Association between body mass index and response to duloxetine for aromatase inhibitor-associated musculoskeletal symptoms in SWOG S1202.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitor (AI)-associated musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS) negatively impact adherence to and persistence with therapy. In SWOG S1202, patients with AIMSS who were treated with duloxetine, a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, reported improvement in pain by 12 weeks compared with placebo. Based on the authors' prior observation that responses to pain interventions differ between obese and nonobese patients, the current study examined whether response to duloxetine therapy differed by obesity status. METHODS: In SWOG S1202, a total of 299 AI-treated postmenopausal women with stage I to III (AJCC 7th Edition) breast cancer who developed new or worsening average pain were enrolled, randomized to duloxetine or placebo, and treated for 12 weeks. Patient-reported outcomes were obtained at baseline and through 12 weeks. Patients were categorized into nonobese (body mass index [BMI] <30 kg/m2 ) or obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2 ). The authors tested the interaction between intervention and obesity with respect to average pain at 12 weeks in the 289 eligible patients, using a P value of .05 to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: In approximately 54% of evaluable patients with a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 , the reduction in the mean average pain score between baseline and 12 weeks was statistically significantly greater for patients treated with duloxetine compared with those receiving placebo (-2.73 vs -1.64 points; P = .003). Conversely, in the nonobese patients, the reduction in the mean average pain score was similar in the 2 cohorts (-2.46 vs -2.34 points; P = .75). The P value for interaction was .02, thereby meeting the threshold criteria of the current study. Similar findings were evident for other pain-related patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, obese patients with AIMSS obtained more analgesic benefit from duloxetine compared with nonobese patients. Additional studies are warranted to determine the biologic basis for these findings.

Una Mano Amiga: Pilot Test of a Patient Navigator Program for Southwest New Mexico.

We conducted a pilot test of a patient navigation intervention (Una Mano Amiga) to address cancer health disparities in three rural counties in southwest New Mexico. We trained two bilingual lay health workers (promotoras) as patient navigators (PNs) to help adult cancer patients and their participating families in Grant, Luna, and Hidalgo counties "navigate" the health care system, including appropriate access to social and financial services. Our hypothesized outcome was a reduction in time from diagnosis to treatment initiation compared to the average time without PNs in each of the three counties (2000-2009). We enrolled 85 eligible patients and 43 eligible family members who had completed psychosocial and demographic forms in this PN intervention. Mean time from cancer diagnosis to treatment initiation among 41 study patients was 59.6 days across the three counties. Mean time from non-intervention comparison data was 47.1 days. In the intervention group, on a 0-10 satisfaction scale (higher = more), patient mean scores for three items ranged from 9.3 to 9.6, family members, 8.9-9.3. Caregiver stress as measured by a Caregiver Self-Assessment score ≥ 10 (highest stress = 16) decreased from 23.8% of caregivers at study entry to 14.3% at follow-up (not statistically significantly different). Although the PN intervention did not decrease time from diagnosis to treatment initiation compared to three comparison counties, positive reactions of patients and family members support further research with larger samples.

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.

Responsiveness of 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in a large, community-based cancer study cohort.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was a National Institutes of Health-funded initiative to develop measures of symptoms and function. Responsiveness is the degree to which a measure can detect underlying changes over time. The objective of the current study was to document the responsiveness of 8 PROMIS measures in a large, population-based cancer cohort. METHODS: The Measuring Your Health study recruited 2968 patients who were diagnosed with 1 of 7 cancers between 2010 and 2012 through 4 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. Participants completed a baseline survey (6-13 months after diagnosis) and a 6-month follow-up survey. Changes in 8 PROMIS scores were compared with global ratings of transition, changes in performance status, and clinical events. RESULTS: Measures were responsive to 6-month declines and improvements in performance status with small to large effect sizes (ES) (Cohen d = 0.34-0.71; P < .01). Mean changes and effect sizes were larger for participants who reported declines compared with those who reported improvements. Small-to-medium ES were observed in patients who reported being "a little" worse (d = 0.31-0.56), and medium-to-large ES were observed in those who reported being "a lot" worse (d = 0.53-0.72). Hospitalized participants reported significant score increases, resulting in worsening of pain (d = 0.51), fatigue (d = 0.35), and depression (d = 0.57; all P < .01). Cancer recurrence and progression were associated with smaller increases in pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance (d = 0.22-0.27). CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that all 8 PROMIS measures were sensitive to patient-perceived worsening and improvement and to major clinical events. These findings will be able to inform the design and interpretation of future research studies and clinical initiatives administering PROMIS measures. Cancer 2017;123:327-335. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Dental health status and patient-reported outcomes at baseline in patients participating in the osteonecrosis of the jaw registry study, SWOG S0702.

PURPOSE: SWOG S0702 was a cohort study of patients with cancer with bone metastases due to any cancer. Using baseline data from S0702, this report characterizes the oral health and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: S0702 case report forms captured dental assessment and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. This analysis compares PRO dental discomfort with selected clinical assessments of dental health. This analysis focuses on the 2294 patients who underwent baseline dental examination prior to study registration, but also reports on the 1235 patients for whom only OHRQol data are available. Dental characteristics including the number of teeth and the presence of gingivitis and periodontal disease were examined for correlation with PRO of oral pain, interference with eating, smiling, speech, or quality of life. RESULTS: The median age of the study participants was 62. Greater than 60% of the 2294 patients with baseline dental assessments had none to mild plaque, calculus, gingivitis, or periodontal disease, suggesting that most of this cohort had good oral hygiene. However, in each of these same categories, approximately 6% had dental findings classified as severe conditions (poor oral hygiene). There was strong evidence that the presence of periodontal disease, gingivitis, and number of teeth was correlated with lower OHRQoL across multiple domains, including pain (mouth or jaw), interference with eating, smiling and speech, and overall quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This report characterizes the oral health and OHRQoL of patients with advanced bone metastases receiving palliative therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00874211.

The challenge of measuring intra-individual change in fatigue during cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: To evaluate how well three different patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure individual change. METHODS: Two hundred and fourteen patients (from two sites) initiating first or new chemotherapy for any stage of breast or gastrointestinal cancer participated. The 13-item FACIT Fatigue scale, a 7-item PROMIS® Fatigue Short Form (PROMIS 7a), and the PROMIS® Fatigue computer adaptive test (CAT) were administered monthly online for 6 months. Reliability of measured change was defined, under a population mixed effects model, as the ratio of estimated systematic variance in rate of change to the estimated total variance of measured individual differences in rate of change. Precision of individual measured change, the standard error of measurement of change, was given by the square root of the rate-of-change sampling variance. Linear and quadratic models were examined up to 3 and up to 6 months. RESULTS: A linear model for measured change showed the following by 6 and 3 months, respectively: PROMIS CAT (0.363 and 0.342); PROMIS SF (0.408 and 0.533); FACIT (0.459 and 0.473). Quadratic models offered no noteworthy improvement over linear models. Both reliability and precision results demonstrate the need to improve the measurement of intra-individual change. CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate the challenge of reliably measuring individual change in fatigue with a level of confidence required for intervention. Optimizing clinically useful measurement of intra-individual differences over time continues to pose a challenge for PROs.

Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards.

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.

Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Castration resistance occurs in most patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who are receiving androgen-deprivation therapy. Replacing androgens before progression of the disease is hypothesized to prolong androgen dependence. METHODS: Men with newly diagnosed, metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, a performance status of 0 to 2, and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 5 ng per milliliter or higher received a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue and an antiandrogen agent for 7 months. We then randomly assigned patients in whom the PSA level fell to 4 ng per milliliter or lower to continuous or intermittent androgen deprivation, with patients stratified according to prior or no prior hormonal therapy, performance status, and extent of disease (minimal or extensive). The coprimary objectives were to assess whether intermittent therapy was noninferior to continuous therapy with respect to survival, with a one-sided test with an upper boundary of the hazard ratio of 1.20, and whether quality of life differed between the groups 3 months after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 3040 patients were enrolled, of whom 1535 were included in the analysis: 765 randomly assigned to continuous androgen deprivation and 770 assigned to intermittent androgen deprivation. The median follow-up period was 9.8 years. Median survival was 5.8 years in the continuous-therapy group and 5.1 years in the intermittent-therapy group (hazard ratio for death with intermittent therapy, 1.10; 90% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.23). Intermittent therapy was associated with better erectile function and mental health (P<0.001 and P=0.003, respectively) at month 3 but not thereafter. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of treatment-related high-grade adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings were statistically inconclusive. In patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, the confidence interval for survival exceeded the upper boundary for noninferiority, suggesting that we cannot rule out a 20% greater risk of death with intermittent therapy than with continuous therapy, but too few events occurred to rule out significant inferiority of intermittent therapy. Intermittent therapy resulted in small improvements in quality of life. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002651.).

Phase II studies of two different schedules of dasatinib in bone metastasis predominant metastatic breast cancer: SWOG S0622.

Bone metastases from breast cancer are common, causing significant morbidity. Preclinical data of dasatinib, an oral small molecule inhibitor of multiple oncogenic tyrosine kinases, suggested efficacy in tumor control and palliation of bone metastases in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This clinical trial aimed to determine whether treatment with either of 2 dose schedules of dasatinib results in a progression-free survival (PFS) >50 % at 24 weeks in bone metastasis predominant MBC, to evaluate the toxicity of the 2 dosing regimens, and explore whether treatment results in decreased serum bone turnover markers and patient-reported "worst pain." Subjects with bone metastasis predominant MBC were randomly assigned to either 100 mg of dasatinib once daily, or 70 mg twice daily, with treatment continued until time of disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Planned accrual was 40 patients in each arm. The primary trial endpoint was PFS, defined as time from registration to progression or death due to any cause. Median PFS for all eligible patients (79) was 12.6 weeks (95 % CI 9.1-16.7). Neither cohort met the threshold for further clinical interest. There were no significant differences in PFS by randomized treatment arm (p = 0.85). Toxicity was similar in both cohorts, with no clear trend in serum biomarkers of bone turnover or patient-reported pain. Dasatinib was ineffective in controlling bone-predominant MBC in a patient population, unselected by molecular markers. Further study of dasatinib in breast cancer should not be pursued unless performed in molecularly determined patient subsets, or rational combinations.

Validation of the PROMIS physical function measures in a diverse US population-based cohort of cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function measures in a diverse, population-based cancer sample. METHODS: Cancer patients 6-13 months post-diagnosis (n = 4840) were recruited for the Measuring Your Health study. Participants were diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or cancers of the colorectum, lung, breast, uterus, cervix, or prostate. Four PROMIS physical function short forms (4a, 6b, 10a, and 16) were evaluated for validity and reliability across age and race-ethnicity groups. Covariates included gender, marital status, education level, cancer site and stage, comorbidities, and functional status. RESULTS: PROMIS physical function short forms showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.92-0.96), convergent validity (fatigue, pain interference, FACT physical well-being all r ≥ 0.68), and discriminant validity (unrelated domains all r ≤ 0.3) across survey short forms, age, and race-ethnicity. Known-group differences by demographic, clinical, and functional characteristics performed as hypothesized. Ceiling effects for higher-functioning individuals were identified on most forms. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides strong evidence that PROMIS physical function measures are valid and reliable in multiple race-ethnicity and age groups. Researchers selecting specific PROMIS short forms should consider the degree of functional disability in their patient population to ensure that length and content are tailored to limit response burden.

Docetaxel and atrasentan versus docetaxel and placebo for men with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer (SWOG S0421): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The endothelin pathway has a role in bone metastases, which are characteristic of advanced prostate cancer. Atrasentan, an endothelin receptor antagonist, has shown activity in prostate cancer. We therefore assessed its effect on survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone metastases. METHODS: In a double-blind phase 3 trial, men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, stratified for progression type (prostate-specific antigen or radiological), baseline pain, extraskeletal metastases, and bisphosphonate use, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) every 21 days, intravenously) with atrasentan (10 mg/day, orally) or placebo for up to 12 cycles and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients who did not progress on treatment were permitted to continue atrasentan or placebo for up to 52 weeks. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00134056. FINDINGS: 498 patients were randomly assigned to the atrasentan group and 496 to the placebo group. The trial was halted early for futility in April, 2011, after a planned interim analysis. Median PFS was 9·2 months (95% CI 8·5-9·9) in the atrasentan group and 9·1 months (8·4-10·2) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·02, 0·89-1·16; p=0·81). Median overall survival was 17·8 months (16·4-19·8) in the atrasentan group versus 17·6 months (16·4-20·1) in the placebo group (1·04, 0·90-1·19; p=0·64). 278 (57%) of 492 patients in the atrasentan group had grade 3 and greater toxicity compared with 294 (60%) of 486 in the placebo group (p=0·22). Three deaths in the atrasentan group and seven in the placebo group were judged to be possibly or probably due to protocol treatment. INTERPRETATION: Atrasentan, when added to docetaxel, does not improve overall survival or PFS in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases; therefore, single-agent docetaxel should remain as one of the standard treatments. FUNDED: National Cancer Institute, Sanofi-Aventis, and Abbott Laboratories.

Impact of prostate cancer on sexual relationships: a longitudinal perspective on intimate partners' experiences.

INTRODUCTION: In this prospective study of localized prostate cancer patients and their partners, we analyzed how partner issues evolve over time, focusing on satisfaction with care, influence of cancer treatment, and its impact on relationship with patient, cancer worry, and personal activities. AIMS: Our study aims were twofold: (i) to determine whether the impact of treatment on patients and partners moderate over time and (ii) if receiving surgery (i.e., radical prostatectomy) influences partner issues more than other treatments. METHODS: Patients newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their female partners were recruited from three states to complete surveys by mail at three time points over 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The four primary outcomes assessed in the partner analysis included satisfaction with treatment, cancer worry, and the influence of cancer and its treatment on their relationship (both general relationship and sexual relationship). RESULTS: This analysis included 88 patient-partner pairs. At 6 months, partners reported that cancer had a negative impact on their sexual relationship (39%--somewhat negative and 12%--very negative). At 12 months, this proportion increased substantially (42%--somewhat negative and 29%--very negative). Partners were significantly more likely to report that their sexual relationship was worse when the patient reported having surgery (P = 0.0045, odds ratio = 9.8025, 95% confidence interval 2.076-46.296). A minority of partners reported significant negative impacts in other areas involving their personal activities (16% at 6 months and 25% at 12 months) or work life (6% at 6 months, which increased to 12% at 12 months). CONCLUSION: From partners' perspectives, prostate cancer therapy has negative impact on sexual relationships and appears to worsen over time.

Burden among partner caregivers of patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer within 1 year after diagnosis: an economic perspective.

PURPOSE: Informal care plays an important role in the overall care for people with cancer. This study estimates lost productivity and informal caregiving and associated costs among partner caregivers of localized prostate cancer patients within 1 year after diagnosis. METHODS: We applied data from the Family and Cancer Therapy Selection study, a three-wave self-administered survey among patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and their partner caregivers in multiple clinics in the USA. Time spent was measured by the sum of working hours lost, informal caregiving hours performed, and hours spent on household chores. The national median income for women 55 years or older was used to calculate costs associated with the time spent using the opportunity cost method. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The average working hours decreased from 14.0 h/week (SD = 17.6) to 10.9 h/week (SD = 15.9), without a significant change in responsibility/intensity at work. The mean annual time spent on informal caregiving and household chores was 65.9 h/year (SD = 172.4) and 76.2 h/year (SD = 193.3), respectively. The mean annual economic burden among partner caregivers was US$6,063 (range US$571-US$47,105) in 2009 dollars accounted for by a mean of 276.2 h (range 26-2,146) in the study sample. The time spent on informal caregiving and household chores varied by patient and caregiver characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot estimates on non-medical economic burden among partner caregivers (spouses) during the initial phase of the treatment provide important information for comprehensive estimation of disease burden and can be used in cost-effectiveness analyses of prostate cancer interventions.

ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research.

PURPOSE: An essential aspect of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the integration of patient perspectives and experiences with clinical data to evaluate interventions. Thus, PCOR and CER require capturing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data appropriately to inform research, healthcare delivery, and policy. This initiative's goal was to identify minimum standards for the design and selection of a PRO measure for use in PCOR and CER. METHODS: We performed a literature review to find existing guidelines for the selection of PRO measures. We also conducted an online survey of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) membership to solicit input on PRO standards. A standard was designated as "recommended" when >50 % respondents endorsed it as "required as a minimum standard." RESULTS: The literature review identified 387 articles. Survey response rate was 120 of 506 ISOQOL members. The respondents had an average of 15 years experience in PRO research, and 89 % felt competent or very competent providing feedback. Final recommendations for PRO measure standards included: documentation of the conceptual and measurement model; evidence for reliability, validity (content validity, construct validity, responsiveness); interpretability of scores; quality translation, and acceptable patient and investigator burden. CONCLUSION: The development of these minimum measurement standards is intended to promote the appropriate use of PRO measures to inform PCOR and CER, which in turn can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare delivery. A next step is to expand these minimum standards to identify best practices for selecting decision-relevant PRO measures.

Quality-of-life outcomes and risk prediction for patients randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab on LungMAP-S1400I.

BACKGROUND: An important issue for patients with cancer treated with novel therapeutics is how they weigh the effects of treatment on survival and quality of life (QOL). We compared QOL in patients enrolled to SWOG S1400I, a substudy of the LungMAP biomarker-driven master protocol. METHODS: SWOG S1400I was a randomized phase III trial comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab for treatment of immunotherapy-naïve disease in advanced squamous cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer severity score at week 7 and week 13 with a target difference of 1.0 points, assessed using multivariable linear regression. A composite risk model for progression-free and overall survival was derived using best-subset selection. RESULTS: Among 158 evaluable patients, median age was 67.6 years and most were male (66.5%). The adjusted MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer severity score was 0.04 points (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.44 to 0.51 points; P = .89) at week 7 and 0.12 points (95% CI = -0.41 to 0.65; P = .66) at week 13. A composite risk model showed that patients with high levels of appetite loss and shortness of breath had a threefold increased risk of progression or death (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.06, 95% CI = 1.88 to 4.98; P < .001) and that those with high levels of both appetite loss and work limitations had a fivefold increased risk of death (HR = 5.60, 95% CI = 3.27 to 9.57; P < .001)-compared with those with neither risk category. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a benefit of ipilimumab added to nivolumab compared with nivolumab alone for QOL in S1400I. A risk model identified patients at high risk of poor survival, demonstrating the prognostic relevance of baseline patient-reported outcomes even in those with previously treated advanced cancer.

A prospective analysis of the influence of older age on physician and patient decision-making when considering enrollment in breast cancer clinical trials (SWOG S0316).

PURPOSE: Patients older than 65 years are underrepresented in clinical trials. We conducted a prospective study (SWOG S0316) to determine physician- and patient-perceived barriers to breast cancer clinical trial enrollment for older patients. METHODS: Eight geographically diverse SWOG institutions participated. The study assessed patients' and physicians' decisions to enroll in or decline clinical treatment trials, including demographics, trial availability, and eligibility. Patient and physician questionnaires elicited concerns related to treatment, medical status, age, family, and financial or transportation concerns. RESULTS: A total of 1,079 patients were registered and eligible and 909 (84%) returned for follow-up. The major reason for nonaccrual was either trial unavailability or ineligibility (60%). Older patients were less likely to be eligible for trials (65% for age ≥65 years vs. 78% for age <65 years). If eligible, trial participation rates did not differ significantly by age (34% for age ≥65 years vs. 40% for age <65 years). Patients ≥65 years more often were concerned about side effects, had friends opposed to participation, or believed that participation would not benefit other generations. When trials were available and patients were eligible, physicians discussed trial participation with 76% of patients <65 years versus 58% of patients ≥65 years of age. For patients ≥65 years, 11% of physicians indicated age as a reason they did not enroll a patient in a clinical trial. CONCLUSION: Trial unavailability or patient ineligibility were the major reasons for lack of enrollment in breast cancer clinical trials for patients of all ages in this prospective study. Older patients were less likely to be eligible for trials, but if eligible they participated at similar rates to younger patients.

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy.

BACKGROUND: The goal of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to explain the differential benefits and harms of alternate methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. To inform decision making, information from the patient's perspective that reflects outcomes that patients care about are needed and can be collected rigorously using appropriate patient-reported outcomes (PRO). It can be challenging to select the most appropriate PRO measure given the proliferation of such questionnaires over the past 20 years. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we discuss the value of PROs within CER, types of measures that are likely to be useful in the CER context, PRO instrument selection, and key challenges associated with using PROs in CER. METHODS: We delineate important considerations for defining the CER context, selecting the appropriate measures, and for the analysis and interpretation of PRO data. Emerging changes that may facilitate CER using PROs as an outcome are also reviewed including implementation of electronic and personal health records, hospital and population-based registries, and the use of PROs in national monitoring initiatives. The potential benefits of linking the information derived from PRO endpoints in CER to decision making is also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations presented for incorporating PROs in CER are intended to provide a guide to researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to ensure that information derived from PROs is applicable and interpretable for a given CER context. In turn, CER will provide information that is necessary for clinicians, patients, and families to make informed care decisions.

Willingness to pay for prostate cancer treatment among patients and their family members at 1 year after diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: To explore an alternative approach to quantifying the burden of side effects at 1 year after treatment for prostate cancer among both patients and their partners. METHODS: We analyzed data from 75 couples in the Family and Cancer Therapy Selection study. Paired patients and family members were independently asked about their willingness to pay (WTP) for a hypothetical new treatment that cures prostate cancer without side effects if they could reconsider their treatment decision by indicating the maximum amount they would be willing to pay given 11 separate "bids" ranging from $0 to $1500 per month. Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted for patients and family members controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and health status; Spearman correlations were also examined. RESULTS: Among 75 couples analyzed, the income-adjusted mean WTP estimates per month were $400.8 (standard error [SE] $54.3) for patients and $650.2 (SE 72.2) for family members. The WTP between patients and family members was correlated (Pearson ρ 0.30; P = 0.01). After adjusting for covariates, the adjusted mean WTP per month was $588.1 (SE 65.77) for patients and $819.4 (SE 74.33) for family members. Wanting to avoid side effects at baseline predicted higher WTP for patients (P = 0.010). Experiencing sexual side effects was predictive of higher WTP for family members (P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Fairly high WTP amounts for a hypothetical treatment without side effects suggests that patients and their partners are experiencing important burdens 1 year after treatment. The higher amounts partners are willing to pay and the correlation with sexual side effects suggest that they are perceptive of significant treatment burdens.

Evaluating health-related quality-of-life therapeutic effectiveness in a clinical trial with extensive nonignorable missing data and heterogeneous response: results from a phase III randomized trial of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This manuscript presents health-related quality of life (HRQL) results from a phase III trial of gemcitabine-paclitaxel (GT) versus paclitaxel (T) in metastatic breast cancer patients. METHODS: Patients completed the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL) and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at baseline and at the end of each cycle. Sensitivity analyses for six longitudinal pattern mixture models (PMMs) assessed potential bias due to informative dropout. Cumulative probability plots with 50% confidence intervals indicated the proportion of patients whose HRQL was likely to improve, decline, or stay the same. RESULTS: Sensitivity analyses addressing nonignorable missing RSCL data included 351 patients. The mean RSCL global HRQL score for GT was significantly and consistently better than that for T (all PMMs P < 0.040). The slope estimate of 1.5 points (100-point scale) per cycle from one PMM translated to a clinically significant 9-point improvement over six cycles with GT versus T. For GT, ~25% of patients were more likely than not to have improved HRQL, whereas that proportion for T was ~5%. PMMs showed no consistent treatment arm differences for BPI or other RSCL outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Adding gemcitabine to paclitaxel for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer is more likely to improve global HRQL over time compared to monotherapy treatment.

Provider and partner interactions in the treatment decision-making process for newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: • To evaluate the degree to which the partners of prostate cancer patients participate in the shared decision-making process with the patients' providers during the time between diagnosis and initiating treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • We recruited patients with newly diagnosed local-stage prostate cancer and their partners to complete take-home surveys after biopsy but before initiating treatment at urology practices in three states. • We asked partners to describe their roles in the decision-making process, including participation in clinic visits, and perceptions of encouragement from providers to participate in the treatment decision-making process. We also asked partners to rate their satisfaction with the patients' providers. RESULTS: • Family members of 80% of newly diagnosed patients agreed to participate; most (93%) were partners (i.e. spouses or significant others). Most partners (93%) had direct contact with the patients' physicians. • Among the partners who had contact with providers, most (67%) were very satisfied with the patients' providers and 80% indicated that the doctor encouraged them to participate in the treatment decision. Overall, 91% of partners reported very frequent discussions with their loved one about the pending treatment decision, and 69% reported that their role was to help the patient make a decision. • In multivariate models, provider encouragement of partner participation was associated with higher partner satisfaction (odds ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.4-8.4) and an increased likelihood of partners reporting very frequent discussions with their loved one (odds ratio 6.1, 95% CI 1.3-27.7). CONCLUSIONS: • Partners often attended clinic visits and were very involved in discussions about treatment options with both loved ones and providers. • Provider encouragement of participation by partners greatly facilitates shared decision-making between patients and partners.