Recommendations on the use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome measurement in oncology trials: findings from an international, multidisciplinary working group.

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials.

Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI): stakeholder views, objectives, and procedures.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimensions: Development and Investigation of General Population Utility Norms for Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimensions (EORTC QLU-C10D) is a cancer-specific preference-based measure, providing health utilities for use in economic evaluations derived from the widely used health-related quality of life measure, EORTC QLQ-C30. Several EORTC QLU-C10D country-specific value sets are available. This article aimed to provide EORTC QLU-C10D general population utility norms for Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom, to aid interpretability of obtained utilities in these countries. METHODS: Data were collected in aforementioned countries via a quota-sampled, cross-sectional online survey (n = 100/age-sex group; N = approximately 1000/country). Participants were asked to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30 and provide sociodemographic data. Country-specific utility norms were calculated using the respective country tariff on the country's EORTC QLQ-C30 data after weighting to achieve population representativeness for age and sex. Norm values are provided as means (SDs) by country, age, and sex groups. Tukey's multiple comparison test investigated mean differences among countries. The impact of country, age, and sex on utility values was investigated with a multiple linear regression model. RESULTS: Country-specific mean utilities range from 0.724 (United Kingdom) to 0.843 (Italy). Country-, sex-, and age-specific mean utilities range from 0.664 for 30- to 39-year-old male Canadians to 0.899 for > 70-year-old male Italians. Utilities were lower in females in 4 of 6 countries, and the impact of age differed among countries. Independent of the impact of age and sex, between-country differences were found (P ≤ .05). CONCLUSION: Results showed a varying impact of age and sex on EORTC QLU-C10D utilities and significant between-country differences. Using national utility norms and utility decrements is recommended.

A multicenter international prospective study of the validity and reliability of a COVID-19-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate a health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaire for patients with current or previous coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in an international setting. METHODS: This multicenter international methodology study followed standardized guidelines for a four-phase questionnaire development. Here, we report on the pretesting and validation of our international questionnaire. Adults with current or previous COVID-19, in institutions or at home were eligible. In the pretesting, 54 participants completed the questionnaire followed by interviews to identify administration problems and evaluate content validity. Thereafter, 371 participants completed the revised questionnaire and a debriefing form to allow preliminary psychometric analysis. Validity and reliability were assessed (correlation-based methods, Cronbach's α, and intra-class correlation coefficient). RESULTS: Eleven countries within and outside Europe enrolled patients. From the pretesting, 71 of the 80 original items fulfilled the criteria for item-retention. Most participants (80%) completed the revised 71-item questionnaire within 15 min, on paper (n = 175) or digitally (n = 196). The final questionnaire included 61 items that fulfilled criteria for item retention or were important to subgroups. Item-scale correlations were > 0.7 for all but nine items. Internal consistency (range 0.68-0.92) and test-retest results (all but one scale > 0.7) were acceptable. The instrument consists of 15 multi-item scales and six single items. CONCLUSION: The Oslo COVID-19 QLQ-W61© is an international, stand-alone, multidimensional HRQoL questionnaire that can assess the symptoms, functioning, and overall quality of life in COVID-19 patients. It is available for use in research and clinical practice. Further psychometric validation in larger patient samples will be performed.

Developing an e-learning course on the use of PRO measures in oncological practice: health care professionals' preferences for learning content and methods.

PURPOSE: Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical routine requires knowledge and competences regarding their use. In order to facilitate implementation, an e-learning course for health care professionals (HCPs) on the utilisation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PROMs in oncological clinical practice is being developed. This study aimed to explore future users' educational needs regarding content and learning methods. METHODS: The sequential mixed methods approach was applied. A scoping literature review informed the guideline for qualitative interviews with HCPs with diverse professional backgrounds in oncology and cancer advocates recruited using a purposive sampling strategy. An international online survey was conducted to validate the qualitative findings. RESULTS: Between December 2019 and May 2020, 73 interviews were conducted in 9 countries resulting in 8 topic areas (Basic information on PROs in clinical routine, Benefits of PRO assessments in clinical practice, Implementation of PRO assessments in clinical routine, Setup of PRO assessments for clinical application, Interpretation of PRO data, Integration of PROs into the communication with patients, Use of PROs in clinical practice, Self-management recommendations for patients based on PROs) subsequently presented in the online survey. The online survey (open between 3 June and 19 July 2020) was completed by 233 HCPs from 33 countries. The highest preference was indicated for content on interpretation of PRO data (97%), clinical benefits of assessing PRO data (95.3%) and implementation of routine PRO data assessment (94.8%). Regarding learning methods, participants indicated a high preference for practical examples that use a mixed approach of presentation (written, audio, video and interactive). CONCLUSION: Educational needs for an integration of PROs in communication in clinical care and coherent implementation strategies became evident. These results inform the development of an e-learning course to support HCPs in the clinical use of EORTC PRO measures.

Equivalence testing of a newly developed interviewer-led telephone script for the EORTC QLQ-C30.

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life-Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) is a widely used generic self-report measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for cancer patients. However, no validated voice script for interviewer-led telephone administration was previously available. The aim of this study was to develop a voice script for interviewer administration via telephone. METHODS: Following guidelines from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) PRO Mixed Modes Good Research Practices Task Force, a randomised cross-over equivalence study, including cognitive debriefing, was conducted to assess equivalence between paper and telephone administration modes. Assuming an expected intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.70 and a minimally acceptable level of 0.50, a sample size of 63 was required. RESULTS: Cognitive interviews with five cancer patients found the voice script to be clear and understandable. Due to a protocol deviation in the first wave of testing, only 26 patients were available for analyses. A second wave of recruitment was conducted, adding 37 patients (n = 63; mean age 55.48; 65.1% female). Total ICCs for mode comparison ranged from 0.72 (nausea and vomiting, 95% CI 0.48-0.86) to 0.90 (global health status/QoL, 95% CI 0.80-0.95; pain, 95% CI 0.79-0.95; constipation, 95% CI 0.80-0.95). For paper first administration, all ICCs were above 0.70, except nausea and vomiting (ICC 0.55; 95% CI 0.24-0.76) and financial difficulties (ICC 0.60; 95% CI 0.31-0.79). For phone first administration, all ICCs were above 0.70. CONCLUSIONS: The equivalence testing results support the voice script's validity for administration of the QLQ-C30 via telephone.

Neurocognitive impairment and patient-proxy agreement on health-related quality of life evaluations in recurrent high-grade glioma patients.

PURPOSE: The rate of missing data on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in brain tumor clinical trials is particularly high over time. One solution to this issue is the use of proxy (i.e., partner, relative, informal caregiver) ratings in lieu of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In this study we investigated patient-proxy agreement on HRQOL outcomes in high-grade glioma (HGG) patients. METHODS: Generic and disease-specific HRQOL were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 in a sample of 501 patient-proxy dyads participating in EORTC trials 26101 and 26091. Patients were classified as impaired or intact, based on their neurocognitive performance. The level of patient-proxy agreement was measured using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and the Bland-Altman limit of agreement. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate differences between patients' and proxies' HRQOL. RESULTS: Patient-proxy agreement in all HGG patients (N = 501) ranged from 0.082 to 0.460. Only 18.8% of all patients were neurocognitively intact. Lin's CCC ranged from 0.088 to 0.455 in cognitively impaired patients and their proxies and from 0.027 to 0.538 in cognitively intact patients and their proxies. CONCLUSION: While patient-proxy agreement on health-related quality of life outcomes is somewhat higher in cognitively intact patients, agreement in high-grade glioma patients is low in general. In light of these findings, we suggest to cautiously consider the use of proxy's evaluation in lieu of patient-reported outcomes, regardless of patient's neurocognitive status.

The PROTEUS-Trials Consortium: Optimizing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials has enormous potential to promote patient-centred care, but for this potential to be realized, the patient-reported outcomes must be captured effectively and communicated clearly. Over the past decade, methodologic tools have been developed to inform the design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials. We formed the PROTEUS-Trials Consortium (Patient-Reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users and Stakeholders) to disseminate and implement these methodologic tools. METHODS: PROTEUS-Trials are engaging with patient, clinician, research, and regulatory stakeholders from 27 organizations in the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Europe to develop both organization-specific and cross-cutting strategies for implementing and disseminating the methodologic tools. Guided by the Knowledge-to-Action framework, we conducted consortium-wide webinars and meetings, as well as individual calls with participating organizations, to develop a workplan, which we are currently executing. RESULTS: Six methodologic tools serve as the foundation for PROTEUS-Trials dissemination and implementation efforts: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-patient-reported outcome extension for writing protocols with patient-reported outcomes, the International Society for Quality of Life Research Minimum Standards for selecting a patient-reported outcome measure, Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium recommendations for patient-reported outcome data analysis, the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials-patient-reported outcome extension for reporting clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes, recommendations for the graphic display of patient-reported outcome data, and a Clinician's Checklist for reading and using an article about patient-reported outcomes. The PROTEUS-Trials website (www.TheProteusConsortium.org) serves as a central repository for the methodologic tools and associated resources. To date, we have developed (1) a roadmap to visually display where each of the six methodologic tools applies along the clinical trial trajectory, (2) web tutorials that provide guidance on the methodologic tools at different levels of detail, (3) checklists to provide brief summaries of each tool's recommendations, (4) a handbook to provide a self-guided approach to learning about the tools and recommendations, and (5) publications that address key topics related to patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials. We are also conducting organization-specific activities, including meetings, presentations, workshops, and webinars to publicize the existence of the methodologic tools and the PROTEUS-Trials resources. Work to develop communications strategies to ensure that PROTEUS-Trials reach key audiences with relevant information about patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and PROTEUS-Trials is ongoing. DISCUSSION: The PROTEUS-Trials Consortium aims to help researchers generate patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials to (1) enable investigators, regulators, and policy-makers to take the patient perspective into account when conducting research and making decisions; (2) help patients understand treatment options and make treatment decisions; and (3) inform clinicians' discussions with patients regarding treatment options. In these ways, the PROTEUS Consortium promotes patient-centred research and care.

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines.

Importance: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research. Evidence Review: The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance. Findings: Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans. Conclusions and Relevance: The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): health-related quality-of-life results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 trial in patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma demonstrated improved recurrence-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo (hazard ratio 0·57 [98·4% CI 0·43-0·74]; p<0·0001). This study reports the results from the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) exploratory endpoint. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 123 academic centres and community hospitals across 23 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated histologically confirmed stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a central interactive voice-response system on the basis of a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographic region to receive intravenously 200 mg pembrolizumab or placebo. Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for 1 year, or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, with global health/quality of life (GHQ) over 2 years measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 as the primary analysis. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37, and long-term follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Median follow-up was 15·1 months (IQR 12·8-16·9) at the time of this analysis. HRQOL compliance was greater than 90% at baseline, greater than 70% during the first year, and greater than 60% thereafter for both groups. Because of low absolute compliance numbers at later follow-up, the analysis was truncated to week 84. Baseline GHQ scores were similar between groups (77·55 [SD 18·20] in the pembrolizumab group and 76·54 [17·81] in the placebo group) and remained stable over time. The difference in average GHQ score between the two groups over the 2 years was -2·2 points (95% CI -4·3 to -0·2). The difference in average score during treatment was -1·1 points (95% CI -3·2 to 0·9) and the difference in average score after treatment was -2·2 points (-4·8 to 0·4). These differences are within the 5-point clinical relevance threshold for the QLQ-C30 and are therefore clinically non-significant. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab does not result in a clinically significant decrease in HRQOL compared with placebo when given as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma. These results support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab in this setting. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Minimally important differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in prostate cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for interpreting group-level change over time, both within a group and between groups, for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: We used data from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors were selected by strength of correlations with QLQ-C30 scales. In addition, clinicians' input was obtained with regard to plausibility of the selected anchors. The mean change method was applied for interpreting change over time within a group of patients and linear regression models were fitted to estimate MIDs for between-group differences in change over time. Distribution-based estimates were also evaluated. RESULTS: Two clinical anchors were eligible for MID estimation; performance status and the CTCAE diarrhoea domain. MIDs were developed for 7 scales (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, pain, fatigue, global quality of life, diarrhoea) and varied by scale and direction (improvement vs deterioration). Within-group MIDs ranged from 4 to 14 points for improvement and - 13 to - 5 points for deterioration and MIDs for between-group differences in change scores ranged from 3 to 13 for improvement and - 10 to - 5 for deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings aid the meaningful interpretation of changes on a set of EORTC QLQ-C30 scale scores over time, both within and between groups, and for performing more accurate sample size calculations for clinical trials in prostate cancer.

Reference values for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in patients with advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma and in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.

OBJECTIVES: To provide reference values for the European Organisation for Treatment and Research of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients and 5-year HL survivors. The QLQ-C30 is the most widely used cancer-specific questionnaire to assess Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). METHODS: The EORTC database was searched to identify HL RCTs in which patients' and survivors' HRQoL was assessed by the QLQ-C30. HRQoL mean scores were calculated and stratified by age and gender. Minimal important differences were used to assess the clinical relevance of the findings. Data from one RCT with HRQoL scores available at baseline (n = 343) and four RCTs with HRQoL scores available at follow-up (n = 1665) were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients reported worse HRQoL scores than survivors across most functioning scales and symptoms' scales. These scores varied as a function of gender but not age. Survivors' HRQoL reports were comparable to the ones of the general population. CONCLUSIONS: These values provide an assessment framework for the comparison and interpretation of QLQ-C30 scores in advanced-stage HL. Our findings suggest that although HL patients' HRQoL scores are worse than the general population, HRQoL scores may normalize over long-term survival.

Investigating the response scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in German cancer patients and a population survey.

BACKGROUND: The European Organization for research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) scales are scored on a 4-point response scale, ranging from not at all to very much. Previous studies have shown that the German translation of the response option quite a bit as mäßig violates interval scale assumptions, and that ziemlich is a more appropriate translation. The present studies investigated differences between the two questionnaire versions. METHODS: The first study employed a balanced cross-over design and included 450 patients with different types of cancer from three German-speaking countries. The second study was a representative survey in Germany including 2033 respondents. The main analyses included compared the ziemlich and mäßig version of the questionnaire using analyses of covariance adjusted for sex, age, and health burden. RESULTS: In accordance with our hypothesis, the adjusted summary score was lower in the mäßig than in the ziemlich version; Study 1: - 4.5 (95% CI - 7.8 to - 1.3), p = 0.006, Study 2: - 3.1 (95% CI - 4.6 to - 1.5), p < 0.001. In both studies, this effect was pronounced in respondents with a higher health burden; Study 1: - 6.8 (95% CI - 12.2 to - 1.4), p = 0.013; Study 2: - 4.5 (95% CI - 7.3 to - 1.7), p = 0.002. CONCLUSIONS: We found subtle but consistent differences between the two questionnaire versions. We recommend to use the optimized response option for the EORTC QLQ-C30 as well as for all other German modules. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered on the German Registry for Clinical Studies (reference number DRKS00012759, 04th August 2017, https://www.drks.de/DRKS00012759 ).

Health-related quality of life issues, including symptoms, in patients with active COVID-19 or post COVID-19; a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: This systematic review was performed to identify all relevant health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues associated with COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken in April 2020. In four teams of three reviewers each, all abstracts were independently reviewed for inclusion by two reviewers. Using a pre-defined checklist of 93 criteria for each publication, data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers and subsequently compared and discussed. If necessary, a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. The search was updated in February 2021 to retrieve new publications on HRQoL issues including issues related to the long-term consequences of COVID-19. RESULTS: The search in April 2020 identified 3342 potentially relevant publications, and 339 publications were selected for full-text review and data extraction. We identified 75 distinct symptoms and other HRQoL issues categorized into 12 thematic areas; from general symptoms such as fever, myalgia, and fatigue, to neurological and psychological issues. The updated search revealed three extra issues experienced during active disease and long-term problems with fatigue, psychological issues and impaired cognitive function. CONCLUSION: This first comprehensive systematic review provides a detailed overview of the wide range of HRQoL issues experienced by patients with COVID-19 throughout the course of the disease. It demonstrates the devastating impact of the disease and provides critically important information for clinicians, to enable them to better recognize the disease and to provide knowledge important for treatment and follow-up. The results provided the foundation for the international development of a COVID-19 specific patient-reported HRQoL questionnaire.

Functional health and symptoms in Spain before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on wellbeing and health has so far been studied using mostly cross-sectional designs. To place recent findings into context, we compared symptoms and functional health status in two independent samples assessed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Participants were recruited via an online panel using quota sampling. We assessed symptoms, functional health, and global quality of life with the EORTC QLQ-C30 in two general population samples in Spain (collected in July 2019 and April 2020). We also assessed several COVID-19 related variables, such as adherence to social distancing. RESULTS: Data from N = 1010 participants before the pandemic (mean age 47.1 years, 50.5% female) were compared with data from N = 504 participants during the pandemic (mean age 47.1 years, 50.8% female). Participants during the pandemic (vs. before the pandemic) reported lower role functioning and emotional functioning, as well as less symptom burden. A lower degree of social distancing was associated with better functional health and lower symptom burden. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate an impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on functional health and symptom burden in the Spanish general population. The comparison of before and during the pandemic can be used to benchmark results raised only during the pandemic.

Demystifying the estimand framework: a case study using patient-reported outcomes in oncology.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures describe how a patient feels or functions and are increasingly being used in benefit-risk assessments in the development of cancer drugs. However, PRO research objectives are often ill-defined in clinical cancer trials, which can lead to misleading conclusions about patient experiences. The estimand framework is a structured approach to aligning a clinical trial objective with the study design, including endpoints and analysis. The estimand framework uses a multidisciplinary approach and can improve design, analysis, and interpretation of PRO results. On the basis of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E9(R1) addendum, we provide an overview of the estimand framework intended for a multistakeholder audience. We apply the estimand framework to a hypothetical trial for breast cancer, using physical function to develop specific PRO research objectives. This Policy Review is not an endorsement of a specific study design or outcome; rather, it is meant to show the application of principles of the estimand framework to research study design and add to ongoing discussion. Use of the estimand framework to review medical products and label PROs in oncology can improve communication between stakeholders and ultimately provide a clearer interpretation of patient experience in the development of oncological drugs.

Psychometric properties of the updated EORTC module for assessing quality of life in patients with lung cancer (QLQ-LC29): an international, observational field study.

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) assesses quality of life (QOL) in patients with lung cancer and was the first EORTC module developed for use in international clinical trials. Since its publication in 1994, major treatment advances with possible effects on QOL have occurred. These changes called for an update of the module and its international psychometric validation. We aimed to investigate the scale structure and psychometric properties of the updated lung cancer module, QLQ-LC29, in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: This international, observational field study was done in 19 hospitals across 12 countries. Patients aged older than 18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of lung cancer and no other previous primary tumour, and who were mentally fit with sufficient language skills to understand and complete the questionnaire were included. Patients were asked during a hospital visit to fill in the paper versions of the core questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30 plus QLQ-LC29, and investigators selected half of these patients to complete the questionnaire again 2-4 weeks later. Our primary aim was to assess the scale structure and psychometric properties of EORTC QLQ-LC29. We analysed scale structure using confirmatory factor analysis; reliability using Cronbach's α value (internal consistency) and intra-class coefficient (test-retest reliability); sensitivity using independent t tests stratified by Karnofsky performance status; and responsiveness to change over time by ANOVA. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02745691. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2016, and Sept 26, 2018, 523 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of either non-small-cell lung cancer (n=442) or small-cell lung cancer (n=81) were recruited. Confirmatory factor analysis provided a solution composed of five multi-item scales (coughing, shortness of breath, fear of progression, hair problems, and surgery-related symptoms) plus 15 single symptom or side-effect items: χ2=370·233, root mean square error of approximation=0·075, and comparative-fit index=0·901. Cronbach's α for internal consistencies of all multi-item scales were above the threshold of 0·70. Intra-class coefficients for test-retest reliabilities ranged between 0·82 and 0·97. Three (shortness of breath, fear of progression, and hair problems) of the five multi-item scales showed responsiveness to change over time (p values <0·05), as did nine of 15 single symptom items. Four (coughing, shortness of breath, fear of progression, and surgery-related symptoms) of the five multi-item scales and ten of the 15 single symptom items were sensitive to known group differences (ie, lower vs higher Karnofsky performance status). INTERPRETATION: Results determined the psychometric properties of the updated lung cancer module, which is ready for use in international clinical studies. FUNDING: EORTC Quality of Life Group.

International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium.

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.

Minimally important differences for interpreting European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 scores in patients with ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Minimal important differences (MIDs) are useful for interpreting changes or differences in health-related quality of life scores in terms of clinical importance. There are currently no MID guidelines for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) specific to ovarian cancer. This study aims to estimate MIDs for interpreting group-level change of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in ovarian cancer. METHODS: Data were derived from four EORTC published trials. Clinical anchors for each EORTC QLQ-C30 scale were selected using correlation strength and clinical plausibility. MIDs for within-group change and between-group differences in change over time were estimated via mean change method and linear regression respectively. For each EORTC QLQ-C30 scale, MID estimates from multiple anchors were summarized via weighted-correlation. Distribution-based MIDs were also examined as supportive evidence. RESULTS: Anchor-based MIDs were determined for deterioration in 7 of the 14 EORTC QLQ-C30 scales assessed, and in 11 scales for improvement. Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change ranged from 4 to 19 (improvement) and - 9 to -4 (deterioration). Between-group MIDs ranged from 3 to 13 (improvement) and - 11 to -4 (deterioration). Generally, absolute anchor-based MIDs for most scales ranged from 4 to 10 points. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings will aid interpretation of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in ovarian cancer and inform sample size calculations in future ovarian cancer trials with endpoints that are based on EORTC QLQ-C30 scales.

Results from a 1-day workshop on the assessment of quality of life in cancer patients: a joint initiative of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

This report summarizes the presentations and discussion in the first Japan Clinical Oncology Group-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome workshop funded by the National Cancer Center Hospital that was held on Saturday, 1 September 2018 in Tokyo, Japan. The infrastructure and understanding regarding the Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome assessment of cancer patients in Japan is still immature, in spite of the increased demand for oncological Patient-Reported Outcome research felt not only by researchers but also by patients or other stakeholders of cancer drug development. The workshop aimed to share each perspective, common issues to be considered and future perspectives regarding the strong alliance between the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group and the Japan Clinical Oncology Group for Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome research as well as explore the possibility of conducting collaborative research. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer is a leading international cancer clinical trials organization, and its Quality of Life Group is a global leader in the implementation of Quality of Life research in cancer patients. The three invited speakers from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group presented their perspective, latest methodology and ongoing projects. The three speakers from the Japan Clinical Oncology Group presented their current status, experience and some issues regarding data management or interpretation of the Patient-Reported Outcome data. The two patient advocates also shared their expectations in terms of advances in cancer research based on the Patient-Reported Outcome assessment. As the next steps after this workshop, the Japan Clinical Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer have decided to cooperate more closely to facilitate Patient-Reported Outcome research in both the groups, and the Japan Clinical Oncology Group has approved the establishment of a new committee for Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome research in Japan.