Patient-reported Outcome Measurement and Reporting for Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review.

CONTEXT: In the oncology setting, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide important data that help to ensure patient-relevant endpoints are captured and reported. Use of this information for treatment decision-making by clinicians and patients in real-world settings is facilitated by consistent and transparent reporting of trial methods. OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare PROMs used in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials in terms of the rationale for the choice of measure, endpoint hierarchy (primary, secondary, exploratory), assessment time points, statistical methods, and statistical metrics for interpretation. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature review via searches of four online databases (2016-2021) and recent conference abstracts (2019-2021) identified 2616 articles, of which 33 were included in the review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Among the 33 clinical studies included, 19 different PROMs were identified: three kidney cancer-specific scales, two cancer-specific scales, two generic scales, and 12 symptom-specific scales. The endpoint hierarchy for patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment was reported in 42% of the studies; one study included PROs as a primary endpoint. Reporting of time points, minimal important differences, and statistical analyses was highly heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: A diverse range of PROMs have been included in clinical studies for patients with advanced/metastatic RCC. Prespecified analyses for PRO assessments were generally not stated, while analytical methods and reporting varied. An improvement in alignment across studies would better inform regulatory, market-access, reimbursement, and clinical decision-making to improve patient care. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed how the impact of cancer therapies on health outcomes from the patient's point of view is being measured in clinical trials for kidney cancer. The techniques and reporting varied across trials. Standardisation of how these data are captured and reported may improve care and decision-making for patients with kidney cancer.

Health-related quality of life with pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (KEYNOTE-826): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the KEYNOTE-826 study, the addition of the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab improved overall survival and progression-free survival (primary endpoints) versus placebo plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, with manageable toxicity, in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. In this Article, we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-826. METHODS: KEYNOTE-826 is a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial in 151 cancer treatment centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer not previously treated with systemic chemotherapy (previous radiosensitising chemotherapy was allowed) and not amenable to curative treatment and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system in a double-blind manner to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks intravenously for up to 35 cycles plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min, intravenously) with or without bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks intravenously. Randomisation (block size of 4) was stratified by metastatic disease at diagnosis, planned bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 combined positive score. Patients, investigators, and other study personnel involved in study treatment administration or clinical evaluation of patients were unaware of treatment group assignments. PRO instruments were the EORTC Quality-of-Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) visual analogue scale, each collected before treatment at cycles 1-14 and every other cycle thereafter. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per RECIST version 1.1 by investigator review. Change from baseline in QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)-quality of life (QoL) was a prespecified secondary endpoint and was assessed in the PRO full analysis population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment). Other PRO analyses were protocol-specified exploratory endpoints. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03635567, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Nov 20, 2018, and Jan 31, 2020, of 883 patients screened, 617 were randomly assigned (pembrolizumab group, n=308; placebo group, n=309). 587 (95%) of 617 patients received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment and were therefore included in the PRO analyses (pembrolizumab group, n=290; placebo group, n=297). Median follow-up was 22·0 months (IQR 19·1-24·4). At week 30, QLQ-C30 completion was 199 (69%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 168 (57%) of 297 patients in the placebo group; compliance was 199 (94%) of 211 and 168 (90%) of 186, respectively. The least squares mean change in QLQ-C30 GHS-QoL score from baseline to week 30 was -0·3 points (95% CI -3·1 to 2·6) in the pembrolizumab group and -1·3 points (-4·2 to 1·7) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference in least squares mean change of 1·0 point (95% CI -2·7 to 4·7). Median time to true deterioration in GHS-QoL was not reached (NR; 95% CI 13·4 months-NR) in the pembrolizumab group and 12·9 months (6·6-NR) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·65-1·09]). 122 (42%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 85 (29%) of 297 in the placebo group had improved GHS-QoL at any time during the study (p=0·0003). INTERPRETATION: Addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab did not negatively affect health-related quality of life. Along with the efficacy and safety results already reported from KEYNOTE-826, these data support the benefit of pembrolizumab and the value of immunotherapy in patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Improvements in Objective and Subjective Measures of Chronic Cough with Gefapixant: A Pooled Phase 3 Efficacy Analysis of Predefined Subgroups.

INTRODUCTION: In phase 3 trials (COUGH-1/COUGH-2), gefapixant 45 mg twice daily significantly reduced 24-h cough frequency vs placebo in refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC or UCC). METHODS: Here, the efficacy of gefapixant 45 mg vs placebo was evaluated across COUGH-1/COUGH-2 in predefined subgroups based on sex, region, age, cough duration, cough severity, cough frequency, and diagnosis (RCC, UCC). Awake cough frequency reductions at Week 12 and LCQ response rates (i.e., ≥ 1.3-point improvement) at Week 24 were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1360 participants analyzed, gefapixant 45 mg resulted in consistent awake cough frequency reductions overall and across predefined subgroups at Week 12. Gefapixant also resulted in improved LCQ scores across subgroups at Week 24; ≥ 70% of participants in each subgroup treated with gefapixant 45 mg had an LCQ response. CONCLUSION: These data suggest gefapixant 45 mg provides consistent objective and subjective efficacy across subgroups of individuals with RCC or UCC.

Does recall period matter? Comparing PROMIS® physical function with no recall, 24-hr recall, and 7-day recall.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of recall periods on the assessment of physical function, we compared, in cancer and general population samples, the standard administration of PROMIS Physical Function items without a recall period to administrations with 24-hour and 7-day recall periods. METHODS: We administered 31 items from the PROMIS Physical Function v2.0 item bank to 2400 respondents (n = 1001 with cancer; n = 1399 from the general population). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three recall conditions (no recall, 24-hours, or 7-days) and one of two "reminder" conditions (with recall periods presented only at the start of the survey or with every item). We assessed items for potential differential item functioning (DIF) by recall time period. We then tested recall and reminder effects with analysis of variance controlling for demographics, English fluency, and co-morbidities. RESULTS: Based on conservative pre-set criteria, no items were flagged for recall time period-related DIF. Using analysis of variance, each condition was compared to the standard PROMIS administration for Physical Function (no recall period). There was no evidence of significant differences among groups in the cancer sample. In the general population sample, only the 24-hour recall condition with reminders was significantly different from the "no recall" PROMIS standard. At the item level, for both samples, the number of items with non-trivial effect size differences across conditions was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to no recall, the use of a recall period has little to no effect upon PROMIS physical function responses or scores. We recommend that PROMIS Physical Function be administered with the standard PROMIS "no recall" period.

Comparative analysis of the effects of nomegestrol acetate/17 ß-estradiol and drospirenone/ethinylestradiol on premenstrual and menstrual symptoms and dysmenorrhea.

OBJECTIVES: To compare premenstrual and menstrual symptoms in healthy women using nomegestrol acetate/17ß-estradiol (NOMAC/E2) and drospirenone/ethinylestradiol (DRSP/EE) via the Moos Menstrual Distress Questionnaire Form C (MDQ-C). METHODS: Women completed the MDQ-C at baseline and after completion of cycles 1, 3, 6 and 13, for the premenstrual (four days before most recent flow) and menstrual (most recent flow) phases in two randomized controlled trials. Treatment effects of NOMAC/E2 and DRSP/EE on the t-scores of eight MDQ-C symptom domains from 3522 women were examined, and the effects of both treatments on the score for cramps from 1779 women with moderate to severe cramps at baseline. Longitudinal data analysis methods were applied in both analyses. RESULTS: NOMAC/E2 users experienced a significant improvement in Pain, Water Retention, Negative Affect, Impaired Concentration and Behaviour Change domain scores in the menstrual phase compared with DRSP/EE users (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). However, Arousal (emotional and mental) scores worsened with NOMAC/E2 but not with DRSP/EE. Women with moderate to severe cramps experienced an improvement in the cramps score with NOMAC/E2 and DRSP/EE. CONCLUSIONS: NOMAC/E2 was effective in reducing most premenstrual and menstrual symptoms, and was associated with significantly greater improvements in many MDQ-C domain scores compared with DRSP/EE. ( ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00413062 and NCT00511199).