Acceptability and usefulness of the EORTC 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems' (WISP): a brief open-ended instrument for symptom assessment in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of open-ended questions supplementing static questionnaires with closed questions may facilitate the recognition of symptoms and toxicities. The open-ended 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems (WISP)' instrument permits patients to report additional symptoms/problems not covered by selected EORTC questionnaires. We evaluated the acceptability and usefulness of WISP with cancer patients receiving active and palliative care/treatment in Austria, Chile, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on validated instruments for cancer patients including open-ended questions and analyzing their responses. WISP was translated into eight languages and pilot tested. WISP translations were pre-tested together with EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-C15-PAL and relevant modules, followed by patient interviews to evaluate their understanding about WISP. Proportions were used to summarize patient responses obtained from interviews and WISP. RESULTS: From the seven instruments identified in the literature, only the free text collected from the PRO-CTAE has been analyzed previously. In our study, 161 cancer patients participated in the pre-testing and interviews (50% in active treatment). Qualitative interviews showed high acceptability of WISP. Among the 295 symptoms/problems reported using WISP, skin problems, sore mouth and bleeding were more prevalent in patients in active treatment, whereas numbness/tingling, dry mouth and existential problems were more prevalent in patients in palliative care/treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC WISP instrument was found to be acceptable and useful for symptom assessment in cancer patients. WISP improves the identification of symptoms/problems not assessed by cancer-generic questionnaires and therefore, we recommend its use alongside the EORTC questionnaires.

The EORTC CAT Core-The computer adaptive version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: To optimise measurement precision, relevance to patients and flexibility, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should ideally be adapted to the individual patient/study while retaining direct comparability of scores across patients/studies. This is achievable using item banks and computerised adaptive tests (CATs). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) is one of the most widely used PROMs in cancer research and clinical practice. Here we provide an overview of the research program to develop CAT versions of the QLQ-C30's 14 functional and symptom domains. METHODS: The EORTC Quality of Life Group's strategy for developing CAT item banks consists of: literature search to identify potential candidate items; formulation of new items compatible with the QLQ-C30 item style; expert evaluations and patient interviews; field-testing and psychometric analyses, including factor analysis, item response theory calibration and simulation of measurement properties. In addition, software for setting up, running and scoring CAT has been developed. RESULTS: Across eight rounds of data collections, 9782 patients were recruited from 12 countries for the field-testing. The four phases of development resulted in a total of 260 unique items across the 14 domains. Each item bank consists of 7-34 items. Psychometric evaluations indicated higher measurement precision and increased statistical power of the CAT measures compared to the QLQ-C30 scales. Using CAT, sample size requirements may be reduced by approximately 20-35% on average without loss of power. CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC CAT Core represents a more precise, powerful and flexible measurement system than the QLQ-C30. It is currently being validated in a large independent, international sample of cancer patients.

An assessment of the benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess the benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We used generalized pairwise comparisons. This statistical method permits the simultaneous analysis of several prioritized outcome measures. The first priority outcome was survival time (OS). Differences in OS that exceeded two months were considered clinically relevant. The second priority outcome was toxicity. The overall treatment effect was quantified using the net chance of a better outcome, which can be interpreted as the net probability for a random patient treated in the FOLFIRINOX group to have a better overall outcome than a random patient in the gemcitabine group. RESULTS: In this trial 342 patients received either FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine. The net chance of a better outcome favored strongly and significantly the FOLFIRINOX group (24.7; P<.001), suggesting a favorable benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine. The positive benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX was observed throughout all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Generalized pairwise comparisons are useful to perform a quantitative assessment of the benefit-risk balance of new treatments. It provides a clinically intuitive way of comparing patients with respect to all important efficacy and toxicity outcomes. Overall the benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX was strongly positive.

Guidelines for time-to-event end-point definitions in trials for pancreatic cancer. Results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials).

BACKGROUND: Using potential surrogate end-points for overall survival (OS) such as Disease-Free- (DFS) or Progression-Free Survival (PFS) is increasingly common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, end-points are too often imprecisely defined which largely contributes to a lack of homogeneity across trials, hampering comparison between them. The aim of the DATECAN (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials)-Pancreas project is to provide guidelines for standardised definition of time-to-event end-points in RCTs for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Time-to-event end-points currently used were identified from a literature review of pancreatic RCT trials (2006-2009). Academic research groups were contacted for participation in order to select clinicians and methodologists to participate in the pilot and scoring groups (>30 experts). A consensus was built after 2 rounds of the modified Delphi formal consensus approach with the Rand scoring methodology (range: 1-9). RESULTS: For pancreatic cancer, 14 time to event end-points and 25 distinct event types applied to two settings (detectable disease and/or no detectable disease) were considered relevant and included in the questionnaire sent to 52 selected experts. Thirty experts answered both scoring rounds. A total of 204 events distributed over the 14 end-points were scored. After the first round, consensus was reached for 25 items; after the second consensus was reached for 156 items; and after the face-to-face meeting for 203 items. CONCLUSION: The formal consensus approach reached the elaboration of guidelines for standardised definitions of time-to-event end-points allowing cross-comparison of RCTs in pancreatic cancer.

Health-related quality-of-life assessment in gastrointestinal cancer: are results relevant for clinical practice?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Health-related quality-of-life studies are now recognized as critical to understand the burden of disease and treatments on patients' well being. Significant advances have been recently achieved in gastrointestinal cancers, including the development and clinical use of new robust quality-of-life instruments. We review recent literature to evaluate whether quality-of-life assessment contributes to optimal patient information and helps treatment choices. RECENT FINDINGS: Treatments of gastrointestinal cancers have changed in the last few years with increasing use of multimodal therapies and advances in surgical techniques, especially for low-lying rectal cancers. Concurrent to the development of sphincter-saving procedures, however, the long-term consequences of a permanent stoma on quality of life have been debated. Results of new palliative treatments should also be considered looking at preservation or improvement of quality of life and not only prolongation of life. SUMMARY: Gastrointestinal malignancies impact strongly on patient quality of life due to the aggressiveness of the treatments. Short-term negative effects of surgery and specific deficits in survivors were recently described in gastrointestinal cancers. Baseline quality-of-life data predict length of survival in hepatocarcinoma and metastatic colorectal cancer. Generally, quality-of-life results help to fully inform the patients of the advantages or disadvantages of therapeutic options, including adjuvant and palliative treatments.

Assessment of baseline clinical predictive factors of response to cetuximab-irinotecan in patients with irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To identify easily available predictive factors of response to cetuximab-irinotecan in patients with irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients treated with cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) in week 1, 250 mg/m(2) in subsequent weeks) plus irinotecan (180 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks). We assessed demographic data, prior response to chemotherapy, number of metastatic sites, disease and metastatic disease durations, irinotecan-free interval and tumoral immunohistochemical epidermal growth factor receptor status. RESULTS: We analyzed 311 patients. Objective response rate under cetuximab-irinotecan was 26%. In univariate analysis, prior response to irinotecan, presence of only 1 metastatic site, disease duration, metastatic disease duration and irinotecan-free interval equal or above median (24, 18 and 1.8 months, respectively) were predictive of response to cetuximab-irinotecan. Multivariate analysis confirmed independent predictive value of prior response to irinotecan, number of metastatic sites and disease duration. CONCLUSION: Prior response to irinotecan, number of metastatic sites and disease duration may contribute to better select patients suitable for cetuximab-irinotecan therapy.

Use of a decision analysis model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET in the management of metachronous liver metastases of colorectal cancer.

UNLABELLED: Few data exist on the medicoeconomic usefulness of PET in the management of metachronous liver metastases from colorectal cancer. This study was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of PET in the diagnosis and staging of patients with metachronous liver metastases of colorectal cancer using a decision analysis model. METHODS: Two alternatives were compared: CT and CT associated with PET (CT+PET). Transition probabilities were estimated from published data and consultations with experts. Survival data were provided by the Burgundy Digestive Cancer Registry (France). Costs of imaging techniques and treatments were assessed using reimbursements from the French health care insurance for the year 2004. Evaluation criteria included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and the proportion of unnecessary operations avoided in patients without metachronous liver metastases. RESULTS: CT+PET was the most cost-effective strategy, presenting an expected incremental cost saving of 2,671 (approximately $3,213) per patient, for the same level of expected effectiveness as CT alone (1.88-y life expectancy per patient). Sensitivity analyses performed on epidemiologic and economic parameters showed that this model was robust. The model also suggested that CT+PET could avoid exploratory surgery for 6.1% of patients-that is, 88.4% risk reduction compared with CT alone. CONCLUSION: PET for diagnosis and staging does not generate additional survival effectiveness compared with CT alone. However cost savings associated with its use and the improvement of therapeutic management therefore justify its generalization in clinical practice.