Search

Background: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer, defined as individuals aged 15–39 years at initial cancer diagnosis, form a unique population; they face age-specific issues as they transition to adulthood. This paper presents the protocol for the development of a core outcome set (COS) for AYAs with cancer. Methods: The methodological standards from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) for COS development will guide the development of the COS for AYAs with cancer. The project will consist of the following phases: (1) define the scope of the COS; (2) establish the need for a COS in this field (3) assemble an international, multi-stakeholder working group; (4) develop a detailed protocol; (5) determine "what to measure" (i.e., outcomes); (6) determine "how to measure" (i.e., measures); and (7) determine "case-mix" variables. Conclusions: The development of a COS for AYAs with cancer will facilitate the implementation of efficient and relevant standards for data collection, both for clinical trials and in routine healthcare, thereby increasing the usefulness of these data to improve the value of the care given to these underserved young cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have revolutionised the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). Imatinib is approved as first line therapy and sunitinib is used in cases of imatinib resistance or intolerance. Compared with conventional treatments, TKIs are delivered over longer periods of time and are more specific in their targets (i.e., molecularly targeted), thus presenting different side effect profiles. We review the safety profiles of imatinib and sunitinib, documenting a total of 95 side effects including patient based as well as medically defined outcomes. Gastrointestinal complaints, particularly diarrhoea and nausea, oedema, fatigue and haematological disorders, notably anaemia, are amongst the most prevalent side effects. While there is overlap between the side effect profiles of imatinib and sunitinib, important differences emerge in the frequencies of oedema, hypertension, thyroid functioning, muscle and joint pains, as well as skin and oral conditions. Awareness of potential side effects is informative to both clinician and patient in terms of treatment decision making and can have important implications for treatment adherence and clinical outcome. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Simple Summary: Sarcomas are a rare group of heterogeneous tumors. Because treatment side-effects detract from the survival benefit of treatment, it is important to assess treatment effectiveness in terms of patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, a sarcoma specific measurement instrument or strategy does currently not exist. This study aims to (1) develop a list of all HRQoL issues relevant to sarcoma patients; (2) determine a strategy for sarcoma-specific HRQoL assessment. An international, multicenter study will be conducted, searching existing literature and conducting interviews with adult sarcoma patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) to create a list of HRQoL issues. Subsequently, another group of sarcoma patients and HCPs will be asked to rate and prioritize the issues. This information will help create a strategy to measure HRQoL in sarcoma patients, taking into account the heterogeneity of sarcomas, which will improve the collection of personalized patient-reported outcome data in future research and clinical care. Sarcomas comprise 1% of adult tumors and are very heterogeneous. Long-lasting and cumulative treatment side-effects detract from the (progression-free) survival benefit of treatment. Therefore, it is important to assess treatment effectiveness in terms of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as well. However, questionnaires capturing the unique issues of sarcoma patients are currently lacking. Given the heterogeneity of the disease, the development of such an instrument may be challenging. The study aims to (1) develop an exhaustive list of all HRQoL issues relevant to sarcoma patients and determine content validity; (2) determine a strategy for HRQoL measurement in sarcoma patients. We will conduct an international, multicenter, mixed-methods study (registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04071704) among bone or soft tissue sarcoma patients ≥18 years, using EORTC Quality of Life Group questionnaire development guidelines. First, an exhaustive list of HRQoL issues will be generated, derived from literature and patient (n = 154) and healthcare professional (HCP) interviews (n = 30). Subsequently, another group of sarcoma patients (n = 475) and HCPs (n = 30) will be asked to rate and prioritize the issues. Responses will be analyzed by priority, prevalence and range of responses for each item. The outcome will be a framework for tailored HRQoL measurement in sarcoma patients, taking into account sociodemographic and clinical variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early guidelines for minimally important differences (MIDs) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 proposed ≥10 points change as clinically meaningful for all scales. Increasing evidence that MIDs can vary by scale, direction of change, cancer type and estimation method has raised doubt about a single global standard. This paper identifies MID patterns for interpreting group-level change in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores across nine cancer types. Data were obtained from 21 published EORTC Phase III trials that enroled 13,015 patients across nine cancer types (brain, colorectal, advanced breast, head/neck, lung, mesothelioma, melanoma, ovarian, and prostate). Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change and between-group differences in change over time were obtained via mean change method and linear regression, respectively. Separate MIDs were estimated for improvements and deteriorations. Distribution-based estimates were derived and compared with anchor-based MIDs. Anchor-based MIDs mostly ranged from 5 to 10 points. Differences in MIDs for improvement vs deterioration, for both within-group and between-group, were mostly within a 2-points range. Larger differences between within-group and between-group MIDs were observed for several scales in ovarian, lung and head/neck cancer. Most anchor-based MIDs ranged between 0.3 SD and 0.5 SD distribution-based estimates. Our results reinforce recent claims that no single MID can be applied to all EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and disease settings. MIDs varied by scale, improvement/deterioration, within/between comparisons and by cancer type. Researchers applying commonly used rules of thumb must be aware of the risk of dismissing changes that are clinically meaningful or underpowering analyses when smaller MIDs apply. • MID patterns for interpreting group-level change are examined by QLQ-C30 scales. • Data were obtained from 21 published EORTC clinical trials across 9 cancer types. • MIDs varied by scale, improve/deteriorate, within/between groups and cancer type. • Our results reinforce claims that no single MID applies to all QLQ-C30 scales. • We present diversified MIDs to inform more accurate sample size calculations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Children with cancer suffer from numerous symptoms and side-effects, making supportive interventions indispensable to improve their quality of life. The gold standard for evaluating the latter is patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment. This systematic review investigates the current practice of clinical outcome assessment (COA) in clinical trials on supportive interventions. ClinicalTrials.gov and EudraCT were searched for trials including children and adolescents (≤21 years) with cancer receiving supportive care registered 2007–2020. The use of different types of COAs was analysed, focusing on PRO assessment and the domains measured with PRO measures (PROMs). Associations with trial characteristics were investigated using univariate and multivariable analyses. Of 4789 identified trials, 229 were included. Among them, 44.1 % relied on PROMs, the most commonly used COA. The proportion of trials using PROMs did not significantly differ over time. In the multivariable analysis, intervention type (higher PROM use in behavioural vs. medical interventional trials) and cancer type (higher PROM use in mixed and solid tumour samples vs. haematological samples) were significant predictors of PROM use. The majority of trials using PROMs (59.6 %) measured more than one health domain. 'Physical health' was the most frequently assessed domain (92.6 %). Less than half of registered clinical trials investigating supportive interventions for children with cancer used PROMs. This result is striking since supportive care explicitly focuses on patients' quality of life, which is best assessed using PROMs. Our systematic review underlines the need to identify barriers for PROM implementation and to improve PRO research in paediatric oncology. • The review analyzed usage of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in pediatric oncology. • Clinical trials on supportive interventions in pediatric oncology were reviewed. • Less than half of the included studies (44.1 %) used PROs as study endpoints. • Usage of PROs did not improve over time. • 'Physical health' was the most frequently assessed domain (92.6 %). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]