A randomized phase III double-blind placebo-controlled trial of first line chemotherapy and trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab for patients with HER2/neu-positive metastatic breast cancer: a trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E1105).

Background In 2008, bevacizumab received accelerated Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for use in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Based on the preclinical and preliminary clinical activity of the trastuzumab and bevacizumab combination, ECOG-ACRIN E1105 trial was developed to determine if the addition of bevacizumab to a chemotherapy and trastuzumab combination for first-line therapy would improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with HER2-positive MBC. Findings: 96 patients were randomized to receive standard first-line chemotherapy and trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab between November 2007 and October 2009, and 93 began protocol therapy. Induction therapy was given for 24 weeks, followed by maintenance trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab. 60% (56/93) began carboplatin and 74% (69/93) completed 6 cycles of induction therapy. Primary endpoint was PFS. Median PFS was 11.1 and 13.8 months for placebo and bevacizumab arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 95%, Confidence Interval [Cl] for bevacizumab vs. placebo: 0.73 [0.43-1.23], p = 0.24), and at a median follow-up of 70.7 months, median survival was 49.1 and 63 months (HR [95% Cl] for OS: 1.09 [0.61-1.97], p = 0.75). The most common toxicities across both arms were neutropenia and hypertension, with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, fatigue, and sensory neuropathy reported more frequently with bevacizumab. Conclusions In this trial, the addition of bevacizumab did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Although the trial was underpowered due to smaller than anticipated sample size, these findings corroborated other clinical trials during this time.

Efficient Measurement of Multiple Ventricular Assist Device Patient-reported Outcomes: Creation of a 20-item Profile from the MCS A-QOL Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of distinct concepts are often put together into patient profile assessments. When brief, profile assessments can decrease respondent burden and increase measure completion rates. In this report, we describe creation of five self-reported 4-item short forms and the MCS A-QOL 20-item profile to assess PROs specific to adjustment and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients who undergo left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional sample of patients (n=620) who underwent LVAD implantation at 12 U.S. sites or participated in the MyLVAD.com support group, we created five 4-item short forms: Satisfaction with Treatment, VAD Team Communication, Being Bothered by VAD Self-care and Limitations, Self-efficacy Regarding VAD self-care, and Stigma, which we combined into a 20-item Profile. Analyses included inter-correlations among measures, Cronbach's alpha (i.e., internal consistency reliability)/score-level-specific reliability, and construct validity. RESULTS: The 620 patients were mean age=57 years, 78% male, 70% white, and 56% on destination therapy LVADs. Inter-correlations among the five 4-item measures were low to moderate (<0.50), indicating they are associated yet largely distinct, and correlations with calibrated measures and 6-item short forms were >0.76, indicating their ability to reflect full-item bank scores. Internal consistency reliability for the five 4-item short forms ranged from acceptable (≥0.70) to good (≥0.80). Construct validity was demonstrated for these measures. CONCLUSIONS: Our five 4-item short forms are reliable and valid and may be used individually or together as a 20-item Profile to assess adjustment and HRQOL in patients who undergo LVAD implantation.

Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer Receiving Comprehensive Nodal Irradiation in the RadComp Trial.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to evaluate the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures used in the ongoing RadComp pragmatic randomized clinical trial (PRCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The deidentified and blinded data set included 774 English-speaking female participants who completed their 6-month posttreatment assessment. Eleven PRO measures were evaluated, including the Trial Outcome Index from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes, the BREAST-Q, and selected Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures. PROs were measured at 3 timepoints: baseline, completion of radiation therapy (RT), and 6 months post-RT. Ten variables were used as validity anchors. Pearson or Spearman correlations were calculated between PROs and convergent validity indicators. Mean PRO differences between clinically distinct categories were compared with analysis of variance methods (known-groups validity). PRO change scores were mapped to change in other variables (sensitivity to change). RESULTS: Most correlations between PROs and validity indicators were large (≥0.5). Mean score for Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes was higher (better) for those with a lumpectomy compared with those with a mastectomy (P < .001). Mean scores for the FACT-B Trial Outcome Index and for PROMIS Fatigue and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities were better for those with good baseline performance status compared with those with poorer baseline performance status (P < .05). At completion of RT and post-RT, mean scores for Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes and BREAST-Q Radiation were significantly different (P < .001) across categories for all Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy -Treatment Satisfaction - General items. There were medium-sized correlations between change scores for FACT-B Trial Outcome Index, Fatigue, Anxiety, and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and change scores in the Visual Analog Scale. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer receiving radiation in the RadComp PRCT, our findings demonstrate high reliability and validity for important PRO measures, supporting their psychometric strength and usefulness to reflect the effect of RT on health-related quality of life.

Stigmatization and Mental Health Impact of Chronic Pediatric Skin Disorders.

Importance: Chronic skin disorders in children frequently are visible and can cause stigmatization. However, the extent of stigmatization from chronic skin disease and association with mental health needs further study. Objective: To examine the extent of stigma, dependence on disease visibility and severity, and association with mental health and quality of life (QOL) in chronic pediatric skin disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional, single-visit study was conducted at 32 pediatric dermatology centers in the US and Canada from November 14, 2018, to November 17, 2021. Participants included patients aged 8 to 17 years with chronic skin disease and 1 parent. Main Outcomes and Measures: Using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Instrumentation System (PROMIS) Stigma-Skin, the extent of stigma with child-, caregiver-, and physician-assessed disease visibility (primary outcome) and severity was compared, as well as reduced QOL (assessed by Skindex-Teen), depression, anxiety, and poor peer relationships (PROMIS child and proxy tools) (secondary outcomes). Results: The study included 1671 children (57.9% female; mean [SD] age, 13.7 [2.7] years). A total of 56.4% participants had self-reported high disease visibility and 50.5% had moderate disease severity. Stigma scores significantly differed by level of physician-assessed and child/proxy-assessed disease visibility and severity. Among children with chronic skin disorders, predominantly acne, atopic dermatitis, alopecia areata, and vitiligo, only 27.0% had T scores less than 40 (minimal or no stigma) and 43.8% had at least moderate stigma (T score ≥45) compared with children with a range of chronic diseases. Stigma scores correlated strongly with reduced QOL (Spearman ρ = 0.73), depression (ρ = 0.61), anxiety (ρ = 0.54), and poor peer relationships (ρ = -0.49). Overall, 29.4% of parents were aware of bullying of their child, which was strongly associated with stigma (Cohen d = -0.79, with children who were not bullied experiencing lower levels of stigma). Girls reported more stigma than boys (Cohen d = 0.26). Children with hyperhidrosis and hidradenitis suppurativa were most likely to have increased depression and anxiety. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that physician assessment of disease severity and visibility is insufficient to evaluate the disease impact in the patient/caregiver. Identifying stigmatization, including bullying, and tracking improvement through medical and psychosocial interventions may be a key role for practitioners.

Patient-reported Quality of Life and Survival Outcomes in Prostate Cancer: Analysis of the ECOG-ACRIN E3805 Chemohormonal Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial (CHAARTED).

BACKGROUND: Chemohormonal therapy with androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel (ADT + D) improves overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QOL) at 12 mo versus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the prognostic role of QOL is unknown in this population. OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between QOL, disease characteristics, and OS in men with mHSPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this exploratory post hoc analysis, 790 patients with mHSPC completed the QOL instruments Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard models tested the association between QOL and OS by clinical and disease characteristics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline higher FACT-P trended toward improved survival after accounting for clinical variables (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80 [0.62, 1.04], p = 0.09), while higher 3-mo FACT-P was independently associated with better survival (HR 0.76 [0.58, 1.0], p = 0.05). Patients with the poorest QOL (bottom quartile) at baseline and 3 mo had longer survival if they received ADT + D rather than ADT alone (median OS 45.2 vs 34.4 mo, HR 0.75 [0.53, 1.05], p = 0.09, and 48.3 vs 29.3 mo, HR 0.69 [0.48, 0.99], p = 0.05 respectively). In contrast, patients with the best QOL (top quartile) at baseline and 3 mo had comparable survival irrespective of whether or not docetaxel was added (median OS 72.1 vs 51.7 mo, HR 0.92 [0.63, 1.36], p = 0.69, and 69.9 vs 68.9 mo, HR 1.11 [0.73, 1.67], p = 0.63, respectively). Survival was linked with baseline FACIT-F (HR 0.76 [0.57, 1.0], p = 0.05), but not BPI (HR 0.98 [0.75, 1.28], p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Three-month QOL had a stronger independent association with survival. The most symptomatic patients had longer survival with the addition of docetaxel; conversely, the least symptomatic patients did not appear to benefit. Consideration of QOL may enhance decision-making and patient selection when choosing chemohormonal treatment in mHSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Quality of life independently forecasted the survival of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the CHAARTED study. Close tracking of quality of life could help patients and clinicians make decisions about the appropriate treatment in this setting.

The challenge of using patient reported outcome measures in clinical practice: how do we get there?

BACKGROUND: As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) become available to clinicians for routine clinical decision-making, many wonder how to define a meaningful change in a patient's PROM score. Some PROMs have a specific threshold that indicates meaningful change, but since those numbers are based on population averages, they do not necessarily apply to the varying experiences of each individual patient. Rather than viewing this as a weakness of PROMs, it is worth considering how clinicians use other existing measures in clinical decision-making-and whether PROMs can be used similarly. BODY: An informal survey of 43 clinicians reported using measures such as weight, blood pressure, and blood chemistry to inform clinical decision-making. Although clinicians were very consistent with what constituted a meaningful change for some measures (e.g., ECOG performance status), other measures had considerable variability (e.g., weight), often informed by their specialization (for example, differing thresholds for meaningful weight change for adult primary care, pediatrics, and oncology). For interpreting change in measures, they relied on clinical experience (44%), published literature (38%), and established guidelines (35%). In open-response comments, many clarified that the results of any measure had to be taken in the context of each individual patient before making treatment decisions. In short, clinicians already apply individualized clinical judgment when interpreting score changes in existing clinical measures. As clinicians gain familiarity with PROMs, PROMs will likely be utilized in the same way. CONCLUSION: Like other clinical measures from weight to blood chemistry, change in a PROM score is but one piece of a patient's clinical story. Rather than relying on a hard-and-fast number for defining clinically meaningful change in a PROM score, providers should-and many already do-consider the full scope of a patient's experience as they make treatment decisions.

Patient-Reported Adverse Events and Early Treatment Discontinuation Among Patients With Multiple Myeloma.

Importance: There is substantial interest in capturing cancer treatment tolerability from the patient's perspective using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Objective: To examine whether a PRO question, item 5 from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General General Physical Wellbeing Scale (GP5), was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) due to adverse events. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective survey study was conducted from February to April 2023. Among participants in the ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 trial (a phase 3, parallel design trial conducted between 2013 and 2019), patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction therapy. The GP5 item was administered at baseline (pretreatment) and at 1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months postbaseline. Eligible participants included patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated at community oncology practices or academic medical centers in the US. Exposures: GP5 response options were "very much," "quite a bit," "somewhat," "a little bit," and "not at all." Responses at each assessment while undergoing treatment (1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months) were categorized as high adverse event bother (ie, "very much," and "quite a bit") and low adverse event bother (ie, "somewhat," "a little bit," or "not at all"). In addition, change from baseline to each assessment while undergoing treatment was calculated and categorized as worsening by 1 response category and 2 or more response categories. Main Outcome and Measure: ETD due to adverse events (yes vs no) was analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for treatment group, performance status, gender, race, and disease stage. Results: Of the 1087 participants in the original trial, 1058 (mean [SD] age 64 [9] years; 531 receiving VrD [50.2%]; 527 receiving KRd [49.8%]) responded to item GP5 and were included in the secondary analysis. A small proportion (142 patients [13.4%]) discontinued treatment early due to AEs. For those with high adverse-effect bother, GP5 while undergoing treatment was associated with ETD at 1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.25-3.89), 2.8 months (aOR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.01-5.80), and 5.5 months (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.69-12.83). Worsening by 2 or more response categories on the GP5 was associated with ETD at 2.8 months (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.64-5.54) and 5.5 months (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 1.45-20.76). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of the E1A11 trial, worse GP5 response was associated with ETD. These findings suggest that simple assessment of adverse-effect bother while receiving treatment is an efficient way to indicate treatment tolerability and ETD risk.

Randomized, Double-Blind Phase III Study of Pazopanib Versus Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Who Have No Evidence of Disease After Metastasectomy: ECOG-ACRIN E2810.

PURPOSE: Patients with no evidence of disease (NED) after metastasectomy for renal cell carcinoma are at high risk of recurrence. Pazopanib is an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and other kinases that improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study to test whether pazopanib would improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with mRCC rendered NED after metastasectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with NED after metastasectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once daily versus placebo for 52 weeks. The study was designed to observe an improvement in DFS from 25% to 45% with pazopanib at 3 years, corresponding to 42% reduction in the DFS event rate. RESULTS: From August 2012 to July 2017, 129 patients were enrolled. The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events (92% information). The study did not meet its primary end point. An updated analysis at 60.5-month median follow-up from random assignment (95% CI, 59.3 to 71.0) showed that the 3-year DFS was 27.4% (95% CI, 17.9 to 41.7) for pazopanib and 21.9% (95% CI, 13.3 to 36.2) for placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) for DFS was 0.90 ([95% CI, 0.60 to 1.34]; Pone-sided = .29) in favor of pazopanib. Three-year overall survival (OS) was 81.9% (95% CI, 72.7 to 92.2) for pazopanib and 91.4% (95% CI, 84.4 to 98.9) for placebo. The HR for OS was 2.55 (95% CI, 1.23 to 5.27) in favor of placebo (Ptwo-sided = .012). Health-related quality-of-life measures deteriorated in the pazopanib group during the treatment period. CONCLUSION: Pazopanib did not improve DFS as the primary end point compared with blinded placebo in patients with mRCC with NED after metastasectomy. In addition, there was a concerning trend favoring placebo in OS.

Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

Development of an ultra-short measure of eight domains of health-related quality of life for research and clinical care: the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system® PROMIS®-16 profile.

PURPOSE: We describe development of a short health-related quality of life measure, the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system® (PROMIS®)-16 Profile, which generates domain-specific scores for physical function, ability to participate in social roles and activities, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, pain interference, cognitive function, and fatigue. METHODS: An empirical evaluation of 50 candidate PROMIS items and item pairs was conducted using data from a sample of 5775 respondents from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Results and item response theory information curves for a subset of item pairs were presented and discussed in a stakeholder meeting to narrow the candidate item sets. A survey of the stakeholders and 124 MTurk adults was conducted to solicit preferences among remaining candidate items and finalize the measure. RESULTS: Empirical evaluation showed minimal differences in basic descriptive statistics (e.g., means, correlations) and associations with the PROMIS-29 + 2 Profile, thus item pairs were further considered primarily based on item properties and content. Stakeholders discussed and identified subsets of candidate item pairs for six domains, and final item pairs were agreed upon for two domains. Final items were selected based on stakeholder and MTurk-respondent preferences. The PROMIS-16 profile generates eight domain scores with strong psychometric properties. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS-16 Profile provides an attractive brief measure of eight distinct domains of health-related quality of life, representing an ideal screening tool for clinical care, which can help clinicians quickly identify distinct areas of concern that may require further assessment and follow-up. Further research is needed to confirm and extend these findings.

Approaches to protocol standardization and data harmonization in the ECHO-wide cohort study.

The United States (U.S.) National Institutes of Health-funded Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO)-wide Cohort was established to conduct high impact, transdisciplinary science to improve child health and development. The cohort is a collaborative research design in which both extant and new data are contributed by over 57,000 children across 69 cohorts. In this review article, we focus on two key challenging issues in the ECHO-wide Cohort: data collection standardization and data harmonization. Data standardization using a Common Data Model and derived analytical variables based on a team science approach should facilitate timely analyses and reduce errors due to data misuse. However, given the complexity of collaborative research designs, such as the ECHO-wide Cohort, dedicated time is needed for harmonization and derivation of analytic variables. These activities need to be done methodically and with transparency to enhance research reproducibility. IMPACT: Many collaborative research studies require data harmonization either prior to analyses or in the analyses of compiled data. The Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Cohort pools extant data with new data collection from over 57,000 children in 69 cohorts to conduct high-impact, transdisciplinary science to improve child health and development, and to provide a national database and biorepository for use by the scientific community at-large. We describe the tools, systems, and approaches we employed to facilitate harmonized data for impactful analyses of child health outcomes.

[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.

Development of the PROMIS pediatric stigma and extension to the PROMIS pediatric stigma: skin item banks.

PURPOSE: To develop the PROMIS Pediatric Stigma (PPS) and Skin (PPS-Skin) by constructing a common metric for measuring stigma in children with various conditions, while capturing the unique features of each condition. METHODS: Data from 860 children, ages 8-17, with a diagnosis of epilepsy, pNF (neurofibromatosis type 1 associated neurofibroma plexform), MD (muscular dystrophy), cancer, or skin conditions recruited from three projects were analyzed. Children with epilepsy, pNF and MD (sample-1) completed the original 18-item Neuro-QoL Stigma, while children with cancer and skin conditions (e.g., atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and genetic skin disorders; sample-2) completed a 16-item version and 6 additional skin related items. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory analysis (CFA) were used to evaluate unidimensionality of 24 stigma items. Differential item functioning (DIF) was used to evaluate measurement equivalence on group, gender, age, and conditions. Item response theory model (IRT) was used to construct the final measure. RESULTS: Sufficient unidimensionality was supported by both EFA and CFA. No items showed significant DIF indicating stable measurement properties across groups of comparison. All items fit the IRT model and were able to be calibrated together to form the PPS which consists of 18 core items. The PPS-Skin (18 cores items + 6 skin items) was developed by calibrating 6 skin items onto the common metric as the PPS. CONCLUSIONS: We used IRT techniques to successfully develop the PPS and the PPS-Skin, which share a common metric and account for unique and common concerns related to chronic conditions.

Administering selected subscales of patient-reported outcome questionnaires to reduce patient burden and increase relevance: a position statement on a modular approach.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas.

Assessing the interchangeability of linked scores in multivariable statistical analyses.

PURPOSE: Using the lens of classical test theory, we examine a linkage's generalizability with respect to use in multivariable analyses, including multiple regression and structural equation modeling, rather than comparison of established subpopulations as is most common in the literature. METHODS: To aid in this evaluation, we present a structural-equation-modeling based statistical method to examine the suitability of a given linkage for use cases involving continuous and categorical variables external to the linkage itself. RESULTS: Using the PROMIS® Parent Proxy and Early Childhood Global Health measures, we show that, although a high correlation between the scores (here, r = .829) may imply a general suitability for linking, a more detailed investigation of content, measurement structure, and results of the proposed methodology reveal important differences between the measures which can compromise interchangeability in certain use cases. CONCLUSION: In addition to the statistical quality of a linkage, users of linking methodology should also assess the question of whether the linkage is appropriate to apply to particular use cases of interest.

Implementing a Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboard in Oncology Telemedicine Encounters: Clinician and Patient Adoption and Acceptability.

PURPOSE: Telemedicine provides numerous benefits to patients, yet effective communication and symptom assessment remain a concern. The recent uptake of telemedicine provided an opportunity to use a newly developed dashboard with patient-reported outcome (PRO) information to enhance communication and shared decision making (SDM) during telemedicine appointments. The objective of this study was to identify barriers to using the dashboard during telemedicine, develop implementation strategies to address barriers, and pilot test use of this dashboard during telemedicine appointments in two practice settings to evaluate acceptability, adoption, fidelity, and effectiveness. METHODS: Patients and clinicians were interviewed to identify determinants to dashboard use in telemedicine. Implementation strategies were designed and refined through iterative feedback from stakeholders. A pilot study of dashboard use was conducted from March to September 2022. Acceptability, adoption, and fidelity were evaluated using mixed methods. SDM was evaluated using the collaboRATE measure. RESULTS: One hundred two patient encounters were evaluated. Most patients (62; 60%) had completed some PRO data at the time of their telemedicine encounter. Most (82; 80%) encounters had clinician confirmation that PRO data had been reviewed; however, collaborative review of the dashboard was documented in only 27%. Degree of SDM was high (mean collaboRATE score 3.40; SD, 0.11 [95% CI, 3.17 to 3.63] out of a maximum score of 4). Implementation strategies focused on patient engagement, education, and remote PRO completion. Clinician-facing strategies included education, practice facilitation, and small tests of change. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that implementation of a PRO-based dashboard into telemedicine appointments was feasible and had acceptable adoption and acceptability by patients and clinicians when several strategies were used to engage end users. Strategies targeting both patients and clinicians are needed to support routine and effective PRO integration in telemedicine.

The Relationship Between Health-Related Quality of Life and Overall Survival in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in CheckMate 214.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 214 (median follow-up, 25.2 months), nivolumab plus ipilimumab yielded greater overall survival (OS) benefit than sunitinib in patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19) was also more favorable for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group than the sunitinib group. We investigated whether HRQoL scores can predict OS of patients with 5 years follow-up in CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 214 was an open-label, phase III trial in previously untreated aRCC (N = 1096). Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk disease (International mRCC Database Consortium prognostic score ≥ 1; n = 847) were randomized to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib monotherapy. Pooled data for OS and FKSI-19 total and subscales (disease-related symptoms [DRS], DRS-physical [DRS-P], and function/well-being [FWB]) were analyzed. Relationships between HRQoL and OS were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with baseline and longitudinal scores. Associations between HRQoL changes and OS were assessed by landmark analyses. RESULTS: Patients with higher FKSI-19 total and subscale scores at baseline had longer OS than patients with lower scores (HR ≤ 0.834; P < .0001). Longitudinal models indicated stronger associations between HRQoL and OS (HR ≤ 0.69; P < .001 for each). At 3 months after randomization, patients with stable/improved HRQoL versus baseline had longer median OS than patients with worsened/unobserved HRQoL versus baseline (55.9 and 26.0 months, respectively; HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.67; P < .0001). Results at 6-, 9-, and 12-month landmarks were consistent with these findings. CONCLUSION: In aRCC, patient-reported outcomes are important for HRQoL and prognostic evaluation. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02231749; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749.

Longitudinal Associations Between Multimorbidities and Patient-Reported Quality of Life.

OBJECTIVES: The global prevalence of multimorbidity is increasing as the population ages. As individuals get older, they are likely to develop multiple chronic conditions, and nearly two-thirds of older adults in the United States are estimated to experience 2 or more chronic conditions. The present preregistered study examined whether multimorbidity was associated with longitudinal changes in health-related quality of life (i.e., anxiety, depression, and physical function) and whether these associations were moderated by sociodemographic factors (i.e., sex, race, marital status, income, insurance, and education). METHODS: Data come from the Health Literacy and Cognitive Function Among Older Adults Longitudinal Study (LitCog), a prospective cohort study of English-speaking older adults (N = 900). At each measurement occasion, participants reported anxiety, depression, and physical function using the Patient Reported Outcomes Information System, chronic conditions, and sociodemographic characteristics. We employed multilevel growth models to estimate changes in health-related quality of life, with multimorbidities as a predictor and sociodemographics as covariates. RESULTS: Results indicated that individuals with multiple chronic conditions reported persistently high levels of anxiety and depression, and worse physical function. We found evidence for racial health disparities, such that individuals who identified as non-White experienced worse health-related quality of life as multimorbidities increased, relative to White participants. DISCUSSION: These results contribute to the current conversation about the long-term impacts of structural and systemic barriers experienced by minoritized groups. We further discuss the public health implications of multimorbidity in older adulthood.

Understanding health-related quality of life measures used in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials: A review.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important consideration in cancer clinical research, which can be substantially influenced by cancer treatment procedures and medications. The treatment landscape for early-stage (stage I-III) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly evolving. In this light, it is important to evaluate the most suitable instruments for HRQoL assessment and timing. Given there is often a requirement for patients with early-stage disease to receive long-term treatment to reduce the risk of disease recurrence after surgery, maintenance or improvement in HRQoL is an important goal of both neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments. Key challenges with assessing HRQoL relate to the suitability of existing instruments to measure relevant treatment-related adverse effects, consistency in HRQoL assessment approach between similar studies, gaps in data collection and reporting, and interpretation of longitudinal data. Frequent assessments during and after treatment are warranted to capture the true impact of treatment and disease progression on HRQoL, and changes in the relative importance of these factors over time. There is scope for improving existing HRQoL approaches, including ease of use and integration of digital tools to facilitate analysis and interpretation, to enhance the experience of both patients and healthcare professionals. In this narrative review, we discuss key considerations for HRQoL assessment and evaluate the tools currently available to measure HRQoL in NSCLC, many of which were designed with advanced disease in mind. We focus on the key challenges of measuring HRQoL for the specific needs of patients with early-stage disease, and consider future perspectives, to determine the most appropriate HRQoL instruments and analysis methods to use in early-stage NSCLC clinical trials.1.