Search

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

We compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with once-weekly carfilzomib 70 mg/m2 (Kd70 mg/m2) vs. twice-weekly carfilzomib 27 mg/m2 (Kd27 mg/m2) plus dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Patient-reported convenience/satisfaction collected at Cycle 2, Day 1 was compared between groups using logistic regression. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), MM-module (QLQ-MY20), and EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires were administered at baseline, then every other cycle. PROs were compared between groups using mixed models for repeated measures. Times from randomization to first deterioration (TTD) in scores were analyzed using Cox regression. PRO analyses included 469 patients. Once-weekly Kd70 mg/m2 patients reported greater convenience (odds ratio [OR], 4.98; p < 0.001) and satisfaction (OR, 2.41; p = 0.059) vs. twice-weekly Kd27 mg/m2. The mixed models for repeated measures demonstrated no clinically meaningful differences in scores between treatment arms. Clinically meaningful deterioration in QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QOL rates were 34.2% (once-weekly Kd70 mg/m2) vs. 40.3% (twice-weekly Kd27 mg/m2). TTD was longer for once-weekly Kd70 mg/m2 vs. twice-weekly Kd27 mg/m2 for QLQ-C30 fatigue (HR, 0.79; p = 0.035), QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms (HR, 0.67; p = 0.008), EQ-5D-5L index score (HR, 0.58; p = 0.002), and EQ-5D-5L Visual Analog Scale (HR, 0.75, p = 0.031). Once-weekly Kd70 mg/m2 improved convenience/satisfaction, and reduced HRQOL deterioration vs. twice-weekly Kd27 mg/m2, supporting convenient, once-weekly Kd70 mg/m2 dosing in RRMM. © 2019, The Author(s).

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.

The majority of cancers are diagnosed using excised biopsy specimens. These are graded, using a gold-standard histopathology protocol based on haemotoxylin and eosin ('H + E') chemical staining. However the grading is done by eye and if the same biopsy is graded by different practitioners, they typically only agree ~70% of the time.\ud\udThe resulting overtreatment problem constitutes a massive unmet need worldwide.\ud\udOur new "Digistain" technology, uses mid-infrared imaging to map the fractional concentration of nucleic acids, i.e. the nuclear-to-cytoplasmic chemical ratio (NCR) across an unstained biopsy section. It allows a quantitative 'Digistain index' (DI) score, corresponding to the NCR, to be reproducibly extracted from an objective physical measurement of a cancer. Our objective here is to evaluate its potential for aiding cancer diagnosis for the first time. We correlate the DI scores with H + E grades in a double-blind clinical pilot trial.\ud\udTwo adjacent slices were taken from 75 breast cancer FFPE blocks; one was graded with the standard H + E protocol, and also used to define a 'region of interest' (RoI). Digistain was then used to acquire a DI value averaged over the corresponding RoI on the other (unstained) slice and the results were statistically analysed.\ud\udWe find the DI score correlates significantly (p = 0.0007) with tumor grade in a way that promises to significantly reduce the inherent subjectivity and variability in biopsy grading.\ud\udThe NCR is elevated by increased mitotic activity because cells divide when they are younger and, on average, become smaller as the disease progresses. Also, extra DNA and RNA is generated as the nuclear transcription machinery goes awry and nuclear pleomorphism occurs. Both effects make the NCR a recognized biomarker for a wide range of tumors, so we expect Digistain will find application in a very wide range of cancers.

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.

Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes generate important data in cancer randomised trials to assist in assessing the risks and benefits of cancer therapies and fostering patient-centred cancer care. However, the various ways these measures are analysed and interpreted make it difficult to compare results across trials, and hinders the application of research findings to inform publications, product labelling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. To address these problems, the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data (SISAQOL) initiative has been established. This consortium, directed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was convened to provide recommendations on how to standardise the analysis of HRQOL and other patient-reported outcomes data in cancer randomised trials. This Personal View discusses the reasons why this project was initiated, the rationale for the planned work, and the expected benefits to cancer research, patient and provider decision making, care delivery, and policy making.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the fastest growing cause of disability worldwide. Current treatments for OA are severely limited and a large proportion of people with OA live in constant, debilitating pain. There is therefore an urgent need for novel treatments to reduce pain. Synovitis is highly prevalent in OA and is associated with pain. In inflammatory arthritides such as rheumatoid arthritis, methotrexate (MTX) is the gold standard treatment for synovitis and has a well-known, acceptable toxicity profile. We propose that using MTX to treat patients with symptomatic knee OA will be a practical and safe treatment to reduce synovitis and, consequently, pain. METHODS/DESIGN: Pain Reduction with Oral Methotrexate in knee Osteoarthritis, a pragmatic phase III trial of Treatment Effectiveness (PROMOTE) is an investigator-initiated, multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, pragmatic placebo-controlled trial. A total of 160 participants with symptomatic knee OA will be recruited across primary and secondary care sites in the United Kingdom and randomized on a 1:1 basis to active treatment or placebo, in addition to usual care, for 12 months. As is usual practice for MTX, dosing will be escalated over six weeks to 25 mg (or maximum tolerated dose) weekly for the remainder of the study. The primary endpoint is change in average knee pain during the past week (measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale) between baseline and six months. Secondary endpoints include other self-reported pain, function and quality-of-life measures. A health economics analysis will also be performed. A magnetic resonance imaging substudy will be conducted to provide an explanatory mechanism for associated symptom change by examining whether MTX reduces synovitis and whether this is related to symptom change. Linear and logistic regression will be used to compare changes between groups using univariable and multivariable modelling analyses. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: The PROMOTE trial is designed to examine whether MTX is an effective analgesic treatment for OA. The MRI substudy will address the relationship between synovitis and symptom change. This will potentially provide a much needed new treatment for knee OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials identifier: ISRCTN77854383 (registered: 25 October 2013).