective MID estimates for deterioration (based on PS, weight loss) were physical (4, 6); role (5, 5); social (7, 9); global health status (4, 4); fatigue (6, 11); and pain (3, 7).InterpretationBased on the selected QLQ-C30 scales, the MID may depend upon whether the patients’ PS is improving or worsening, but our results are not definitive. The MID estimates for the specified scales can help clinicians and researchers evaluate the significance of changes in HRQOL and assess the value of a health care intervention or compare treatments. The estimates also can be useful in determining sample sizes in the design of future clinical trials.

Examining the relationships among health-related quality-of-life indicators in cancer patients participating in clinical trials: a pooled study of baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 data.

Aims: Cancer patients experience multiple and concurrent health-related problems and symptoms due to their illness and therapies. The first objective of this analysis was to identify how health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) indicators cluster among cancer patients and how possible clusters change across patients with different sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. The second objective of this study was to identify which HRQoL indicators are linked to patients’ perception of overall quality of life. Methods: Retrospective pooling of 30 closed randomized European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) clinical trials yielded baseline EORTC Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) HRQoL data for a total of 7417 patients. A cluster analysis was performed to determine how the 15 HRQoL indicators obtained with the QLQ-C30 cluster overall and by patient characteristics. Results: Three main clusters emerged from the overall dataset: a physical cluster, a psychological cluster and a gastrointestinal cluster. The same clusters were found in subgroups defined according to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, while some differences emerged among cancer sites. The Global Health scale was found to be part of the physical cluster in the overall dataset. This result was consistent across different levels of disease severity, while divergent results were seen across some cancer sites. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that HRQoL indicators are interrelated. Understanding these relationships may aid clinicians in managing the symptom burden experienced by patients, as well as policy-makers, in defining psychosocial support plans.

Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, are important endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there is little consensus about the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of these data. We did a systematic review to assess the variability, quality, and standards of PRO data analyses in advanced breast cancer RCTs. We searched PubMed for English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2017. Eligible articles were those that reported PRO results from RCTs of adult patients with advanced breast cancer receiving anti-cancer treatments with reported sample sizes of at least 50 patients-66 RCTs met the selection criteria. Only eight (12%) RCTs reported a specific PRO research hypothesis. Heterogeneity in the statistical methods used to assess PRO data was observed, with a mixture of longitudinal and cross-sectional techniques. Not all articles addressed the problem of multiple testing. Fewer than half of RCTs (28 [42%]) reported the clinical significance of their findings. 48 (73%) did not report how missing data were handled. Our systematic review shows a need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs. Lack of standardisation makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions and compare findings across trials. The Setting International Standards in the Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data Consortium was set up to address this need and develop recommendations on the analysis of PRO data in RCTs.

Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials

Background There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. Methods and Results Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including “missing data,”“health-related quality of life,” and “patient-reported outcome.” Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. Conclusion The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.