A Phase 3 Study of Pembrolizumab versus Placebo for Previously Treated Patients from Asia with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Health-Related Quality of Life Analysis from KEYNOTE-394.

Introduction: KEYNOTE-394 showed pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate with manageable safety versus placebo for patients from Asia with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We present results on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods: HRQoL was evaluated using the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaires. Key HRQoL endpoints were least squares mean (LSM) score changes from baseline to week 12 and time to deterioration (TTD) for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL. p values were one-sided and nominal without adjustment for multiplicity. Results: The HRQoL population included patients randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n = 298) and placebo (n = 152). From baseline to week 12, a greater decline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score was observed with placebo (LSM, -8.4; 95% CI: -11.7 to -5.1) versus pembrolizumab (-4.0; 95% CI: -6.4 to -1.6; difference vs. placebo: 4.4; 95% CI: 0.5-8.4; nominal p = 0.0142). Similarly, a greater decline in the EQ-5D-3L visual analog scale score was observed with placebo (-6.9; 95% CI: -9.4 to -4.5) versus pembrolizumab (-2.7; 95% CI: -4.5 to -1.0; difference vs. placebo: 4.2; 95% CI: 1.2-7.2; nominal p = 0.0030). TTD in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score was similar between arms (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI: 0.58-1.25; nominal p = 0.1993). Conclusion: Patients receiving placebo showed a greater decline in HRQoL than those receiving pembrolizumab. Combined with efficacy and safety data from KEYNOTE-394 and the global KEYNOTE-240 and KEYNOTE-224 trials, our data support the clinically meaningful benefit and manageable tolerability of pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Health-related quality-of-life analysis from KEYNOTE-590: pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the KEYNOTE-590 study, first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provided statistically significant improvement in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate compared with chemotherapy, with a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced esophageal cancer. Prespecified health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes are reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Change from baseline to week 18 in the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL) and QLQ-Esophageal cancer module (OES18) dysphagia, pain, and reflux scales were evaluated. RESULTS: The HRQoL analysis included 730 patients who received treatment and completed ≥1 HRQoL assessment. Least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to week 18 was similar between treatment groups for QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and physical functioning and QLQ-OES18 reflux scales. The QLQ-OES18 dysphagia (LSM difference, -5.54; 95% CI, -10.93 to -0.16) and pain (LSM difference, -2.94; 95% CI, -5.86 to -0.02) scales favored pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy over placebo plus chemotherapy. Median time to confirmed deterioration (TTD) was similar between treatment groups for QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and physical functioning and QLQ-OES18 dysphagia and reflux scales. Compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy prolonged median TTD, as seen on the QLQ-OES18 pain scale (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.95). CONCLUSION: The use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy maintained HRQoL at week 18 relative to baseline and was comparable with placebo plus chemotherapy. These HRQoL results together with published reports of efficacy, support the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced/metastatic esophageal cancer. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID: NCT03189719.

Psychometric evaluation of the respiratory syncytial virus infection, intensity and impact questionnaire (RSV-iiiQ) in adults.

BACKGROUND: Despite a number of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine candidates being tested in clinical trials, disease-specific, self-reported instruments assessing symptom severity of RSV infection from the perspective of adult patients are still needed. The RSV Infection, Intensity and Impact Questionnaire (RSV-iiiQ) was adapted from the Influenza Intensity and Impact Questionnaire (FluiiQ™). This study evaluated some measurement properties of the RSV-iiiQ. METHODS: Data were collected in a web-based survey over two consecutive days. Participants completed the RSV-iiiQ, the Patient Global Impression of Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale, Patient Global Impression of Change, EQ-5D-5L, and a demographic questionnaire. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and responsiveness of the RSV-iiiQ scales were assessed. RESULTS: 111 adults with RSV were enrolled and self-reported a variety of symptoms across the range of disease severity via a web-based platform. The RSV-iiiQ scales demonstrated satisfactory test-retest reliability, construct validity, and discriminating ability. One-factor confirmatory factor analyses confirmed that each of the four scales was sufficiently unidimensional, and internal consistencies indicated that the computation of RSV-iiiQ scale scores was plausible. Correlation-based analyses provided support for the construct validity of the RSV-iiiQ scores, and known groups analyses supported discriminating ability. Estimates of responsiveness of the scale scores were also satisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: RSV infection is highly symptomatic and causes significant disease burden, and self-report instruments assessing symptom severity and impact are important for evaluation of new treatments. This study describes the preliminary psychometric properties of the RSV-iiiQ and indicates this tool may be useful for the assessment of the severity of symptoms and impact of acute RSV infection in adults. The findings also indicated two items, Runny nose and Ear pain, may be unnecessary and should be revisited using item response theory analysis with a larger sample size.

Current Practices and Challenges When Submitting Patient Experience Data for Regulatory Decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration: An Industry Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To understand industry practices and challenges when submitting patient experience data (PED) for regulatory decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: A two-part online survey related to collection, submission, and use of PED by FDA in regulatory decision-making (part 1) and a best-worst exercise for prioritizing potential PED initiatives (part 2) was completed by industry and contract research organization (CRO) members with ≥ 2 years of recent experience with patient-reported outcome (PRO), natural history study (NHS), or patient preference (PP) data; and direct experience with FDA filings including PED. RESULTS: A total of 50 eligible respondents (84% industry) completed part 1 of the survey, among which 46 completed part 2. Respondents mostly had PRO (86%) and PP (50%) experience. All indicated that FDA meetings should have a standing agenda item to discuss PED. Most (78%) reported meetings should occur before pivotal trials. A common challenge was justifying inclusion without knowing if and how data will be used. Most agreed that FDA and industry should co-develop the PED table in the FDA clinical review (74%), and the table should report reason(s) for not using PED (96%) in regulatory decision-making. Most important efforts to advance PED use in decision-making were a dedicated meeting pathway and expanded FDA guidance (51% each). CONCLUSIONS: FDA has policy targets expanding PED use, but challenges remain regarding pathways for PED submission and transparency in regulatory decision-making. Alignment on the use of existing meeting opportunities to discuss PED, co-development of the PED table, and expanded guidance are encouraged.

Impact of Molnupiravir Treatment on Patient-Reported COVID-19 Symptoms in the Phase 3 MOVe-OUT Trial: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir is an orally administered antiviral authorized for COVID-19 treatment in adults at high risk of progression to severe disease. Here, we report secondary and post hoc analyses of participants' self-reported symptoms in the MOVe-OUT trial, which evaluated molnupiravir initiated within 5 days of symptom onset in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: Eligible participants completed a 15-item symptom diary daily from day 1 (randomization) through day 29, rating symptom severity as "none," "mild," "moderate," or "severe"; loss of smell and loss of taste were rated as "yes" or "no." Time to sustained symptom resolution/improvement was defined as the number of days from randomization to the first of 3 consecutive days of reduced severity, without subsequent relapse. Time to symptom progression was defined as the number of days from randomization to the first of 2 consecutive days of worsening severity. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate event rates at various time points. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio between molnupiravir and placebo. RESULTS: For most targeted COVID-19 symptoms, sustained resolution/improvement was more likely, and progression was less likely, in the molnupiravir versus placebo group through day 29. When evaluating 5 distinctive symptoms of COVID-19, molnupiravir participants had a shorter median time to first resolution (18 vs 20 d) and first alleviation (13 vs 15 d) of symptoms compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir treatment in at-risk, unvaccinated patients resulted in improved clinical outcomes for most participant-reported COVID-19 symptoms compared with placebo. Clinical Trials Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04575597.

Assessing the patient experience of respiratory syncytial virus infection: development of a patient-reported outcome measure.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes significant morbidity and mortality in older adults. Despite a number of RSV vaccine candidates in clinical trials, there are no existing disease-specific, self-reported measures that assess the symptoms and severity of RSV infection from the perspective of adult patients with acute RSV. The objective of this study was to describe the initial conceptualization and development of the RSV Infection, Intensity and Impact Questionnaire (RSV-iiiQ), a new patient-reported outcome measure. METHODS: A targeted review of the literature identified relevant existing measures, symptoms, and impacts of RSV. A draft version of the RSV-iiiQ was developed based on the Influenza Intensity and Impact Questionnaire (Flu-iiQ) with expert input. Qualitative interviews (N = 20) were conducted with participants to optimize the RSV-iiiQ conceptual model and confirm the content validity of the RSV-iiiQ. Interviews included concept elicitation and a cognitive debriefing assessment. A draft conceptual framework was developed, and the electronic clinical outcome assessment was piloted. All steps of instrument development followed Food and Drug Administration guidance for patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: In-depth concept elicitation interviews followed by cognitive debriefings demonstrated that the content of the items was comprehensive, covered the breadth of RSV symptoms and impacts, and was relevant to the experiences of individuals with RSV. Both the paper and electronic versions of the RSV-iiiQ were easily completed. Minor refinements were made to some items based on participant feedback, and the draft conceptual framework was refined. CONCLUSIONS: The RSV-iiiQ was developed for use in clinical trials to measure the symptom intensity and impact of acute RSV infection from the perspective of adult patients. The tool was developed in accordance with current regulatory guidance and is useful to support patient-focused drug development.

Health-related quality of life in patients treated with pembrolizumab for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient advanced solid tumours: Results from the KEYNOTE-158 study.

BACKGROUND: In the KEYNOTE-158 study (NCT02628067), pembrolizumab showed a high objective response rate and durable clinical benefit for patients with previously treated, unresectable/metastatic microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair‒deficient (dMMR) non-colorectal solid tumours. We present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results from the MSI-H/dMMR population (cohort K). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had previously treated MSI-H/dMMR advanced non-colorectal solid tumours, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, and ECOG performance status ≤1. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles (2 years). The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and EQ-5D-3L were administered at baseline, at regular intervals throughout treatment, and 30 days after treatment discontinuation. Prespecified analyses (exploratory endpoints) included the magnitude of change from baseline to post-baseline timepoints in all patients and by the best overall response for QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL, QLQ-C30 functional/symptom scales/items, and EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) score. RESULTS: At data cutoff (October 5, 2020), 351 patients were enrolled, of whom 311 and 315 completed baseline QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires, respectively. QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores improved from baseline to week 9 (mean [95% CI] change, 3.07 [0.19-5.94]), then remained stable or improved by week 111, with greater improvements observed in patients with a best response of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (10.85 [6.36-15.35]). Patients with CR/PR showed improvements in physical (5.58 [1.91-9.25]), role (9.88 [3.80-15.97]), emotional (5.62 [1.56-9.68]), and social (8.33 [2.70-13.97]) functioning, and stable cognitive functioning (1.74 [-1.45 to 4.94]). CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab generally improved or preserved HRQoL in patients with previously treated MSI-H/dMMR advanced non-colorectal solid tumours.

Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Health-related quality-of-life results from KEYNOTE-048.

OBJECTIVES: To assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with first-line pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab-chemotherapy, or cetuximab-chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-048 trial (NCT02358031). MATERIALS AND METHODS: HRQoL was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-question quality-of-life (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC 35-question quality-of-life head and neck cancer-specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35), and the EuroQol 5-dimension 3-level instruments (EQ-5D-3L). Secondary endpoints included mean change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) at week 15 and time to deterioration (TTD) in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and EORTC QLQ-H&N35 pain and swallowing. RESULTS: Of 882 enrolled participants, 844 received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥ 1 HRQoL assessment; adherence was ≥ 79% at week 15 across treatment groups. At week 15, EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores remained stable; no clinically meaningful between-group differences were observed (least squares mean difference, pembrolizumab vs cetuximab-chemotherapy, 0.24; 95% CI, -3.34 to 3.82; pembrolizumab-chemotherapy vs cetuximab-chemotherapy, 0.40; 95% CI, -3.46 to 4.26). Median TTD in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL and EORTC QLQ-H&N35 pain and swallowing scores was not reached over 51 weeks across groups, showing stable HRQoL. TTD was similar between groups for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (pembrolizumab vs cetuximab-chemotherapy: HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.95-2.00; pembrolizumab-chemotherapy vs cetuximab-chemotherapy: HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.94-2.00), as was TTD in EORTC QLQ-H&N35 pain and swallowing scores. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab-chemotherapy extended OS while maintaining HRQoL, further supporting first-line use for R/M HNSCC.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (NSCLC-SAQ): Measurement Properties and Estimated Clinically Meaningful Thresholds From a Phase 3 Study.

Introduction: The NSCLC Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (NSCLC-SAQ) was developed to assess NSCLC symptom severity in accordance with Food and Drug Administration evidentiary expectations leading to Food and Drug Administration qualification in 2018. This study evaluated the NSCLC-SAQ's measurement properties within a clinical trial. Methods: The KEYNOTE-598 phase 3 study of participants with stage IV metastatic NSCLC with programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score greater than or equal to 50% was used to assess the NSCLC-SAQ's reliability, construct validity, responsiveness, and estimate clinically meaningful within-person change. Other patient-reported outcome measures included patient global impression items of severity and change in lung cancer symptoms, and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 and lung cancer module, LC13. Results: Participants (N = 560) were mostly men (70%), had a mean age of 64 years, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (64%) or 0 (36%). Internal consistency at baseline (Cronbach's α = 0.74) and test-retest reliability after 3 weeks (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.79) were satisfactory. NSCLC-SAQ items, domains, and total score correlated moderately to highly with patient-reported outcome measures capturing similar content, and the total score differentiated among patient global impression of severity groups (p < 0.001). The total score detected improvement over time and the estimated clinically meaningful within-person change threshold for improvement ranged from three to five points on the 0 to 20 scale. Few participants exhibited symptom worsening (n = 38), limiting inferences in this group. Conclusions: The NSCLC-SAQ was found to be reliable, valid, responsive, and interpretable for assessing symptom improvement in NSCLC. Further evaluation is recommended in trial participants whose symptoms worsen over time.

Defining changes in physical limitation from the patient perspective: insights from the VITALITY-HFpEF randomized trial.

AIMS: Clinically important thresholds in patient-reported outcomes measures like the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) have not been defined for patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The aim of this study was to estimate meaningful thresholds for improvement or worsening in the KCCQ physical limitation score (PLS) in patients with HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this pre-specified analysis from VITALITY-HFpEF, anchor- and distribution-based approaches were used to estimate thresholds for improvement or worsening in the KCCQ-PLS using Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) as an anchor. The KCCQ-PLS contains six elements, with each increment in response resulting in a change of 4.17 points when converted to a 0-100 scale. The mean change in KCCQ-PLS from baseline to week 12 was calculated for each PGIC group to estimate a meaningful within-patient change. Of 789 patients enrolled, 698 had complete KCCQ-PLS and PGIC data at week 12. The mean (± standard deviation) changes in KCCQ-PLS corresponding to PGIC changes of 'a little better', 'better', and 'much better' were 5.7 ± 18.6, 11.6 ± 19.3, and 18.4 ± 25.3 points, respectively. The scores of patients who responded 'a little better' (n = 177) overlapped substantially with those who reported 'no change' (n = 193; mean change 2.8 ± 18.9). The mean change in KCCQ-PLS for patients responding 'a little worse' (n = 32) was -2.6 ± 18.0 points. The threshold for meaningful within-patient change in KCCQ-PLS based on distribution-based analyses was 12.3 points. Using area under the curve (AUC) analyses of KCCQ-PLS, the sensitivity and specificity of a 4.17-point change were 0.61 and 0.57, for an 8.33-point change they were 0.49 and 0.64, and for a 12.5-point change they were 0.44 and 0.72 for being at least a little better on the PGIC (AUC = 0.54). CONCLUSION: In the VITALITY-HFpEF trial, a change in KCCQ-PLS of ≥8.33 points (corresponding to an improvement in ≥2 response categories of KCCQ-PLS) may represent the minimal clinically important difference for improvement and a change of ≤ -4.17 points (corresponding to a worsening in ≥1 response category of KCCQ-PLS) may suggest deterioration in patients with HFpEF.

Impact of Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Esophageal Cancer on Health-Related Quality of Life in KEYNOTE-181.

PURPOSE: In the phase III KEYNOTE-181 study (NCT02564263) of patients with advanced esophageal cancer (EC), pembrolizumab monotherapy prolonged overall survival versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy in patients with programmed death ligand 1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10. We present the results of the prespecified health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) analyses of the squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), CPS ≥ 10, and CPS ≥ 10 SCC populations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQoL was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ EC questionnaire (OES18), and EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Data were analyzed in patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥ 1 HRQoL assessment. Key analyses included baseline to week 9 least squares mean change in global health status/quality of life, functional or symptom subscales, and time to deterioration (≥ 10-point deterioration) for specific subscales. RESULTS: The HRQoL population included 387 patients with SCC. Compliance and completion rates for all three questionnaires were similar in both treatment groups at baseline and week 9. No clinically meaningful differences in global health status/quality of life scores were observed between treatment groups from baseline to week 9 (least squares mean difference, 2.80; 95% CI, -1.48 to 7.08); patients in both treatment groups generally exhibited stable functioning and symptom scores of the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18 from baseline to week 9. Time to deterioration for pain (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.89), reflux (HR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.33 to 4.25), and dysphagia (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.31) subscales were similar between treatment groups. These findings were generally similar in the CPS ≥ 10 (n = 218) and CPS ≥ 10 SCC (n = 166) subgroups. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced EC, pembrolizumab monotherapy and chemotherapy maintained HRQoL in patients with SCC, CPS ≥ 10, and CPS ≥ 10 SCC.

Health-related quality of life in advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer with second-line pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-061.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis population (i.e., PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] ≥ 1) of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 study (NCT02370498), pembrolizumab did not significantly prolong overall survival or progression-free survival. Pembrolizumab had a favorable safety profile in the all-patient population. We present results of prespecified health-related quality of life (HRQoL) analyses. METHODS: HRQoL was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ gastric cancer questionnaire (QLQ-STO22), and EuroQol 5-dimension, 3-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Data were analyzed from patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment and who completed ≥ 1 HRQoL assessment. Key analyses included baseline to week 12 least-squares mean (LSM) change in global health status (GHS)/QoL, functional/symptom subscales, and time to deterioration (TTD; ≥ 10-point decrease from baseline) for specific subscales. RESULTS: The HRQoL population included 371 patients (pembrolizumab, n = 188; paclitaxel, n = 183). Compliance and completion rates for all 3 questionnaires were similar in both groups at baseline and week 12. There was no difference in LSM change between groups (- 3.54; 95% CI - 8.92 to 1.84) in GHS/QoL at week 12. LSM change from baseline to week 12 for most QLQ-C30, QLQ-STO22, and EQ-5D-3L subscales indicated some worsening of QoL in both groups. TTD for GHS/QoL, nausea/vomiting, and appetite loss subscales in QLQ-C30 and the pain subscales in QLQ-STO22 were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this population with advanced gastric and GEJ cancer receiving second-line treatment, HRQoL was similar in patients receiving pembrolizumab and those receiving paclitaxel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY AND NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02370498.

SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

Health-related quality of life in patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (KEYNOTE-177): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the KEYNOTE-177 study, pembrolizumab monotherapy provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. To further support the efficacy and safety findings of the KEYNOTE-177 study, results of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) analyses are reported here. METHODS: KEYNOTE-177 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial being done at 192 cancer centres in 23 countries, in patients aged 18 years and older with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had not received previous systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by use of interactive voice response or integrated web response technology to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or investigator's choice chemotherapy (mFOLFOX6 [leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin] or FOLFIRI [leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan] intravenously every 2 weeks with or without intravenous bevacizumab or cetuximab). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (previously reported) and overall survival (data to be reported at the time of the final analysis). HRQOL outcomes were evaluated as prespecified exploratory endpoints. The analysis population comprised all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one HRQOL assessment. HRQOL outcomes were mean change from baseline to prespecified week 18 in European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal 29 (EORTC QLQ-CR29) scale and item scores, and in the EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale and health utility scores; the proportion of patients with improved, stable, or deteriorated scores from baseline to prespecified week 18 in EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and items; and time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), physical functioning, social functioning, and fatigue scores and EORTC QLQ-CR29 urinary incontinence scores. The threshold for a small and clinically meaningful mean difference in EORTC QLQ-C30 score was 5-8 points. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02563002 and is ongoing; recruitment is closed. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11, 2016, and Feb 19, 2018, 307 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=153) or chemotherapy (n=154). The HRQOL analysis population comprised 294 patients (152 receiving pembrolizumab and 142 receiving chemotherapy). As of Feb 19, 2020, median time from randomisation to data cutoff was 32·4 months (IQR 27·7-37·8). Least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to prespecified week 18 showed a clinically meaningful improvement in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL scores with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (between-group LSM difference 8·96 [95% CI 4·24-13·69]; two-sided nominal p=0·0002). Median time to deterioration was longer with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for GHS/QOL (hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·38-0·98]; one-sided nominal p=0·019), physical functioning (0·50 [95% CI 0·32-0·81]; one-sided nominal p=0·0016), social functioning (0·53 [95% CI 0·32-0·87]; one-sided nominal p=0·0050), and fatigue scores (0·48 [95% CI 0·33-0·69]; one-sided nominal p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab monotherapy led to clinically meaningful improvements in HRQOL compared with chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. These data, along with the previously reported clinical benefits, support pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment option for this population. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Health-related quality-of-life impact of pembrolizumab versus best supportive care in previously systemically treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: KEYNOTE-240.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome measure and prognostic indicator in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 (NCT02702401) assessed the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC in patients with HCC who previously received sorafenib. This study presents the results of a prespecified exploratory analysis of patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and its HCC supplement (EORTC QLQ-HCC18) electronically at baseline; at weeks 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18; and then every 9 weeks until 1 year or end of treatment, and at the 30-day safety follow-up visit. RESULTS: The HRQoL population included 271 and 127 patients randomly assigned to pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively. From baseline to week 12, changes in both scores were similar between pembrolizumab and placebo; global health status/QoL scores were stable. The proportions of patients who improved, remained stable, or deteriorated across all functional domain and symptom scores were generally similar between pembrolizumab and placebo. Time to deterioration was similar between the 2 arms based on the prespecified analysis of EORTC QLQ-HCC18 domains of abdominal swelling, fatigue, and pain. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab preserved HRQoL during treatment for advanced HCC. Combined with efficacy and safety results from KEYNOTE-240, these findings support a positive benefit/risk profile for pembrolizumab in a second-line treatment setting for patients with HCC who previously received sorafenib.

Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension.

Importance: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can provide valuable evidence to inform shared decision making, labeling claims, clinical guidelines, and health policy; however, the PRO content of clinical trial protocols is often suboptimal. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was published in 2013 and aims to improve the completeness of trial protocols by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed, but it does not provide PRO-specific guidance. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific protocol guidance (the SPIRIT-PRO Extension). Design, Setting, and Participants: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension was developed following the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework for guideline development. This included (1) a systematic review of existing PRO-specific protocol guidance to generate a list of potential PRO-specific protocol items (published in 2014); (2) refinements to the list and removal of duplicate items by the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Protocol Checklist Taskforce; (3) an international stakeholder survey of clinical trial research personnel, PRO methodologists, health economists, psychometricians, patient advocates, funders, industry representatives, journal editors, policy makers, ethicists, and researchers responsible for evidence synthesis (distributed by 38 international partner organizations in October 2016); (4) an international Delphi exercise (n = 137 invited; October 2016 to February 2017); and (5) consensus meeting (n = 30 invited; May 2017). Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were informed of the results of the Delphi exercise and given data from structured reviews evaluating the PRO protocol content of 3 defined samples of trial protocols. Results: The systematic review identified 162 PRO-specific protocol recommendations from 54 sources. The ISOQOL Taskforce (n = 21) reduced this to 56 items, which were considered by 138 international stakeholder survey participants and 99 Delphi panelists. The final wording of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension was agreed on at a consensus meeting (n = 29 participants) and reviewed by external group of experts during a consultation period. Eleven extensions and 5 elaborations to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist were recommended for inclusion in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Extension items focused on PRO-specific issues relating to the trial rationale, objectives, eligibility criteria, concepts used to evaluate the intervention, time points for assessment, PRO instrument selection and measurement properties, data collection plan, translation to other languages, proxy completion, strategies to minimize missing data, and whether PRO data will be monitored during the study to inform clinical care. Conclusions and Relevance: The SPIRIT-PRO guidelines provide recommendations for items that should be addressed and included in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Improved design of clinical trials including PROs could help ensure high-quality data that may inform patient-centered care.

Assessing the Comparability of Paper and Electronic Versions of the EORTC QOL Module for Head and Neck Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are important tools for monitoring disease activity and response to treatment in clinical trials and clinical practice. In recent years, there have been movements away from traditional pen-and-paper PROs towards electronic administration. When using electronic PROs (ePROs), evidence that respondents complete ePROs in a similar way to their paper counterparts provides assurance that the two modes of administration are comparable or equivalent. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 item (EORTC QLQ-C30) and associated disease-specific modules are among the most widely used PROs in oncology. Although studies have evaluated the comparability and equivalence of electronic and original paper versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30, no such studies have been conducted to date for the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to qualitatively assess the comparability of paper and electronic versions of the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. METHODS: Ten head and neck cancer patients in the United States underwent structured cognitive debriefing and usability interviews. An open randomized crossover design was used in which participants completed the two modes of administration allocated in a randomized order. Using a "think-aloud" process, participants were asked to speak their thoughts aloud while completing the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. They were thoroughly debriefed on their responses to determine consistency in interpretation and cognitive process when completing the instrument in both paper and electronic format. RESULTS: Participants reported that the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 demonstrated excellent qualitative comparability between modes of administration. The proportion of noncomparable responses (ie, where the thought process used by participants for selecting responses appeared to be different) observed in the study was low (11/350 response pairs [35 items x 10 participants]; 3.1%). Evidence of noncomparability was observed for 9 of the 35 items of the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 and in no more than 2 participants per item. In addition, there were no apparent differences in level of comparability between individual participants or between modes of administration. CONCLUSIONS: Mode of administration does not affect participants' response to, or interpretation of, items in the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. The findings from this study add to the existing evidence supporting the use of electronic versions of the EORTC instruments when migrated to electronic platforms according to best practice guidelines.

Psychometric validation of the dysmenorrhea daily diary (DysDD): a patient-reported outcome for dysmenorrhea.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Dysmenorrhea Daily Diary (DysDD), an electronic patient-reported outcome, in a sample of 355 women with primary dysmenorrhea enrolled in a phase IIb, multicenter, randomized, partially blinded, placebo-controlled trial for treatment of dysmenorrhea. METHODS: Subjects completed the DysDD over three menstrual cycles, one pre-treatment baseline cycle and two treatment cycles. The DysDD was administered alongside the Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MDQ), the Short-Form 36 Version 2.0 (SF-36v2), and a Global Assessment of Change (GAC). Item response distributions, test-retest reliability, concurrent and known groups validity, responsiveness, and minimally important difference (MID) were evaluated for the DysDD. RESULTS: As expected, item response distributions varied throughout the menstrual period for all items, with the response scales fully utilized. Within-cycle test-retest reliability was adequate (weighted kappa: 0.5-0.7), although between-cycle test-retest was poor (weighted kappa: 0.1-0.5), most likely due to the highly variable nature of dysmenorrhea between cycles rather than limitations of the measure. Correlations with the MDQ and SF-36v2 were low-moderate, but in the predicted direction, supporting concurrent validity. There were significant differences in DysDD scores across severity groups based on pain medication use. The DysDD was responsive to changes in patients' dysmenorrhea with significantly different changes in scores between change groups (p < 0.0001). MID analyses suggest changes on the DysDD 0-10 pelvic pain score of three points can be considered clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, findings indicate that the DysDD has acceptable reliability and is a valid and responsive instrument for assessing dysmenorrhea.