Risk of significant functional impairment across cancer diagnosis and care continuum.

BACKGROUND: The authors examined baseline physical functional (PF) impairment among cancer outpatients in the National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot study Northwestern University Improving the Management of Symptoms During and Following Cancer Treatment (NU IMPACT). They hypothesized that PF impairment, measured with the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) survey, would (1) be common and more prevalent for patients receiving treatment compared with no treatment and (2) differ across tumor types, independent of cancer continuum phase. METHODS: Adults who were diagnosed with cancer in NU IMPACT (n = 2273) were sampled, and their PROMIS-PF scores were compared across tumor types and cancer continuum (curative, noncurative, or no treatment), with scores ≤40 indicating moderate-severe impairment. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the relation among patient and cancer factors and PF scores using a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Forty percent of the surveyed patients reported moderate-severe PF impairment. Patients with melanoma reported the least impairment, and those with lung cancer were 6.5 times more likely to have moderate-severe impairment (95% confidence interval, 2.393-17.769). The noncurative group was 1.5 times more likely to have moderate-severe impairment (95% confidence interval, 1.045-2.145; mean score, 43; p < .001) than the curative (mean score, 6) and no treatment (mean score, 48) groups. One-third of those who reported PF impairment also had significant pain and/or fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: A sizeable minority experienced PF impairment across tumor types for which pain and/or fatigue co-occurred, particularly in the noncurative group. The PROMIS-PF survey effectively identified variations in physical function. Future studies will explore how screening for PF impairment can be used to refer patients for appropriate cancer rehabilitation services.

Determining Predictors of Actual Living Kidney Donation Based on Potential Donor Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease; however, few living donor candidates (LDCs) who begin evaluation actually donate. While some LDCs are deemed medically ineligible, others discontinue for potentially modifiable reasons. METHODS: At five transplant centers, we conducted a prospective cohort study measuring LDCs' clinical and psychosocial characteristics, educational preparation, readiness to donate, and social determinants of health. We followed LDCs for 12 months after evaluation to determine whether they donated a kidney, opted to discontinue, had modifiable reasons for discontinuing, were medically ineligible, or had other recipient-related reasons for discontinuing. RESULTS: Among 2184 LDCs, 18.6% donated, 38.2% opted to or had modifiable reasons for discontinuing, and 43.2% were deemed ineligible due to medical or recipient-related reasons. Multivariable analyses comparing successful LDCs with those who did not complete donation for modifiable reasons (N = 1241) found that LDCs who discussed donation with the recipient before evaluation (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.54-3.46), had completed high school (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.21-3.35), or were a "close relation" to their recipient (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.33-2.69) were more likely to donate. Conversely, LDCs who reported religion as important (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38-0.80), were Non-White (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00), or had overall higher anxiety scores (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99) were less likely to donate. CONCLUSION: With fewer than a fifth of LDCs donating, developing programs to provide greater emotional support and facilitate open discussions between LDCs and recipients earlier may increase living donation rates.

An observational, patient-reported outcome study of sleep quality and depression among individuals with overactive bladder syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Overactive bladder (OAB) can adversely affect health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and adherence to treatments; however, the extent of their association is unknown. This study sought to characterize Sleep Disturbance, Depression, Fatigue, and patient-reported medication adherence among adults with OAB in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this descriptive, observational study, patients completed patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of urinary symptoms, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep quality, and medication adherence. PRO scores were compared across age, sex, body mass index, and sleep and antidepressant medication-taking subgroups. Exploratory analyses compared PRO scores between groups and estimated the effect size of differences. RESULTS: Of 1013 patients contacted, 159 completed the assessments (female: 67.3%; ≥65 years of age: 53.5%; most severe OAB symptom: nocturia). Scale scores for Sleep Disturbance, Fatigue, and Depression were consistent with US population norms. No correlations of moderate or greater magnitude were observed between the severity of lower urinary tract symptoms and Sleep Disturbance, Fatigue, or Depression. When comparing individuals receiving antidepressants with those who were not, almost all outcomes including urinary symptoms, anxiety, and depression were significantly worse. Patients taking antidepressants also had poorer adherence to their OAB medications. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of individuals with OAB, Sleep Disturbance, Fatigue, and Depression scores were in line with general population reference values; however, among the subgroups analyzed, patients on antidepressants had worse HRQoL and more substantial impacts on medication adherence, highlighting the importance of the assessment and management of depression in this population.

Validity of a single-item indicator of treatment side effect bother in patients with head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with head/neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) experience significant tumor- and treatment-related side effects. No efficient summary measure capturing the totality of side effect burden currently exists. We examined associations between a single patient-reported outcome (PRO) item evaluating side effect bother (FACT GP5, "I am bothered by side effects of treatment") with overall side effects in HNSCC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective secondary analysis of development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Head/Neck Symptom Index (FHNSI-10), which included completing FACT-HN (including Head/Neck Cancer Subscale (HNCS) and Trial Outcome Index (TOI)) and the pain intensity numeric rating scale (NRS). We calculated Spearman's correlations between GP5 and these measures of patient-reported global health, head/neck side effects, and pain intensity NRS. A correlation of > 0.4 was considered sufficient evidence of association. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients completed baseline and 85 completed 3-month follow-up surveys. GP5 was highly correlated with FACT-HN total score (baseline r = 0.66, 3 months r = 0.67) and FHNSI-10 (baseline r = 0.63, 3 months r = 0.65). GP5 correlated with multiple FACT-HN subscales including FACT-G, physical well-being, functional well-being, HNCS, and TOI (range baseline r = 0.53-0.77, range 3 months r = 0.49-0.77). Worsening GP5 score was associated with worsening overall HNCS (p = 0.002), worsening FHNSI-10 score (p < 0.001), and worsening mean pain intensity (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: GP5 exhibited validity within HNSCC, exhibiting substantial correlations with a number of HNSCC-related PRO measures including FACT-HN and FHNSI-10. Worsening GP5 was associated with worsening HNCS, FHNSI summary score, and pain intensity. GP5 has promise as a summary indicator of symptom and side effect bother in HNSCC.

Significant individual change should be used as a lower bound for anchor based estimates of meaningful change on patient-reported outcome scores.

Interpretation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores has been supported by identifying score thresholds or ranges that indicate clinical importance. There has been a recent focus on the estimation of meaningful within patient change (MWPC). While much attention has been focused on anchor-based methods, some researchers prefer that a lower bound to these estimates should exceed a change score that could be observed due to measurement error alone as a safeguard against misclassifying individual patients as changed when they have not. The standard error of measurement (SEM) is often used as the lower bound of anchor estimates. Here, we argue that the SEM is not an the best lower bound for MWPCs. Instead, statistically significant individual change as calculated by the reliable change index (RCI) should be used as the lower bound. Our argument is based on two points. First, conceptually, the SEM does not provide specific enough information to serve as a lower bound for MWPCs, which should be based on the level of observed score change that is unlikely to be due to chance alone. Second, the SEM is not appropriate for direct application to observed scores, and requires a multiplier when examining observed change instead of true change. We conclude with recommendations for using the RCI with a thoughtful range of p-values in combination with anchor estimates.

Overall side effect assessment of oxaliplatin toxicity in rectal cancer patients in NRG oncology/NSABP R04.

PURPOSE: Regulatory guidance suggests capturing patient-reported overall side effect impact in cancer trials. We examined whether the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) GP5 item ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment") post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy/radiotherapy differed between oxaliplatin vs. non- oxaliplatin arms in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) R-04 trial of stage II-III rectal cancer patients. METHODS: The R-04 neoadjuvant trial compared local-regional tumor control between patients randomized to receive 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine with radiation, with or without oxaliplatin (4 treatment arms). Participants completed surveys at baseline and immediately after chemoradiotherapy. GP5 has a 5-point response scale: "Not at all" (0), "A little bit" (1), "Somewhat" (2), "Quite a bit" (3), and "Very much" (4). Logistic regression compared the odds of reporting moderate-high side effect impact (GP5 2-4) between patients receiving oxaliplatin or not after chemoradiotherapy, controlling for relevant patient characteristics. We examined associations between GP5 and other patient-reported outcomes reflecting side effects. RESULTS: Analyses were performed among 1132 study participants. Participants receiving oxaliplatin were 1.58 times (95% CI: 1.22-2.05) more likely to report moderate-high side effect bother at post-chemotherapy/radiation. In both arms, worse overall side effect impact was associated with patient-reported diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and peripheral sensory neuropathy (p < 0.01 for all). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis of R-04 found that GP5 distinguished between patients receiving oxaliplatin or not as part of their post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, adding patient-centric evidence on the reduced tolerability of oxaliplatin and demonstrating that GP5 is sensitive to known toxicity differences between treatments. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT00058474.

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework.

Regulatory agencies are advancing the use of systematic approaches to collect patient experience data, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in cancer clinical trials to inform regulatory decision-making. Due in part to clinician under-reporting of symptomatic adverse events, there is a growing recognition that evaluation of cancer treatment tolerability should include the patient experience, both in terms of the overall side effect impact and symptomatic adverse events. Methodologies around implementation, analysis, and interpretation of "patient" reported tolerability are under development, and current approaches are largely descriptive. There is robust guidance for use of PROs as efficacy endpoints to compare cancer treatments, but it is unclear to what extent this can be relied-upon to develop tolerability endpoints. An important consideration when developing endpoints to compare tolerability between treatments is the linkage of trial design, objectives, and statistical analysis. Despite interest in and frequent collection of PRO data in oncology trials, heterogeneity in analyses and unclear PRO objectives mean that design, objectives, and analysis may not be aligned, posing substantial challenges for the interpretation of results. The recent ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework represents an opportunity to help address these challenges. Efforts to apply the estimand framework in the context of PROs have primarily focused on efficacy outcomes. In this paper, we discuss considerations for comparing the patient-reported tolerability of different treatments in an oncology trial context.

Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears Treated With a Tuberoplasty Yield Favorable Clinical Outcomes With Variable Rates of Complications: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the patient-reported outcomes and postoperative complications following tuberoplasty for the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE computerized databases from database inception to June 2023 in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Included studies evaluated clinical outcomes, postoperative complications, and reoperation rates following tuberoplasty for the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Exclusion criteria consisted of non-English language, cadaveric studies, case reports, animal studies, studies with overlapping cohorts, letters to editors, and review articles. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Clinical outcome scores included the visual analog scale for pain, University of California Los Angeles score, and Constant score. RESULTS: Seven studies from 2002 to 2023 consisting of 123 patients with a mean age of 66.5 years (mean range, 63-70.4 years) were included. The mean follow-up time ranged from 18 to 98 months. The mean Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score was 13.5 (range, 13-15). At final follow-up, the mean postoperative visual analog scale pain scores ranged from 2.3 to 2.5, University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score from 27.2 to 27.7, and Constant scores from 59.2 to 90.6. Postoperative active forward flexion and abduction ranged from 131° to 165°, and 123° to 160°, respectively. The change in acromiohumeral distance postoperatively ranged from -1 mm to -0.6 mm. The rate of postoperative complications ranged from 0% to 19% of patients, while 0% to 19% of patients underwent revision surgery to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Tuberoplasty for the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears results in good clinical outcomes with significant pain relief in select populations. However, the variable reoperation rates should be considered when counseling patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

Do modifiable patient factors increase the risk of postoperative complications after total joint arthroplasty?

INTRODUCTION: Numerous studies demonstrate that modifiable lifestyle risk factors can influence patient outcomes including survivability, quality of life, and postoperative complications following orthopaedic surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of modifiable lifestyle risk factors on postoperative medical and surgical complications following a total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in a large national healthcare system. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of a large national health system database was performed to identify patients who underwent TJA between 2017 and 2021. TJA included total knee arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty, and total shoulder arthroplasty. Modifiable lifestyle risk factors were defined as tobacco use, narcotic drug abuse, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. Postoperative medical complications and postoperative surgical complications were collected. Logistic regression and odds ratio point estimate analysis were conducted to assess for associations between postoperative complications and modifiable lifestyle risk factors. RESULTS: Of the 16,940 patients identified, the mean age was 71 years, mean BMI was 29.7 kg/m2, and 62% were women. We found that 3.5% had used narcotics, 8.7% were past or current smokers, 24% had diabetes, and 61% had hypertension; in addition, 5.4% experienced postoperative medical complications and 6.4% experienced postoperative surgical complications. Patients who used narcotics were 90% more likely to have postoperative complications (p < 0.0001) and 105% more likely to experience prosthetic complications (p < 0.0001). Similarly, patients with tobacco use were 65% more likely to have postoperative complications (p < 0.0001) and 27% more likely to experience prosthetic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate critical rates of increased postoperative medical and surgical complications after TJA for patients with narcotic abuse, tobacco use, or diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, adopting preoperative interventions and optimization programs informed by our findings on specific modifiable risk factors could aid orthopaedic surgeons in optimizing patient health. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; Retrospective study.

Assessing Fatigue in Patients Receiving Kidney Replacement Therapy Using PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Fatigue is a debilitating symptom for many patients receiving kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Patient-reported outcome measures can help clinicians identify and manage fatigue efficiently. We assessed the measurement characteristics of the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Fatigue Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS-F CAT) in patients receiving KRT using the previously validated Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) questionnaire. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 198 adults treated with dialysis or recipients of a kidney transplant in Toronto, Canada. PREDICTORS: Demographic data, FACIT-F scores, KRT type. OUTCOME: Measurement properties of PROMIS-F CAT T scores. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Reliability and test-retest reliability were assessed using standard errors of measurement and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Construct validity was assessed using correlation and comparisons across predefined groups expected to have different levels of fatigue. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the discrimination of PROMIS-F CAT, with clinically relevant fatigue defined by a FACIT-F score of≤30. RESULTS: Of the 198 participants, 57% were male, the mean±SD age was 57±14 years; 65% had received a kidney transplant. Based on the FACIT-F score, 47 patients (24%) had clinically relevant fatigue. PROMIS-F CAT and FACIT-F were strongly correlated (ρ =-0.80, P<0.001). PROMIS-F CAT had excellent reliability (>0.90 for 98% of sample), and good test-retest reliability (ICC=0.85). The ROC analysis demonstrated outstanding discrimination (area under ROC=0.93 [95%, CI 0.89-0.97]). A PROMIS-F CAT cutoff score of≥59 accurately identified most patients with clinically relevant fatigue (sensitivity=0.83; specificity=0.91). LIMITATIONS: A convenience sample of clinically stable patients. FACIT-F items are a part of the PROMIS-F item bank, although there was minimal overlap with only 4 FACIT-F items completed in PROMIS-F CAT. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS-F CAT has robust measurement properties with low question burden to assess fatigue among patients with KRT.

Patient-reported outcomes of maintenance rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare NFOSI-18 Disease Related Symptoms - Physical (DRSP), Total score, and side effect bother between maintenance rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) vs. placebo in the phase III ARIEL3 trial. METHODS: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) included patients with ovarian carcinoma who responded to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. The NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were secondary endpoints. The NFOSI-18 contains a side effect impact item (GP5): "I am bothered by side effects of treatment." We compared treatment arms on change from baseline of DRS-P and Total scores using mixed models with repeated measures (MRMM). Time to first and confirmed deterioration of NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were analyzed using Cox regression. We also calculated the proportion of patients reporting moderate to high side effect bother on GP5. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat (ITT) cohort, mean change from baseline favored the placebo. Compared to placebo, rucaparib was associated with higher risk of deterioration [e.g., 4-point deteriorator definition hazard ratio (HR): 1.85; 95% CI: 1.46, 2.36; median time to first deterioration on DRSP: 1.9 vs. 7.0 months]. Confirmed deterioration results resembled those for first deterioration. Proportions of patients reporting moderate/high side effect bother on GP5 fluctuated around 20% across treatment cycles. Results in BRCA mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts were generally similar to those from the ITT cohort. CONCLUSION: This placebo-controlled study in the maintenance therapy setting provides a unique view of the impact of PARP inhibition on the patient-reported outcomes that are commonly used in ovarian cancer clinical trials. Information regarding the adverse side effect impact of PARP inhibitors should be weighed against their clinical benefit.

Two-step screening for depressive symptoms in patients treated with kidney replacement therapies: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systematic screening for depressive symptoms may identify patients who may benefit from clinical assessment and psychosocial support. Here we assess a two-step screening using ultrabrief pre-screeners [Edmonton Symptom Assessment Survey-revised Depression item (ESASr-D) or Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2)] followed by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression questionnaire (PROMIS-D) to identify depressive symptoms in patients on kidney replacement therapies. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adults (kidney transplant recipients or treated with dialysis) in Toronto, ON, Canada. We simulated various two-step screening scenarios where only patients above a pre-screening cut-off score on the ESASr-D or PHQ-2 would move to step 2 (PROMIS-D). Screening performance was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) as the referent. The average number of items completed by patients in different scenarios was reported. RESULTS: Of 480 participants, 60% were male with a mean age of 55 years. Based on PHQ-9, 19% of patients had moderate or severe depressive symptoms. Pre-screening with a PHQ-2 score ≥1 combined with a PROMIS-D score of ≥53 provided the best two-step results (sensitivity 0.81, specificity 0.84, NPV 0.95). Two-step screening also reduces question burden. CONCLUSIONS: A two-step screening using a PHQ-2 score ≥1 followed by a PROMIS-D score ≥53 has good sensitivity and specificity for identifying potentially significant depressive symptoms among patients on kidney replacement therapies. This approach has lower question burden. Screened-in patients will need further clinical assessment to establish a diagnosis.

A viewpoint describing the American Society of Transplantation rationale to conduct a comprehensive patient survey assessing unmet immunosuppressive therapy needs.

This viewpoint aims to "set the stage" and provide the rationale for the proposed development of a large-scale, comprehensive survey assessing transplant patients' perceived unmet immunosuppressive therapy needs. Research in organ transplantation has historically focused on reducing the incidence and impact of rejection on allograft survival and minimizing or eliminating the need for chronic immunosuppressive therapies. There has been less emphasis and investment in therapies to improve patient-reported outcomes including health-related quality of life and side-effects. Patient-focused drug development (PFDD) is a new and important emphasis of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that provides a guiding philosophy for incorporating the patient experience into drug development and evaluation. The American Society of Transplantation (AST) Board of Directors commissioned this working group to prepare for the conduct of a comprehensive patient survey assessing unmet immunosuppressive therapy needs. This paper aims to describe the basis for why it is important to conduct this survey and briefly outline the plan for broad stakeholder engagement to ensure the information gained is diverse, inclusive, and relevant for advancing PFDD in organ transplant recipients.

Does Scoring Method Impact Estimation of Significant Individual Changes Assessed by Patient-Reported Outcome Measures? Comparing Classical Test Theory Versus Item Response Theory.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the ability of classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) scores assessed by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures to identify significant individual changes in the setting of clinical studies, using both simulated and empirical data. METHODS: We used simulated data to compare the estimation of significant individual changes between CTT and IRT scores across different conditions and a clinical trial data set to verify the simulation results. We calculated reliable change indexes to estimate significant individual changes. RESULTS: For small true change, IRT scores showed a slightly higher rate of classifying change groups than CTT scores and were comparable with CTT scores for a shorter test length. Additionally, IRT scores were found to have a prominent advantage in the classification rates of change groups for medium to high true change over CTT scores. Such an advantage became prominent in a longer test length. The empirical data analysis results using an anchor-based approach further supported the above findings that IRT scores can more accurately classify participants into change groups than CTT scores. CONCLUSIONS: Given that IRT scores perform better, or at least comparably, in most conditions, we recommend using IRT scores to estimate significant individual changes and identify responders to treatment. This study provides evidence-based guidance in detecting individual changes based on CTT and IRT scores under various measurement conditions and leads to recommendations for identifying responders to treatment for participants in clinical trials.

Likely change indexes improve estimates of individual change on patient-reported outcomes.

PURPOSE: Individual change on a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure can be assessed by statistical significance and meaningfulness to patients. We explored the relationship between these two criteria by varying the confidence levels of the coefficient of repeatability (CR) on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (R) Physical Function (PF) 10a (PF10a) measure. METHODS: In a sample of 1129 adult cancer patients, we estimated individual-change thresholds on the PF10a from baseline to 6 weeks later with the CR at 50%, 68%, and 95% confidence. We also assessed agreement with group- and individual-level thresholds from anchor-based methods [mean change and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve] using a PF-specific patient global impression of change (PGIC). RESULTS: CRs at 50%, 68%, and 95% confidence were 3, 4, and 7 raw score points, respectively. The ROC- and mean-change-based thresholds for deterioration were -4 and -6; for improvement they were both 2. Kappas for agreement between anchor-based thresholds and CRs for deterioration ranged between κ = 0.65 and 1.00, while for improvement, they ranged between 0.35 and 0.83. Agreement between the PGIC and all CRs always fell below "good" (κ < 0.40) for deterioration (0.30-0.33) and were lower for improvement (0.16-0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to the CR at 95% confidence, CRs at 50% and 68% confidence (considered likely change indexes) have the advantage of maximizing the proportion of patients appropriately classified as changed according to statistical significance and meaningfulness.

International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials.

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and related considerations for instrument selection and trial design in registrational cancer clinical trials, building on prior communications about the use of PROs to assess efficacy and tolerability in oncology drug development. The International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Standards and Best Practices Committee led an initiative to draft a commentary about the guidance, focusing on its positive aspects and areas that would benefit from additional clarification and consideration. For comprehensiveness, the authors reviewed existing public comments on the draft guidance, and the commentary underwent a thorough review process through three ISOQOL Special Interest Groups (Psychometrics, Clinical Practice, and Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Engagement) followed by the ISOQOL Board. The goal of this commentary is to situate this new and relevant guidance document within the context of recent regulatory efforts on PROs and highlight areas in which further work may ultimately benefit the field.

Are cultural or psychosocial factors associated with patient-reported outcomes at the conclusion of kidney transplant evaluation?

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant evaluation (KTE) is a period marked by many stressors for patients, which may lead to poorer patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Research on the association of cultural and psychosocial factors with PROs during KTE is lacking, even though cultural and psychosocial variables may mitigate the relationship between acceptance status and PROs. METHODS: Using a prospective cohort study of 955 adults referred for KTE, we examined whether cultural factors and psychosocial characteristics, assessed at the initiation of KTE, are associated with PROs at KTE completion, controlling for demographics and medical factors. Also, we analyzed whether these factors moderate the relationship between transplant acceptance status and PROs. RESULTS: In multivariable regression models, a stronger sense of mastery was associated with higher physical and mental QOL. A stronger sense of self-esteem was associated with higher kidney-specific QOL. Depression was associated with a lower mental QOL, but only in those who were accepted for transplant. Having low levels of external locus of control was associated with better mental QOL in those who were not accepted for transplant. Higher anxiety was associated with poorer kidney-specific QOL among those who were not accepted for KT, but trust in physician was only associated with greater satisfaction in transplant clinic service for those who were accepted for KT. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting interventions to increase patient mastery and external locus of control, and reduce depression and anxiety in patients undergoing kidney transplant evaluation may be useful approaches to improve their experience during this stressful period.

Do You Recall?: Results From a Within-Person Recall Study of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form v2.0 - Physical Function 8c.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether responses to Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form v2.0 - Physical Function 8c (PROMIS PF8c) items differed when the use of a 7-day recall period was compared with no specified recall period. METHODS: Using a within-subject design, we surveyed 1810 individuals from the US general population, administering PROMIS PF8c at survey beginning and end. The order of measure presentation was randomly assigned. We calculated recall difference scores (RDSs) as no recall score minus 7-day recall score using both item response theory-based T scores and raw summed scores. We examined the distribution and created Bland-Altman plots for both RDSTscore and RDSRaw. We also calculated correlations between no recall versus 7-day recall T score and raw scores. Finally, we determined whether differences in no recall versus 7-day recall scores were associated with patient-reported PF. RESULTS: RDSTscore and RDSRaw had means (root mean square differences) of 0.00 (5.43) and -0.04 (3.79), respectively. The vast majority (%) of RDSTscore and RDSRaw values fell between the Bland-Altman limits of agreement (-10.65 to 10.66 and -7.46 to 7.38, respectively). Pearson's correlations between no recall and 7-day recall for T scores and raw scores were 0.88 and 0.87, respectively. Effect sizes for mean RDSTscore and RDSRaw compared across level of Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group performance status, patient global impression of PF severity, and single PF items were near 0. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any significant recall period effect on PF8c responses. Therefore, we recommend the use of the PROMIS physical function standard, with no specified recall time period.

Validity of a single-item indicator of treatment side effect bother in a diverse sample of cancer patients.

PURPOSE: With higher efficacy of cancer therapies, the numbers and types of side effects experienced by patients have also increased, evidencing a need for brief assessments of side effect bother. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) includes the item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" (GP5). This study aimed to confirm GP5's validity in a large, diverse, real-world patient sample. METHODS: Real-world data were drawn from 10 Adelphi Disease Specific Programmes (DSP™) conducted between 2015 and 2019 in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and the USA, covering 10 cancer sites. We examined correlations between GP5 responses and varied measures of patient-reported global health and the number of side effects experienced. We explored whether more advanced patients and those with worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Rating (ECOG PSR) reported greater side effect bother. Finally, we conducted differential item functioning (DIF) assessment using the Mantel-Haenszel approach. RESULTS: The sample included 6755 advanced cancer patients. GP5 responses were distributed similarly across most cancer sites. A moderate, negative correlation (rpolyserial = - 0.43) between GP5 responses and global health evidenced convergent validity. Known groups validity was evidenced by dichotomised distributions of GP5, showing expected results between cancer stage 2 vs. 3 and 4 and with ECOG PSR (p < 0.001). Little evidence of DIF was found. CONCLUSION: GP5 exhibited evidence of validity across cancer sites and countries and appeared to measure the same construct across these countries. GP5 has significant promise as a summary indicator of side effect bother.

How do patients interpret and respond to a single-item global indicator of cancer treatment tolerability?

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in patient-reported measures of cancer treatment tolerability. A global measure of bother, the FACT GP5 item ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment") is potentially useful for regulatory, research, and clinical use. To understand this item's appropriateness for capturing treatment tolerability, we conducted cognitive interviews on this item with 3 samples of cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with ovarian cancer (Study 1: N = 21; on treatment), lymphoma (Study 2: N = 14; on treatment), and colorectal or lung cancer (Study 3: N = 16; treatment naïve) were interviewed about GP5's understandability and relevance to their treatment side effects. What patients think about when answering GP5 was also assessed. In all studies, the interview included both structured and open-ended questions. Qualitative data were coded to extract themes and responses to structured questions were tallied. RESULTS: Most patients on treatment (Studies 1 and 2) reported that the GP5 item wording is appropriate (88%) and its meaning is clear (97%). They were very confident or confident in their response (97%) and stated that GP5 was relevant to their cancer experience (97%). When answering GP5, patients considered their treatment and specific side effects. A large proportion (40%) of the treatment-naïve (Study 3) patients reported that GP5 was not relevant to their cancer treatment, and the largest proportion responded to GP5 thinking of negative side effect expectancies. CONCLUSION: This study provides assurance that GP5 is a useful indicator of treatment tolerability, and is meaningful to people with cancer, especially once they have started treatment.