Development of a Novel Patient-Reported Outcome Measure to Assess Symptoms and Impacts of Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Advanced Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This qualitative research study was conducted to develop a novel, comprehensive, patient-reported outcome measure (PRO), the "Symptoms and Impacts of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) for Prostate Cancer" (SIADT-PC), assessing hormonal therapy-related symptoms and their impacts on men with advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: Concept elicitation (CE) interviews were conducted among adult men with prostate cancer to evaluate their experiences with ADT. Based on key symptom and impact concepts mentioned, an initial PRO measure was developed. The draft measure was further assessed in cognitive debriefing (CD) interviews with men with prostate cancer, in which participants reviewed items, response options, and recall periods. Initial item-based psychometric analyses were conducted using interview data. The draft questionnaire was revised on the basis of participant feedback, quantitative psychometric results, and consultation with clinical experts. RESULTS: A total of 21 participants were interviewed (CE concept elicitation, n = 12; CD cognitive debriefing, n = 17; n = 8 completed both). Mean participant age (SD) was 59.7 (8.7) years and 76.2% were white. The de novo SIADT-PC measure consists of 27 items: 11 symptoms (e.g., fatigue, hot flashes, and erectile dysfunction), 2 long-term symptoms (e.g., weight gain), 10 impacts (e.g., impacts on physical activities and relationships), and 4 related to mode of administration (i.e., injection-site reactions). Items were assessed with a 5-point verbal rating scale, with answer choices that capture frequency or severity. CONCLUSIONS: Once fully validated, this de novo measure may be used in clinical studies and clinical practice to assess hormone therapy-related symptoms and impacts, enabling physicians to identify timely and appropriate interventions.

[Special issue PRO] A demonstration of estimands and sensitivity analyses for time-to-deterioration of patient reported outcomes.

In oncology trials, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), specifically patient-reported symptom burden and functional status, can support the interpretation of survival endpoints, such as progression-free survival. However, applying time-to-event endpoints to patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data is challenging. For example, in time-to-deterioration analyses clinical events such as disease progression are common in many settings and are often handled through censoring the patient at the time of occurrence; however, disease progression and HRQoL are often related leading to informative censoring. Special consideration to the definition of events and intercurrent events (ICEs) is necessary. In this work, we demonstrate time-to-deterioration of PRO estimands and sensitivity analyses to answer research questions using composite, hypothetical, and treatment policy strategies applied to a single endpoint of disease-related symptoms. Multiple imputation methods under both the missing-at-random and missing-not-at-random assumptions are used as sensitivity analyses of primary estimands. Hazard ratios ranged from 0.52 to 0.66 over all the estimands and sensitivity analyses modeling a robust treatment effect favoring the treatment in time to disease symptom deterioration or death. Differences in the estimands include how people who experience disease progression or discontinue the randomized treatment due to AEs are accounted for in the analysis. We use the estimand framework to define interpretable and principled approaches for different time-to-deterioration research questions and provide practical recommendations. Reporting the proportions of patient events and patient censoring by reason helps understand the mechanisms that drive the results, allowing for optimal interpretation.

Meaningful Symptomatic Change in Patients With Myelofibrosis From the SIMPLIFY Studies.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with myelofibrosis develop symptoms due to bone marrow fibrosis, systemic inflammation, and/or organomegaly. Alleviating symptoms improves overall quality of life. Clinical trials have historically defined symptom response as a reduction of at least 50% in Total Symptom Score at week 24 compared with baseline. Whether 50% constitutes a meaningful benefit has not been established. This study determined the meaningful change threshold (MCT) for 2 momelotinib phase III trials, SIMPLIFY-1 and SIMPLIFY-2. METHODS: The absolute and percentage MCT was determined using anchor-based methods applied to the modified Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form v2.0 and Patient Global Impression of Change. MCTs were applied retrospectively to determine responder rates. Generalized estimating equations estimated the treatment-related difference in likelihood of improvement. RESULTS: In SIMPLIFY-1, a Janus kinase inhibitor-naive population, the MCT was 8 points. In SIMPLIFY-2, a previously Janus kinase inhibitor-treated population, the MCT was 6 points. A 32% MCT was determined in both studies, showing that the historic 50% reduction threshold may be a conservative choice. In SIMPLIFY-1, a similar proportion of patients achieved responder status with 24 weeks of momelotinib or ruxolitinib therapy based on the absolute MCT (39% vs 41%, respectively). In SIMPLIFY-2, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with momelotinib achieved responder states compared with best available therapy based on absolute and percent change MCTs. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that momelotinib provided clinically meaningful symptom benefit for patients with myelofibrosis and provides insight into the appropriateness of the symptom change threshold used in historical studies.

Establishing Meaningful Change Thresholds in Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in ALTA-1L Trial.

OBJECTIVES: An earlier study from the ALTA-1L trial of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer demonstrated that brigatinib produces superior health-related quality of life (QoL) outcomes over crizotinib. This study aimed to derive meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) for European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13 to refine the earlier results. METHODS: Patients from the ALTA-1L trial were administered the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13 questionnaires. Responses were analyzed using anchor-based analysis, graphical analysis, distribution-based analysis, longitudinal responder analysis, and time to deterioration. RESULTS: The patient-reported outcome population comprised 262 patients who completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and at least 1 follow-up timepoint. Both anchors (QLQ-C30 items for overall health and QoL) had correlations >0.40 or < -0.40 with all functioning domains, fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and all dyspnea scores. Within-group analysis for most scales found the derived MCT was consistent with a cutoff of 10 points for classifying individual-patient change, except for 3-item dyspnea. The probability of improvement/remaining stable was significantly greater in the brigatinib group over crizotinib for the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning, appetite loss, and constipation domains. CONCLUSIONS: This study derived MCTs for EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 domains that may be applied in future studies and again demonstrated the superiority of brigatinib over crizotinib in health-related QoL outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Symptomatic benefit of momelotinib in patients with myelofibrosis: Results from the SIMPLIFY phase III studies.

BACKGROUND: Myelofibrosis (MF)-associated constitutional symptoms can severely impact health-related quality of life. Clinical trials in MF traditionally measure symptom response to treatment as a landmark endpoint of total symptom score (TSS) reduction ≥50% from baseline. However, this dichotomous assessment provides a limited view of clinically relevant symptomatic changes. Herein we evaluated longitudinal change from baseline in TSS over the continuous 24-week period and individual symptom scores to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of symptom benefits experienced by patients with MF receiving therapy. METHODS: Longitudinal symptom change was evaluated using mixed-effect model repeated measure (MMRM) methodology with individual item-level analyses to complement the interpretation of the landmark symptom results in the completed phase III SIMPLIFY studies of momelotinib in MF. MMRM compared mean change in TSS from baseline with Week 24 using data from all patient visits. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate item-level odds ratios using multiple predictive imputations for missing data. RESULTS: Momelotinib and ruxolitinib groups reported similar overall symptom improvements, with a TSS difference of <1.5 points between groups for each post-baseline visit in SIMPLIFY-1. In SIMPLIFY-2, the improvement in TSS observed in momelotinib-treated patients was consistent with that observed in SIMPLIFY-1, whereas progressive TSS deterioration was observed with control. Item-level scores were heterogeneous in both studies. A similar and greater proportion of momelotinib-treated patients were categorized as "improved" or "stable" compared with control in SIMPLIFY-1 and SIMPLIFY-2, respectively. Odds ratios for between-group comparison ranged from 0.75 to 1.21 in SIMPLIFY-1, demonstrating similarity in likelihood of symptom improvement. In SIMPLIFY-2, the likelihood of symptom improvement in each item was higher in the momelotinib arm. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that momelotinib provides clinically relevant symptom benefits in the JAK inhibitor-naïve and JAK inhibitor-exposed settings.

A Study Design to Harmonize Patient-Reported Outcomes Across Data Sets.

PURPOSE: Using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provides important insights from the patient's perspective and can be valuable to monitor and manage treatment-related adverse events during cancer treatment. Additionally, the digital administration of PROs (electronic PROs [ePROs]) provides real-time updates to clinical care teams on treatment-related symptoms in-between clinic visits. However, given the variability in the methodology and timing of the data collection, using and harmonizing these data across different systems remains challenging. Identifying data elements to capture and operating procedures for harmonization across ePRO tools will expedite efforts to generate relevant and robust data on use of ePRO data in clinical care. METHODS: Friends of Cancer Research assembled a consortium of project partners from key health care sectors to align on a framework for ePRO data capture across ePRO tools and assessment of the impact of ePRO data capture on patient outcomes. RESULTS: We identified challenges and opportunities to align ePRO data capture across ePRO tools and aligned on key data elements for assessing the impact of ePRO data capture on patient care and outcomes. Ultimately, we proposed a study protocol to leverage ePRO data for symptom and adverse event management to measure real-world effectiveness of ePRO tool implementation on patient care and outcomes. CONCLUSION: This work provides considerations for harmonizing ePRO data sets and a common framework to align across multiple ePRO tools to assess the value of ePROs for improving patient outcomes. Future efforts to interpret evidence and evaluate the impact of ePRO tools on patient outcomes will be aided by improved alignment across studies.

Development of the Bleeding and Pelvic Discomfort Scale for Use in Women With Heavy Menstrual Bleeding Associated With Uterine Fibroids.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to define a cardinal symptom burden measure based on items from the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life questionnaire for use as a clinical trial endpoint. METHODS: Exploratory factor analysis was computed to assess the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life symptom severity scale factor structure, using phase 2 data. Pooled blinded data from phase 3 studies were used for the confirmatory factor analysis and the psychometric evaluation of the new measure. Exit interviews in 30 patients from phase 3 studies provided additional qualitative evidence. A meaningful change threshold was determined using anchor-based analyses supported by patient feedback in the exit interviews. RESULTS: Three factors emerged from the exploratory factor analysis. Factor 1, called the bleeding and pelvic discomfort (BPD) scale, consists of cardinal symptoms, measuring menstrual distress owing to heavy bleeding, passing blood clots, and feeling tightness or pressure in pelvic area. Patients generally understood the items in the scale and the recall period as intended. The BPD scale had good item performance and internal consistency reliability, strong item-to-total correlations, good item discrimination, known-groups validity, and ability to detect change. A 20-point change on the BPD scale was determined as the clinically meaningful change threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The BPD scale assesses symptom burden owing to bleeding, passing blood clots, and pelvic pressure. The subscale is based on a subset of items selected to measure the cardinal symptoms of uterine fibroids in a clinical trial setting. The responder threshold evaluates whether patients experience a meaningful treatment benefit over the on-treatment period.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the third-leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during treatment is an important therapeutic goal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with lenvatinib versus sorafenib on HRQOL. METHODS: REFLECT was a previously published multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line systemic treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and one or more measurable target lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C categorisation, Child-Pugh class A, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or lower, and adequate organ function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system; stratification factors for treatment allocation included region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; ECOG performance status; and bodyweight. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), collected at baseline, on day 1 of each subsequent cycle, and at the end of treatment, were evaluated in post-hoc analyses of secondary and exploratory endpoints in the analysis population, which was the subpopulation of patients with a PRO assessment at baseline. A linear mixed-effects model evaluated change from baseline in PROs, including European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and hepatocellular carcinoma-specific QLQ-HCC18 scales (both secondary endpoints of the REFLECT trial). Time-to-definitive-deterioration analyses were done based on established thresholds for minimum differences for worsening in PROs. Responder analyses explored associations between HRQOL and clinical response. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01761266. FINDINGS: Of 954 eligible patients randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476) between March 14, 2013, and July 30, 2015, 931 patients (n=468 for lenvatinib; n=463 for sorafenib) were included in this analysis. Baseline PRO scores reflected impaired HRQOL and functioning and considerable symptom burden relative to full HRQOL. Differences in overall mean change from baseline estimates in most PRO scales generally favoured the lenvatinib over the sorafenib group, although the differences were not nominally statistically or clinically significant. Patients treated with lenvatinib experienced nominally statistically significant delays in definitive, meaningful deterioration on the QLQ-C30 fatigue (hazard ratio [HR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·69-0·99), pain (0·80, 0·66-0·96), and diarrhoea (0·52, 0·42-0·65) domains versus patients treated with sorafenib. Significant differences in time to definitive deterioration were not observed for other QLQ-C30 domains, and there was no difference in time to definitive deterioration on the global health status/QOL score (0·89, 0·73-1·09). For most PRO scales, differences in overall mean change from baseline estimates favoured responders versus non-responders. Across all scales, HRs for time to definitive deterioration were in favour of responders; median time to definitive deterioration for responders exceeded those for non-responders by a range of 4·8 to 14·6 months. INTERPRETATION: HRQOL for patients undergoing treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is an important therapeutic consideration. The evidence of HRQOL benefits in clinically relevant domains support the use of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib to delay functional deterioration in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Improvements in Dysphagia and Pain With Swallowing in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis Receiving Budesonide Oral Suspension.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Quantification of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) symptoms is crucial for assessing treatment outcomes. We aimed to explore the effect of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) on dysphagia and pain with swallowing. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a phase 2 multicenter, double-blind, trial (conducted from July 2012 through October 2014) of patients with EoE, 11-40 y old, who were randomly assigned to groups given placebo or BOS (2.0 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks. Symptoms were quantified using the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) from baseline to week 12 of therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 93 patients were randomly assigned to groups; the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis set comprised 87 patients (38 from the placebo group and 49 from the BOS group). Improvements from baseline in least-squares mean (standard error) DSQ (Q2+Q3) scores were observed. The difference between groups was statistically significant only at week 12 (placebo vs BOS: week 4, -4.9 [1.7] vs -7.4 [1.5]; P = .265; week 8, -7.4 [2.1] vs -10.3 [1.8]; P = .288; week 12, -7.5 [1.9] vs -14.3 [1.7]; P = .01). Similar findings were observed for pain (Q4) scores (placebo vs BOS: week 4, -2.5 [0.8] vs -3.3 [0.7]; P = .484; week 8, -3.0 [0.8] vs -4.9 [0.7]; P = .066; week 12, -3.1 [0.8] vs -4.9 [0.7]; P = .109). More severe DSQ and DSQ+pain scores were associated with presence of other symptoms (such as regurgitation) and physician-rated severity. Improvements in DSQ and DSQ+pain scores were greater in patients with either a histologic or endoscopic response than in patients without a response. CONCLUSIONS: In a secondary analysis of data from a phase 2 trial of patients with EoE, we found evidence for improvements in dysphagia and pain scores in patients who received BOS (2.0 mg twice daily) vs placebo. Pain with swallowing should be considered in the clinical assessment of patients with EoE. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01642212.

Quality of Life Effect of the Anti-CCR4 Monoclonal Antibody Mogamulizumab Versus Vorinostat in Patients With Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Sézary syndrome (SS) and mycosis fungoides (MF), 2 types of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, cause significant morbidity and adversely affect patients' quality of life (QoL). The present study assessed the QoL measurement changes in patients receiving mogamulizumab versus vorinostat. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter phase III trial was conducted of patients with stage IB-IV MF/SS with ≥ 1 failed systemic therapy. The QoL measures included Skindex-29 and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. The symptoms, function, and QoL subdomains were longitudinally modeled using mixed models with prespecified covariates. Meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) were defined using distribution-based methods. The categorical changes by group over time and the time to clinically meaningful worsening were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 372 randomized patients, mogamulizumab demonstrated improvement in Skindex-29 symptoms (cycles 3, 5, and 7; P < .05) and functional (cycles 3 and 5; P < .05) scales. A significantly greater proportion of mogamulizumab-treated patients improved by MCTs or more from baseline in the Skindex-29 symptoms domain (cycles 3, 5, 7, and 11) and functioning domain (cycle 5). Significant differences in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General physical well-being (cycles 1, 3, and 5; P < .05) were observed in favor of mogamulizumab and a greater proportion of patients had declined by MCTs or more at cycles 1, 3, 5, and 7 with vorinostat treatment. The median time to symptom worsening using Skindex-29 was 27.4 months for mogamulizumab versus 6.6 months for vorinostat. In the patients with SS, the time to worsening favored mogamulizumab (P < .005) for all Skindex-29 domains. The time to worsening was similar for the 2 MF treatment arms. CONCLUSION: The symptoms, function, and overall QoL of patients with MF/SS favored mogamulizumab over vorinostat across all time points. Patients with the greatest symptom burden and functional impairment derived the most QoL benefit from mogamulizumab.

Clinical disease progression and biomarkers in Niemann-Pick disease type C: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC) is a rare, progressive, neurodegenerative disease associated with neurovisceral manifestations resulting from lysosomal dysfunction and aberrant lipid accumulation. A multicentre, prospective observational study (Clinical Trials.gov ID: NCT02435030) of individuals with genetically confirmed NPC1 or NPC2 receiving routine clinical care was conducted, to prospectively characterize and measure NPC disease progression and to investigate potential NPC-related biomarkers versus healthy individuals. Progression was measured using the abbreviated 5-domain NPC Clinical Severity Scale (NPCCSS), 17-domain NPCCSS and NPC clinical database (NPC-cdb) score. Cholesterol esterification and heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) levels were assessed from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), cholestane-3ß,5α-,6ß-triol (cholestane-triol) from serum, and unesterified cholesterol from both PBMCs and skin biopsy samples. The inter- and intra-rater reliability of the 5-domain NPCCSS was assessed by 13 expert clinicians' rating of four participants via video recordings, repeated after ≥ 3 weeks. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 36 individuals with NPC (2-18 years) enrolled, 31 (86.1%) completed the 6-14-month observation period; 30/36 (83.3%) were receiving miglustat as part of routine clinical care. A mean (± SD) increase in 5-domain NPCCSS scores of 1.4 (± 2.9) was observed, corresponding to an annualized progression rate of 1.5. On the 17-domain NPCCSS, a mean (± SD) progression of 2.7 (± 4.0) was reported. Compared with healthy individuals, the NPC population had significantly lower levels of cholesterol esterification (p < 0.0001), HSP70 (p < 0.0001) and skin unesterified cholesterol (p = 0.0006). Cholestane-triol levels were significantly higher in individuals with NPC versus healthy individuals (p = 0.008) and correlated with the 5-domain NPCCSS (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.265, p = 0.0411). The 5-domain NPCCSS showed high ICC agreement in inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.995) and intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.937). CONCLUSIONS: Progression rates observed were consistent with other reports on disease progression in NPC. The 5-domain NPCCSS reliability study supports its use as an abbreviated alternative to the 17-domain NPCCSS that focuses on the most relevant domains of the disease. The data support the use of cholestane-triol as a disease monitoring biomarker and the novel methods of measuring unesterified cholesterol could be applicable to support NPC diagnosis. Levels of HSP70 in individuals with NPC were significantly decreased compared with healthy individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CT-ORZY-NPC-001: ClincalTrials.gov NCT02435030, Registered 6 May 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02435030 ; EudraCT 2014-005,194-37, Registered 28 April 2015, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2014-005194-37/DE . OR-REL-NPC-01: Unregistered.

Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes to Understand & Measure the Patient Experience of Novel Cell and Gene Therapies.

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are the gold standard for assessing patients' experience of treatment in oncology, defined in the 21st Century Cures Act as information about patients' experiences with a disease or condition, including the impact of a disease or condition, or a related therapy or clinical investigation on patients' lives; and patient preferences with respect to treatment of their disease or condition [1]. PROs provide a comprehensive assessment of the benefits and risks of new medical products, as well as essential data to inform real-world use. Although RCTs are the ultimate source for information for evaluating products in development, they are not always feasible for rare diseases with few or no effective treatment options available. Thus, it is important to consider other measures that can help to improve the strength of evidence for cell and gene therapies targeting rare indications. While collection of PROs and other patient experience endpoints does not resolve the difficulty of conducting trials in small populations, doing so contributes empirical evidence that informs both product development and patient access. Additionally, including routine collection of PROs in registries may provide supplemental data to further characterize the benefit:risk profile of cell and gene therapies at follow-up times that would be infeasible to operationalize in a clinical trial setting.

Evaluation of meaningful change in bowel movement frequency for patients with carcinoid syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Carcinoid syndrome is associated with a reduced quality of life that can be attributed to symptoms such as diarrhea and fatigue as well as social and financial issues. This study was conducted to psychometrically assess meaningful change in bowel movement frequency among carcinoid syndrome patients using data from the TELESTAR clinical study. METHODS: An anchor-based approach for deriving meaningful change thresholds consisted of mapping change from baseline bowel movement frequency to other patient-reported assessments of change. These included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) Diarrhea Symptom responders, the EORTC Gastrointestinal NET questionnaire (GI.NET21) GI Symptom responders, and reported adequate relief at Week 12 (≥ 10-point score decrease from Day 1 to Week 12). Parameters included within-group mean change from baseline to Week 12, t-tests of the change (Wilcoxon rank sum for adequate relief), and effect size. RESULTS: There were 135 carcinoid syndrome patients with a mean baseline frequency of 5.7 bowel movements a day. A distribution-based method yielded meaningful change estimates of 0.62 bowel movements a day for overall frequency and 0.83 bowel movements a day at Week 12. Anchor-based analysis indicated a large effect size among patients who reported adequate relief at Week 12 (- 1.58; n = 18; P = 0.014), the QLQ-C30 Diarrhea domain responders (- 1.24; n = 40; P < 0.001), and the GI.NET21 GI Symptoms Domain responders (- 1.49; n = 25; P = 0.005). Exit interview data for meaningful change yielded effect size estimates of - 1.57 for overall change during the Double-blind Treatment Period and - 1.97 for change between Baseline and Week 12. CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful change derivation is critical to interpret patient outcomes for evaluating treatment efficacy. In this study, carcinoid syndrome patients experienced clinically meaningful reductions in bowel movement frequency of ≥30% over 12 weeks with telotristat ethyl treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01677910 .

Relationship Between Symptoms and Health-related Quality-of-life Benefits in Patients With Carcinoid Syndrome: Post Hoc Analyses From TELESTAR.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors and carcinoid syndrome (CS) may experience chronic, recurring symptoms despite somatostatin analogue therapy. Little is known about the relationship between bowel movement (BM) frequency, patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL). Data from the TELESTAR study were used in exploratory, post hoc analyses to understand the relationship between durable reductions in BM frequency, symptom relief, and health-related QoL. METHODS: Patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors and CS in the Phase III TELESTAR study were randomized (1:1:1) to receive telotristat ethyl (TE) 250 mg, TE 500 mg, or placebo three times daily (TID) during a 12-week double-blind treatment period (DBTP). All patients received TE 500 mg TID in an open-label extension (OLE) to Week 48. Durable response was predefined. Analyses compared durable responders (DRs) and non-durable responders (NDRs), irrespective of treatment group, at Weeks 12, 24, and 48. FINDINGS: At the start of the DBTP, 135 patients were randomized, 45 patients each to TE 250 mg, TE 500 mg, and placebo. After the 12-week DBTP, 48 of 135 patients were DRs (TE 250 mg, n = 20; TE 500 mg, n = 19; placebo, n = 9). Of the 115 patients who entered the OLE, 35 were DRs initially randomized to TE 250 mg (n = 18) or 500 mg (n = 17), 29 of whom maintained a durable response throughout the OLE. Of the 71 DBTP-NDRs (inclusive of patients initially randomized to placebo), 28 became OLE-DRs. There were 29 NDRs initially randomized to placebo who entered the OLE, 16 of whom became DRs when switched to TE 500 mg. DRs during the DBTP had greater symptom improvements in the DBTP; these improvements continued over the OLE. DBTP-DRs also maintained more meaningful QoL improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status, nausea and vomiting, pain, diarrhea, and EORTC QLQ-GINET21 gastrointestinal symptoms over the DBTP and OLE periods than DBTP-NDRs. IMPLICATIONS: These results suggest that sustained improvements in BM frequency in patients with CS may have multifaceted, long-term effects on a patient's well-being. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01677910.

Effect of apalutamide on health-related quality of life in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an analysis of the SPARTAN randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the SPARTAN trial, addition of apalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy, as compared with placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy, significantly improved metastasis-free survival in men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were at high risk for development of metastases. We aimed to investigate the effects of apalutamide versus placebo added to androgen deprivation therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: SPARTAN is a multicentre, international, randomised, phase 3 trial. Participants were aged 18 years or older, with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 10 months or less, and a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 2 ng/mL or more in serum. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to 240 mg oral apalutamide per day plus androgen deprivation therapy, or matched oral placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy, using an interactive voice randomisation system. Permuted block randomisation was used according to the three baseline stratification factors: prostate-specific antigen doubling time (>6 months vs ≤6 months), use of bone-sparing drugs (yes vs no), and presence of local-regional nodal disease (N0 vs N1). Each treatment cycle was 28 days. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival. The trial was unblinded in July, 2017. In this prespecified exploratory analysis we assessed HRQOL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires, which we collected at baseline, day 1 of cycle 1 (before dose), day 1 of treatment cycles 1-6, day 1 of every two cycles from cycles 7 to 13, and day 1 of every four cycles thereafter. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01946204. FINDINGS: Between Oct 14, 2013, and Dec 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 1207 patients to receive apalutamide (n=806) or placebo (n=401). The clinical cutoff date, as for the primary analysis, was May 19, 2017. Median follow-up for overall survival was 20·3 months (IQR 14·8-26·6). FACT-P total and subscale scores were associated with a preservation of HRQOL from baseline to cycle 29 in the apalutamide group; there were similar results for EQ-5D-3L. At baseline, the mean for FACT-P total score in both the apalutamide and placebo groups were consistent with the FACT-P general population norm for US adult men. Group mean patient-reported outcome scores over time show that HRQOL was maintained from baseline after initiation of apalutamide treatment and was similar over time among patients receiving apalutamide versus placebo. Least-squares mean change from baseline shows that HRQOL deterioration was more apparent in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In asymptomatic men with high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, HRQOL was maintained after initiation of apalutamide treatment. Considered with findings from SPARTAN, patients who received apalutamide had longer metastasis-free survival and longer time to symptomatic progression than did those who received placebo, while preserving HRQOL. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Mogamulizumab versus vorinostat in previously treated cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (MAVORIC): an international, open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas are rare non-Hodgkin lymphomas with substantial morbidity and mortality in advanced disease stages. We compared the efficacy of mogamulizumab, a novel monoclonal antibody directed against C-C chemokine receptor 4, with vorinostat in patients with previously treated cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. METHODS: In this open-label, international, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients with relapsed or refractory mycosis fungoides or Sézary syndrome at 61 medical centres in the USA, Denmark, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, Japan, and Australia. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years (in Japan, ≥20 years), had failed (for progression or toxicity as assessed by the principal investigator) at least one previous systemic therapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 1 or less and adequate haematological, hepatic, and renal function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice web response system to mogamulizumab (1·0 mg/kg intravenously on a weekly basis for the first 28-day cycle, then on days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles) or vorinostat (400 mg daily). Stratification was by cutaneous T-cell lymphoma subtype (mycosis fungoides vs Sézary syndrome) and disease stage (IB-II vs III-IV). Since this study was open label, patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received one or more doses of study drug were included in the safety analyses. This study is ongoing, and enrolment is complete. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01728805. FINDINGS: Between Dec 12, 2012, and Jan 29, 2016, 372 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive mogamulizumab (n=186) or vorinostat (n=186), comprising the intention-to-treat population. Two patients randomly assigned to mogamulizumab withdrew consent before receiving study treatment; thus, 370 patients were included in the safety population. Mogamulizumab therapy resulted in superior investigator-assessed progression-free survival compared with vorinostat therapy (median 7·7 months [95% CI 5·7-10·3] in the mogamulizumab group vs 3·1 months [2·9-4·1] in the vorinostat group; hazard ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·41-0·69; stratified log-rank p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 adverse events of any cause were reported in 75 (41%) of 184 patients in the mogamulizumab group and 76 (41%) of 186 patients in the vorinostat group. The most common serious adverse events of any cause were pyrexia in eight (4%) patients and cellulitis in five (3%) patients in the mogamulizumab group; and cellulitis in six (3%) patients, pulmonary embolism in six (3%) patients, and sepsis in five (3%) patients in the vorinostat group. Two (67%) of three on-treatment deaths with mogamulizumab (due to sepsis and polymyositis) and three (33%) of nine on-treatment deaths with vorinostat (two due to pulmonary embolism and one due to bronchopneumonia) were considered treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Mogamulizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with vorinostat, and could provide a new, effective treatment for patients with mycosis fungoides and, importantly, for Sézary syndrome, a subtype that represents a major therapeutic challenge in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. FUNDING: Kyowa Kirin.

Quality of life in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer treated with niraparib versus placebo (ENGOT-OV16/NOVA): results from a double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) has become an important complementary endpoint in cancer clinical studies alongside more traditional assessments (eg, tumour response, progression-free survival, overall survival). Niraparib maintenance treatment has been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. We aimed to assess whether the benefits of extending progression-free survival are offset by treatment-associated toxic effects that affect QOL. METHODS: The ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial was a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial done in 107 study sites in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Israel. Patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were in response to their last platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either niraparib (300 mg once daily) as a maintenance treatment or placebo. Randomisation was stratified based on time to progression after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, previous use of bevacizumab, and best response (complete or partial) to the last platinum-based regimen with permuted-block randomisation (six in each block) using an interactive web response system. The trial enrolled two independent cohorts on the basis of germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation status (determined by BRACAnalysis Testing, Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA). The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival, and has already been reported. In this study, we assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the intention-to-treat population using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptoms Index (FOSI) and European QOL five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). We collected PROs from trial entry every 8 weeks for the first 14 cycles and every 12 weeks thereafter. If a patient discontinued, we collected PROs at discontinuation and during a postprogression visit 8 weeks (plus or minus 2 weeks) later. We assessed the effect of haematological toxic effects on QOL with disutility analyses of the most common grade 3-4 adverse events (thrombocytopenia, anaemia, and neutropenia) using a mixed model with histology, region, previous treatment, age, planned treatment, and baseline score as covariates. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01847274. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2013, and June 1, 2015, 553 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive niraparib (n=138 in the gBRCAmut cohort, n=234 in the non-gBRCAmut cohort) or placebo (n=65 in the gBRCAmut cohort, n=116 in the non-gBRCAmut cohort). The mean FOSI score at baseline was similar between the two groups (range between 25·0-25·6 in the two groups). Overall QOL scores remained stable during the treatment and preprogression period in the niraparib group; no significant differences were observed between the niraparib and placebo group, and preprogression EQ-5D-5L scores were similar between the two groups in both cohorts (0·838 [0·0097] in the niraparib group vs 0·834 [0·0173] in the placebo group in the gBRCAmut cohort; and 0·833 [0·0077] in the niraparib group vs 0·815 [0·0122] in the placebo group in the non-gBRCAmut cohort). The most common adverse events reported at screening (baseline) were lack of energy (425 [79%]; 97 [18%] reporting severe lack of energy), pain (236 [44%]), and nausea (118 [22%]). All symptoms, except nausea, either remained stable or improved over time in the niraparib group. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities observed in the niraparib group were haematological in nature: thrombocytopenia (124 [34%] of 367 patients), anaemia (93 [25%]), and neutropenia (72 [20%]); disutility analyses showed no significant QOL impairment associated with these toxic effects. INTERPRETATION: These PRO data suggest that women who receive niraparib as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer after responding to platinum treatment are able to maintain QOL during their treatment when compared with placebo. FUNDING: TESARO.

Evaluation of Quality of Life at Progression in Patients with Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

Introduction. Soft Tissue Sarcoma (STS) is a rare malignancy of mesodermal tissue, with international incidence estimates between 1.8 and 5 per 100,000 per year. Understanding quality of life (QoL) and the detrimental impact of disease progression is critical for long-term care and survival. Objectives. The primary objective was to explore the relationship between disease progression and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using data from Eisai's study (E7389-G000-309). Methods. This was a 1 : 1 randomized, open-label, multicenter, Phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced STS. The QoL analysis was conducted for the baseline and progression populations using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core QoL questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Results. There were no statistical differences between the two treatment arms at baseline for any domain (p > 0.05; n = 452). Of the 399 patients who experienced disease progression (unadjusted and adjusting for histology), dacarbazine patients had significantly lower Global Health Status, Physical Functioning scores, and significantly worse Nausea and Vomiting, Insomnia, and Appetite Loss (p < 0.05). Conclusions. These results indicate differences in HRQoL overall and at progression between dacarbazine and eribulin patients, with increases in symptom severity observed among dacarbazine patients.