Plain language summary of quality of life in CheckMate 9ER: Cabozantinib plus nivolumab in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

What is this summary about? This is a plain language summary of an article about the quality-of-life analyses of the CheckMate 9ER study, originally published in the journal The Lancet Oncology.The CheckMate 9ER study compared two different treatment options in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is an advanced form of kidney cancer.Investigators compared a newer drug combination, cabozantinib plus nivolumab (CaboNivo), with another drug called sunitinib. Sunitinib was the standard of care used to treat people with advanced RCC when the study was designed. The purpose of the study was to see whether people diagnosed with advanced RCC lived longer if they were treated with CaboNivo or sunitinib as their first treatment. Their quality of life while on treatment was also measured as part of the study.To understand the effect of treatment on their quality of life, people completed two types of questionnaires at regular intervals during the study.The first was the FACT Kidney Symptom Index (or FKSI-19) questionnaire, designed for people with kidney cancer. FKSI-19 asked questions about people's cancer symptoms and their side effects of cancer treatment, and how these impacted their quality of life. The second questionnaire was the EQ-5D-3L, designed for any person (with or without cancer). EQ-5D-3L asked people to rate five common aspects of health and their overall health.The study also looked at how long it took for quality-of-life questionnaire ratings to worsen.What are the key takeaways? Results for both questionnaires suggested that quality of life was better for people in the CaboNivo group than those in the sunitinib group. People treated with CaboNivo were able to maintain their quality of life for longer than those treated with sunitinib.What are the main conclusions reported by the researchers? Overall, quality-of-life results from the CheckMate 9ER study showed that people treated with CaboNivo lived longer and were less bothered by the impact of their treatment than those treated with sunitinib.Based on these results, CaboNivo is one of the standard-of-care treatments recommended first for people with advanced RCC.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03141177 (CheckMate 9ER) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Patient-reported outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated in CheckMate 9ER: an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the CheckMate 9ER trial, patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significantly better progression-free survival compared with those given sunitinib. In this study, we aimed to describe the patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from CheckMate 9ER. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 125 cancer centres, urology centres, and hospitals across 18 countries, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and available tumour tissue were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day, or oral sunitinib 50 mg per day monotherapy for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously. PROs were analysed as prespecified exploratory endpoints at common timepoints (at baseline and every 6 weeks) until week 115. Disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and global health status was assessed with the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and UK utility index. PRO analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures. A time-to-deterioration analysis was done for first and confirmed deterioration events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 328 to sunitinib. Median follow-up was 23·5 months (IQR 21·0-26·5). At baseline, patients in both groups reported low symptom burden (FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1 mean scores at baseline were 30·24 [SD 5·19] for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 30·06 [5·03] for the sunitinib group). Change from baseline in PRO scores indicated that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with more favourable outcomes versus sunitinib (treatment difference 2·38 [95% CI 1·20-3·56], nominal p<0·0001, effect size 0·33 [95% CI 0·17-0·50] for FKSI-19 total score; 1·33 [0·84-1·83], nominal p<0·0001, 0·45 [0·28-0·61] for FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1; 3·48 [1·58-5·39], nominal p=0·0004, 0·30 [0·14-0·47] for EQ-5D-3L VAS; and 0·04 [0·01-0·07], nominal p=0·0036, 0·25 [0·08-0·41] for EQ-5D-3L UK utility index), reaching significance at most timepoints. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with decreased risk of clinically meaningful deterioration for FKSI-19 total score compared with sunitinib (first deterioration event hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·56-0·86], nominal p=0·0007; confirmed deterioration event 0·63 [0·50-0·80], nominal p=0·0001). INTERPRETATION: PROs were maintained or improved with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome scores. These results suggest a benefit for nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Health-related quality of life impact of bevacizumab when combined with irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin or 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the time to deterioration in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer receiving a 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy regimen with or without the addition of bevacizumab (BV) in two randomized, placebo-controlled studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prespecified HRQoL endpoints in the phase II (Study 2192) and phase III (Study 2107) studies were time to deterioration in HRQoL, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) Colorectal Cancer Subscale (CCS), Trial Outcome Index (TOI-C), and FACT-C total score. Time to deterioration in HRQoL was evaluated for patients with baseline and postbaseline assessments, using the stratified log-rank test. RESULTS: In the pivotal phase III trial, HRQoL baseline and postbaseline CCS scores were available for 127 patients receiving irinotecan, 5-FU, and leucovorin (LV) (IFL) and 122 patients receiving IFL plus BV. The time to deterioration in HRQoL did not differ significantly between treatment groups as measured by the CCS, TOI-C, or FACT-C total score. In the phase II study, baseline and postbaseline CCS scores were available for 77 and 89 patients receiving 5-FU and LV and 5-FU and LV plus BV, respectively. In that study, the time to deterioration in HRQoL was similar between groups as measured by the CCS and TOI-C scores, but was significantly longer in the 5-FU and LV plus BV arm than in the 5-FU and LV plus placebo arm for the FACT-C total score. CONCLUSIONS: When added to 5-FU chemotherapy, BV significantly prolonged overall survival and progression-free survival without compromising HRQoL.

Validation of a patient satisfaction questionnaire for anemia treatment, the PSQ-An.

BACKGROUND: Treating anemia associated with chemotherapy and many cancers is often necessary. However, patient satisfaction with anemia treatment is limited by the lack of validated instruments. We developed and validated a new treatment-specific patient satisfaction instrument: the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire for Anemia Treatment (PSQ-An). Treatment burden and overall satisfaction scales were designed for ease of use in clinical practice. METHODS: 312 cancer patients (141 breast, 69 gynecological, and 102 non-small cell lung) were targeted to complete the PSQ-An at 4 week intervals. Data from weeks 5 and 9 were analyzed. Patients also completed the MOS SF-36 Global Health assessment and questions concerning resources devoted to anemia treatment. Item reduction used endorsement rates, floor/ceiling effects, and item-item correlations. Factor analysis identified meaningful subscales. Test-retest reliability was assessed. Construct validity was tested, using Pearson's correlations, by comparing subscale scores to Global Health, hemoglobin levels, and resources devoted to anemia treatment. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 92.9% (264/284) at week 5. Most (84.2%) of the patients were female, and the mean (SD) age was 60.2 (+/- 11.8) years. Two distinct subscales were identified measuring treatment burden (7 items) and overall satisfaction (2 items). Test-retest reliability was examined (ICC: 0.45-0.67); both were internally consistent (alpha = 0.83). Both subscales exhibited convergent and divergent validity with independent measures of health. ANOVA results indicated that the PSQ-An Satisfaction subscale discriminated between 5 levels of MOS SF-36 Global Health (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The PSQ-An is a validated, treatment-specific instrument for measuring satisfaction with anemia treatment for cancer patients. PSQ-An subscales reflect the burden of injection anemia treatment on cancer patients and their assessment of the overall treatment value.

A retrospective cohort study to assess the impact of therapeutic substitution of darbepoetin alfa for epoetin alfa in anemic patients with myelodysplastic syndrome.

Darbepoetin alfa and epoetin alfa are used to treat anemia in the undertreated population of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). We implemented guidelines to switch anemic patients with MDS from epoetin alfa 40,000 U weekly to darbepoetin alfa 200 microg every 2 weeks and then conducted a retrospective cohort study of the initial 263 treated patients. Patients (> or = 18 years old, MDS diagnosis) were either previously treated with epoetin alfa (received 16 weeks of prior epoetin alfa and either switched to darbepoetin alfa or remained on epoetin alfa) or treatment-naive (no previous erythropoietin therapy and received only 1 agent for 16 weeks). Both major response and minor response based on the International Working Group criteria were calculated. The study was not powered to statistically compare treatment groups; values presented are for descriptive purposes only. Data from 244 patient records were included: 142 previous epoetin alfa patients (80 switched to darbepoetin alfa, 62 remained on epoetin alfa) and 102 naive patients (56 darbepoetin alfa, 46 epoetin alfa). Major response rates were similar between treatment groups in both the naive (46% for darbepoetin alfa, 35% for epoetin alfa) and previous epoetin alfa groups (26% for darbepoetin alfa, 17% for epoetin alfa). Overall response rates were 42%-76% across treatment groups. No differences in transfusions across groups were observed. Treatment of anemic patients with MDS with either darbepoetin alfa or epoetin alfa appeared to be effective. Whereas epoetin alfa was most frequently administered on a weekly basis, darbepoetin alfa was most frequently administered every 2 weeks, which may offer the benefit of convenience with its less frequent dosing.

Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies.

PURPOSE: To provide a practical quantitative tool for appraising the quality of cost-effectiveness (CE) studies. METHODS: A committee comprising [corrected] of health economists selected a set of criteria for the instrument from an item pool. Data collected with a conjoint analysis survey on 120 international health economists were used to estimate weights for each criterion with a random effects regression model. To validate the grading system, a survey was sent to 60 individuals with health economics expertise. Participants first rated the quality of three CE studies on a visual analogue scale, and then evaluated each study using the grading system. Spearman rho and Wilcoxon tests were used to detect convergent validity and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for discriminant validity. Agreement between the global rating by experts and the grading system was also examined. RESULTS: Sixteen criteria were selected. Their coefficient estimates ranged from 1.2 to 8.9, with a sum of 93.5 on a 100-point scale. The only insignificant criterion was "use of subgroup analyses." Both convergent validity and discriminant validity of the grading system were shown by the results of the Spearman rho (correlation coefficient = 0.78, P < 0.0001), Wilcoxon test (P = 0.53), and ANCOVA (F(3,146) = 5.97, p = 0.001). The grading system had good agreement with global rating by experts. CONCLUSIONS: The instrument appears to be simple, internally consistent, and valid for measuring the perceived quality of CE studies. Applicability for use in clinical and resource allocation decision-making deserves further study.

The limited incorporation of economic analyses in clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Because there is increasing concern that economic data are not used in the clinical guideline development process, our objective was to evaluate the extent to which economic analyses are incorporated in guideline development. METHODS: We searched medline and HealthSTAR databases to identify English-language clinical practice guidelines (1996-1999) and economic analyses (1990-1998). Additional guidelines were obtained from The National Guidelines Clearinghouse Internet site available at http://www.guideline.gov. Eligible guidelines met the Institute of Medicine definition and addressed a topic included in an economic analysis. Eligible economic analyses assessed interventions addressed in a guideline and predated the guideline by 1 or more years. Economic analyses were defined as incorporated in guideline development if 1) the economic analysis or the results were mentioned in the text or 2) listed as a reference. The quality of economic analyses was assessed using a structured scoring system. RESULTS: Using guidelines as the unit of analysis, 9 of 35 (26%) incorporated at least 1 economic analysis of above-average quality in the text and 11 of 35 (31%) incorporated at least 1 in the references. Using economic analyses as the unit of analysis, 63 economic analyses of above-average quality had opportunities for incorporation in 198 instances across the 35 guidelines. Economic analyses were incorporated in the text in 13 of 198 instances (7%) and in the references in 18 of 198 instances (9%). CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous economic analyses may be infrequently incorporated in the development of clinical practice guidelines. A systematic approach to guideline development should be used to ensure the consideration of economic analyses so that recommendations from guidelines may impact both the quality of care and the efficient allocation of resources.