A Review of Meaningful Change Thresholds for EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G Within Oncology.

OBJECTIVES: This literature review provides an overview of meaningful change thresholds for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) used across hematological cancers and solid tumors (melanoma, lung, bladder, and prostate). METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched to identify relevant oncology publications from 2016 to 2021. Label claims from the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for 7 recently approved drugs (pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, glasdegib, gilteritinib, tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, and daratumumab plus hyaluronidase-fihj) were reviewed. RESULTS: Publications providing guidance on meaningful change thresholds for the QLQ-C30 displayed a growing trend away from broad "legacy" thresholds of 10 points for all QLQ-C30 scales), toward deriving "contemporary" thresholds (eg, subscale specific, population specific). Contemporary publications generally provide guidance on selecting thresholds for specific scales that account for improved or worsening thresholds (eg, QLQ-C30 subscales). This trend was not clear for FACT-G, with less new guidance available. Most clinical trials used in regulatory label submissions have used thresholds of 10 points for the QLQ-C30 subscales and 3 to 7 points for the FACT-G total score. Despite the availability of more recent guidelines, contemporary meaningful change thresholds seem slow to emerge in the published literature and regulatory labels. CONCLUSIONS: Trialists should consider using contemporary thresholds, rather than legacy thresholds, for QLQ-C30 endpoints. Thresholds derived for a similar patient-population should be used where available. Further work is required to provide these across a broader range of cancer sites.

International validation of two EORTC questionnaires for assessment of health-related quality of life for patients with high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (QLQ-NHL-HG29) and low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (QLQ-NHL-LG20).

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a critical aspect to consider when making treatment decisions for patients with non-Hodgkin-lymphoma (NHL). This international study by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) tested the psychometric properties of two newly developed measures for patients with high-grade (HG)- and low-grade (LG)-NHL: the EORTC QLQ-NHL-HG29 and the EORTC QLQ-NHL-LG20 to supplement the core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). METHODS: Overall, 768 patients with HG-NHL (N = 423) and LG-NHL (N = 345) from 12 countries completed the QLQ-C30, QLQ-NHL-HG29/QLQ-NHL-LG20 and a debriefing questionnaire at baseline, and a subset at follow-up for either retest (N = 125/124) or responsiveness to change (RCA; N = 98/49). RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable to good fit of the 29 items of the QLQ-NHL-HG29 on its five scales (symptom burden [SB], neuropathy, physical condition/fatigue [PF], emotional impact [EI], and worries about health/functioning [WH]), and of the 20 items of the QLQ-NHL-LG20 on its four scales (SB, PF, EI, and WH). Completion took on average 10 minutes. Test-retest reliability, convergent validity, known-group comparisons, and RCA find satisfactory results of both measures. A total of 31%-78% of patients with HG-NHL and 22%-73% of patients with LG-NHL reported symptoms and/or worries (e.g., tingling in hands/feet, lack of energy, and worries about recurrence). Patients reporting symptoms/worries had substantially lower HRQOL compared to those without. DISCUSSION: The use of the EORTC QLQ-NHL-HG29 and QLQ-NHL-LG20 questionnaires in clinical research and practice will provide clinically relevant data to better inform treatment decision-making. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group developed two questionnaires. These questionnaires measure health-related quality of life. The questionnaires are for patients with high-grade or low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They are called the EORTC QLQ-NHL-HG29 and QLQ-NHL-LG20. The questionnaires are now internationally validated. This study demonstrates that the questionnaires are reliably and valid, which are important aspects of a questionnaire. The questionnaires can now be used in clinical trials and practice. With the information gathered from the questionnaires, patients and clinicians can better evaluate treatments and discuss the best choice for a patient.

Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcome Data After Treatment Discontinuation in Cancer Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are critical in understanding treatments from the patient perspective in cancer clinical trials. The potential benefits and methodological approaches to the collection of PRO data after treatment discontinuation (eg, because of progressive disease or unacceptable drug toxicity) are less clear. The purpose of this article is to describe the Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence and the Critical Path Institute cosponsored 2-hour virtual roundtable, held in 2020, to discuss this specific issue. METHODS: We summarize key points from this discussion with 16 stakeholders representing academia, clinical practice, patients, international regulatory agencies, health technology assessment bodies/payers, industry, and PRO instrument development. RESULTS: Stakeholders recognized that any PRO data collection after treatment discontinuation should have clearly defined objectives to ensure that data can be analyzed and reported. CONCLUSIONS: Data collection after discontinuation without a justification for its use wastes patients' time and effort and is unethical.

Healthcare resource utilization of maribavir versus investigator-assigned therapy in transplant recipients with cytomegalovirus infection refractory (with or without genotypic resistance) to prior treatment: Exploratory analysis of the Phase 3 SOLSTICE trial.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV), a common post-transplant infection, is associated with increased healthcare resource utilization. In the Phase 3 SOLSTICE trial, maribavir was superior to investigator-assigned therapy (IAT; valganciclovir/ganciclovir, foscarnet, and cidofovir) for CMV viremia clearance at Week 8 in transplant recipients with confirmed refractory CMV infection with/without resistance. This exploratory analysis evaluated hospital admissions of patients during the SOLSTICE trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized to maribavir (400 mg twice daily) or IAT for an 8-week treatment phase with a 12-week follow-up. After ≥3 weeks of treatment, patients on IAT who met pre-specified criteria could enter a maribavir rescue arm (8-week maribavir treatment, 12-week follow-up). Adjusted hospitalization rates and length of hospital stay (LOS) were estimated using negative binomial models adjusting for the time in the relevant study phase. Subgroup analysis for the maribavir rescue arm was conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 352 patients were randomized (maribavir: 235; IAT: 117); 22 entered the maribavir rescue arm. After adjusting for treatment exposure, patients on maribavir had a 34.8% reduction in hospitalization rate and 53.8% reduced LOS (days/person/year) versus IAT during the treatment phase. No significant differences between treatments were observed during the follow-up phase, although in both arms, hospitalization rates were lower than in the treatment phase. In the maribavir rescue arm, hospitalizations were 60.6% lower on/after maribavir rescue versus pre-rescue treatment (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In patients requiring post-transplant CMV treatment, hospitalization rate and LOS were lower for maribavir than IAT, and hospitalization rates were lower on/after maribavir rescue than pre-rescue. Reducing hospitalizations can alleviate the burden on patients and healthcare systems.

How scoring limits the usability of minimal important differences (MIDs) as responder definition (RD): an exemplary demonstration using EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales.

PURPOSE: The recommended method for establishing a meaningful threshold for individual changes in patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores over time uses an anchor-based method. The patients assess their perceived level of change and this is used to define a threshold on the PRO score which may be considered meaningful to the patient. In practice, such an anchor may not be available. In the absence of alternative information often the meaningful change threshold for assessing between-group differences, the minimally important difference, is used to define meaningful change at the individual level too. This paper will highlight the issues with this, especially where the underlying measurement scale is not continuous. METHODS: Using the EORTC QLQ-C30 as an example, plausible score increments ("state changes") are calculated for each subscale highlighting why commonly used thresholds may be misleading, including leading to sensitivity analyses that are inadvertently testing the same underlying threshold. RESULTS: The minimal possible individual score change varies across subscales; 6.7 for Physical Functioning, 8.3 for Global Health Scale and Emotional Functioning, 11.1 for fatigue, 16.7 for role functioning, cognitive functioning, social functioning, nausea and vomiting, pain and 33.3 for single items. CONCLUSIONS: The determination of meaningful change for an individual patient requires input from the patients but being mindful of the underlying scale ensures that these thresholds are also guided by what is a plausible change for patients to achieve on the scale.

How strong should my anchor be for estimating group and individual level meaningful change? A simulation study assessing anchor correlation strength and the impact of sample size, distribution of change scores and methodology on establishing a true meaningful change threshold.

PURPOSE: Treatment benefit as assessed using clinical outcome assessments (COAs), is a key endpoint in many clinical trials at both the individual and group level. Anchor-based methods can aid interpretation of COA change scores beyond statistical significance, and help derive a meaningful change threshold (MCT). However, evidence-based guidance on the selection of appropriately related anchors is lacking. METHODS: A simulation was conducted which varied sample size, change score variability and anchor correlation strength to assess the impact of these variables on recovering the simulated MCT for interpreting individual and group-level results. To assess MCTs derived at the individual-level (i.e. responder definitions; RDs), Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Predictive Modelling (PM) analyses were conducted. To assess MCTs for interpreting change at the group-level, the mean change method was conducted. RESULTS: Sample sizes, change score variability and magnitude of anchor correlation affected accuracy of the estimated MCT. For individual-level RDs, ROC curves were less accurate than PM methods at recovering the true MCT. For both methods, smaller samples led to higher variability in the returned MCT, but higher variability still using ROC. Anchors with weaker correlations with COA change scores had increased variability in the estimated MCT. An anchor correlation of around 0.50-0.60 identified a true MCT cut-point under certain conditions using ROC. However, anchor correlations as low as 0.30 were appropriate when using PM under certain conditions. For interpreting group-level results, the MCT derived using the mean change method was consistently underestimated regardless of the anchor correlation. CONCLUSION: Sample size and change score variability influence the necessary anchor correlation strength when recovering individual-level RDs. Often, this needs to be higher than the commonly accepted threshold of 0.30. Stronger correlations than 0.30 are required when using the mean change method. Results can assist researchers selecting and assessing the quality of anchors.

International validation of the EORTC QLQ-CLL17 questionnaire for assessment of health-related quality of life for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

Selecting the most appropriate chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) treatment is challenging. Patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is therefore a critical aspect to consider. This international study by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) tested the psychometric properties of a newly developed measure for CLL patients: the EORTC QLQ-CLL17 to supplement the core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Patients with CLL (n = 341) from 12 countries completed the QLQ-C30, QLQ-CLL17 and a debriefing questionnaire. Sociodemographic and clinical data were recorded from medical records. A high percentage (30%-66%) reported symptoms and/or worries (e.g. aches/pains in muscles, lack of energy and worry/fears about health). Confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable to good fit of the 17 items on the three scales (i.e. symptom burden, physical condition/fatigue and worries/fears about health and functioning). Completion took on average 8 min. Test-retest and convergent validity was demonstrated. The QLQ-CLL17 differentiated between patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology group (ECOG) performance of 0 versus 1-3 (p's < 0.01 and clinically relevant). The newly developed EORTC QLQ-CLL17 will increase sensitivity of HRQoL assessment in patients with CLL. Implementation of this questionnaire both in clinical research and practice will help to generate unique clinically relevant data to better inform CLL treatment decision-making.

Validity of a single-item indicator of treatment side effect bother in a diverse sample of cancer patients.

PURPOSE: With higher efficacy of cancer therapies, the numbers and types of side effects experienced by patients have also increased, evidencing a need for brief assessments of side effect bother. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) includes the item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" (GP5). This study aimed to confirm GP5's validity in a large, diverse, real-world patient sample. METHODS: Real-world data were drawn from 10 Adelphi Disease Specific Programmes (DSP™) conducted between 2015 and 2019 in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and the USA, covering 10 cancer sites. We examined correlations between GP5 responses and varied measures of patient-reported global health and the number of side effects experienced. We explored whether more advanced patients and those with worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Rating (ECOG PSR) reported greater side effect bother. Finally, we conducted differential item functioning (DIF) assessment using the Mantel-Haenszel approach. RESULTS: The sample included 6755 advanced cancer patients. GP5 responses were distributed similarly across most cancer sites. A moderate, negative correlation (rpolyserial = - 0.43) between GP5 responses and global health evidenced convergent validity. Known groups validity was evidenced by dichotomised distributions of GP5, showing expected results between cancer stage 2 vs. 3 and 4 and with ECOG PSR (p < 0.001). Little evidence of DIF was found. CONCLUSION: GP5 exhibited evidence of validity across cancer sites and countries and appeared to measure the same construct across these countries. GP5 has significant promise as a summary indicator of side effect bother.

Minimally important differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in prostate cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for interpreting group-level change over time, both within a group and between groups, for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: We used data from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors were selected by strength of correlations with QLQ-C30 scales. In addition, clinicians' input was obtained with regard to plausibility of the selected anchors. The mean change method was applied for interpreting change over time within a group of patients and linear regression models were fitted to estimate MIDs for between-group differences in change over time. Distribution-based estimates were also evaluated. RESULTS: Two clinical anchors were eligible for MID estimation; performance status and the CTCAE diarrhoea domain. MIDs were developed for 7 scales (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, pain, fatigue, global quality of life, diarrhoea) and varied by scale and direction (improvement vs deterioration). Within-group MIDs ranged from 4 to 14 points for improvement and - 13 to - 5 points for deterioration and MIDs for between-group differences in change scores ranged from 3 to 13 for improvement and - 10 to - 5 for deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings aid the meaningful interpretation of changes on a set of EORTC QLQ-C30 scale scores over time, both within and between groups, and for performing more accurate sample size calculations for clinical trials in prostate cancer.

A Comparison of Generic and Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures Using Data From Nivolumab Trials: EQ-5D-3L, Mapping to the EQ-5D-5L, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing interest in condition-specific preference measures, including the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D). This research assessed the implications of using utility indices on the basis of the EQ-5D-3L, a mapping of EQ-5D-3L to the EQ-5D-5L, and the QLU-C10D, and compared their psychometric properties. METHODS: Data were taken from 8 phase 3 randomized controlled trials of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab for the treatment of solid tumors. Utilities for progression-related states were calculated using the UK and English value sets and incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from established UK cost-effectiveness models. The psychometric properties of the utility indices were assessed using pooled trial data. RESULTS: Compared with the EQ-5D-3L index, the mapped EQ-5D-5L index yielded an average of 6% more and the QLU-C10D index an average of 2% fewer incremental QALYs for nivolumab versus comparators. All indices could differentiate between groups defined by performance status, cancer stage, or self-reported health status at baseline and detect meaningful changes in performance status, tumor response, health status, and quality of life over approximately 12 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The lower QALY yield of the QLU-C10D was balanced by evidence of greater validity and responsiveness. Benefits gained from using the QLU-C10D may be apparent when treatments affect targeted symptoms and functional aspects, including sleep, bowel function, appetite, nausea, and fatigue. The observed differences in QALYs may not be sufficiently large to affect health technology assessment decisions.

Health-related quality of life in pediatric patients with partial onset seizures or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures receiving adjunctive perampanel.

RATIONALE: Study 311 (E2007-G000-311; NCT02849626) was a Phase 3, multicenter, open-label single-arm study of adjunctive perampanel oral suspension in pediatric patients (aged 4 to <12 years) with partial-onset seizures (POS) (with/without secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures [SGTCS]) or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was an exploratory endpoint initially analyzed through simple descriptive summaries. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to provide a more thorough assessment of HRQoL. METHODS: This analysis focused on EQ-5D-Y data collected at Baseline, Week 23, and Week 52. Individual dimensions, visual analog scale (VAS) and summed misery index (MI) were evaluated at all visits and compared by seizure type (POS versus SGTCS versus PGTCS), age (4 to <7 versus 7 to <12), and use of concomitant enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) (yes versus no). Paretian Classification of Health Change (PCHC) analysis summarized the proportion of patients who showed improvement or deterioration in HRQoL. Waterfall plots assessed changes in EQ-5D-Y scores by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and by reduction in seizure frequency. Health state utility values associated with differing seizure frequency states were estimated using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen patients completed EQ-5D-Y at relevant study visits (Seizure type: POS n = 84 [of which 21 had SGTCS], PGTCS n = 31; Age: 4 to <7 years n = 30, 7 to <12 years n = 85; Concomitant EIAEDs: Yes n = 35, No n = 80). Completion rates out of those expected to complete EQ-5D-Y were high at both timepoints (84.4% at Week 23 and 97.2% at Week 52). Overall, VAS/MI remained stable over time (did not exceed minimal important difference); this was similar according to seizure type, age, and EIAED usage. In patients with 'no problems' on any EQ-5D-Y dimension at Baseline, nearly all retained their full health at Week 23 (94.7%), and all retained it at Week 52 (100.0%). PCHC analysis showed fewer patients with POS experienced deterioration in EQ-5D-Y than patients with PGTCS at Week 23 (24.1% versus 42.1%). Not experiencing a TEAE, or remaining seizure-free, was associated with improvements in VAS score at Week 23 compared to those experiencing TEAEs or seizures, respectively. Health state utility values (HSUVs) were estimated as follows: seizure free (LS Mean 0.914 [95% CIs 0.587, 1.240]), ≥1 seizure per year (0.620 [0.506, 0.734]), ≥1 seizure per month (0.596 [0.338, 0.855]), ≥1 seizure per week (0.284 [-0.014, 0.582]). CONCLUSIONS: An in-depth analysis of EQ-5D-Y data allowed for a more nuanced exploration of HRQoL than previous descriptive summaries. Our findings provide evidence that perampanel as adjunctive therapy did not result in deterioration of patient HRQoL. The association between TEAEs or remaining seizure-free and HRQoL warrants further exploration. Increasing seizure frequency was associated with decreasing HSUVs; these can inform cost-effectiveness modeling of perampanel and other therapies aiming to reduce seizure frequency in pediatric patients.

Reliability, validity and important difference estimates for the NCCN-FACT Ovarian Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18).

Objective: To evaluate psychometric performance of the NCCN-FACT Ovarian Cancer Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18) in advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: Cross-sectional, observational data from patients receiving treatment for ovarian cancer. Other measures included European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core (EORTC QLQ-C30) and associated ovarian cancer module (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment. Internal consistency reliability, construct validity and anchor-based clinically important differences were assessed. Results: 897 patients were analyzed. Reliability was acceptable for all NFOSI-18 scores; construct validity was supported. Twelve anchors sufficiently correlated with NFOSI-18 scores and suggested clinically important differences: NFOSI-18 total score (5-7), disease-related symptoms - physical (3-4), disease-related symptoms - emotional (1), treatment side effects (2) and functional well-being (1-2). Conclusions: Results provide evidence of reliability and validity of NFOSI-18 scores. Generated CIDs will help improve interpretation of between-group treatment differences in clinical trials.

Lay abstract The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy ­ Ovarian Cancer Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18) is a questionnaire assessing the health of patients with ovarian cancer. When using such questionnaires, it is important to evidence that they produce consistent scores (referred to as reliability) and are aligned with other assessments of health (referred to as construct validity). It is also important to set guidelines on what constitutes a clinically important difference in scores, so clinicians and researchers can judge how effective new treatments are. This study analyzed data from 897 patients with advanced ovarian cancer, providing evidence of reliability and construct validity. Guidelines for clinically important differences were also provided. The findings support continued use of the NFOSI-18.

International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

Minimally important differences for interpreting European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 scores in patients with ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Minimal important differences (MIDs) are useful for interpreting changes or differences in health-related quality of life scores in terms of clinical importance. There are currently no MID guidelines for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) specific to ovarian cancer. This study aims to estimate MIDs for interpreting group-level change of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in ovarian cancer. METHODS: Data were derived from four EORTC published trials. Clinical anchors for each EORTC QLQ-C30 scale were selected using correlation strength and clinical plausibility. MIDs for within-group change and between-group differences in change over time were estimated via mean change method and linear regression respectively. For each EORTC QLQ-C30 scale, MID estimates from multiple anchors were summarized via weighted-correlation. Distribution-based MIDs were also examined as supportive evidence. RESULTS: Anchor-based MIDs were determined for deterioration in 7 of the 14 EORTC QLQ-C30 scales assessed, and in 11 scales for improvement. Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change ranged from 4 to 19 (improvement) and - 9 to -4 (deterioration). Between-group MIDs ranged from 3 to 13 (improvement) and - 11 to -4 (deterioration). Generally, absolute anchor-based MIDs for most scales ranged from 4 to 10 points. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings will aid interpretation of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in ovarian cancer and inform sample size calculations in future ovarian cancer trials with endpoints that are based on EORTC QLQ-C30 scales.

Estimation of minimally important differences and responder definitions for EORTC QLQ-MY20 scores in multiple myeloma patients.

OBJECTIVES: Thresholds for the minimally important difference (MID) or responder definition (RD) in health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) scores are required to interpret the impact of an intervention or change in the trajectory of the condition which is meaningful to patients. This study aimed to establish MID and RD for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Multiple Myeloma questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-MY20). METHODS: A novel mixed-methods approach was applied by utilizing both existing clinical trial data and prospective patient interviews. Anchor-based, distribution-based, and qualitative-based estimates of meaningful change were triangulated to form recommended RDs for each scale of the EORTC QLQ-MY20. Anchor-based MIDs were summarized using weighted correlation. RESULTS: Recommended MIDs were as follows: Disease Symptoms (DS 10 points), Side Effects of Treatment (SE 10 points), Body Image (BI 13 points), and Future Perspective (FP 9 points). Recommended RDs were as follows: DS (16 improvement; 11 worsening), SE (6 improvement; 9 worsening), BI (33 improvement; 33 worsening), and FP (11 improvement; 11 worsening). CONCLUSIONS: The study generated estimates of the MID and RD for each scale of the EORTC QLQ-MY20. Published estimates will enable investigators and clinicians to adopt these as standard for interpretation and for hypothesis testing. Consequently, analyses from trials of different interventions can be more comparable.

Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review.

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, are important endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there is little consensus about the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of these data. We did a systematic review to assess the variability, quality, and standards of PRO data analyses in advanced breast cancer RCTs. We searched PubMed for English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2017. Eligible articles were those that reported PRO results from RCTs of adult patients with advanced breast cancer receiving anti-cancer treatments with reported sample sizes of at least 50 patients-66 RCTs met the selection criteria. Only eight (12%) RCTs reported a specific PRO research hypothesis. Heterogeneity in the statistical methods used to assess PRO data was observed, with a mixture of longitudinal and cross-sectional techniques. Not all articles addressed the problem of multiple testing. Fewer than half of RCTs (28 [42%]) reported the clinical significance of their findings. 48 (73%) did not report how missing data were handled. Our systematic review shows a need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs. Lack of standardisation makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions and compare findings across trials. The Setting International Standards in the Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data Consortium was set up to address this need and develop recommendations on the analysis of PRO data in RCTs.

International development of four EORTC disease-specific quality of life questionnaires for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, high- and low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

PURPOSE: This paper describes the international, cross-cultural development of four disease-specific EORTC QoL questionnaires, to supplement the EORTC QLQ-C30, for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), high- or low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (HG/LG-NHL), and CLL. METHODS: Questionnaire development was conducted according to guidelines from the EORTC Quality of Life Group. Phase I comprised generation of QoL issues relevant to patients. Phase II included operationalization and assessment of item relevance. In phase III, items were pretested in a cross-cultural sample. RESULTS: In Phase I, 75 issues were identified through focus groups and systematic literature searches. Interviews with 80 health-care professionals and 245 patients resulted in a provisional module of 38 items (phase II) representing items relevant for all or at least one of the four malignancies. In Phase III, this was tested in 337 patients from five European countries and resulted in a questionnaire with 27 items for HL (EORTC QLQ-HL27), 29 items for HG-NHL (EORTC QLQ-NHL-HG29), 20 items for LG-NHL (EORTC QLQ-NHL-LG20) and 17 items for CLL (EORTC QLQ-CLL17). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides four new EORTC modules for use in clinical research and routine practice in conjunction with the EORTC QLQ-C30 for assessing QoL in patients with lymphoma and CLL.

Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including "missing data,""health-related quality of life," and "patient-reported outcome." Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. CONCLUSION: The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

Nivolumab versus standard, single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CheckMate 141): health-related quality-of-life results from a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck have few treatment options and poor prognosis. Nivolumab significantly improved survival of this patient population when compared with standard single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in Checkmate 141; here we report the effect of nivolumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: CheckMate 141 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who progressed within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n=240) or investigator's choice (n=121) of methotrexate (40-60 mg/m2 of body surface area), docetaxel (30-40 mg/m2), or cetuximab (250 mg/m2 after a loading dose of 400 mg/m2) until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. On Jan 26, 2016, the independent data monitoring committee reviewed the data at the planned interim analysis and declared overall survival superiority for nivolumab over investigator's choice therapy (primary endpoint; described previously). The protocol was amended to allow patients in the investigator's choice group to cross over to nivolumab. All patients not on active therapy are being followed for survival. As an exploratory endpoint, PROs were assessed at baseline, week 9, and every 6 weeks thereafter using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), the EORTC head and neck cancer-specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35), and the three-level European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Differences within and between treatment groups in PROs were analysed by ANCOVA among patients with baseline and at least one other assessment. All randomised patients were included in the time to clinically meaningful deterioration analyses. Median time to clinically meaningful deterioration was analysed by Kaplan-Meier methods. CheckMate 141 was registered with ClinicalTrials.org, number NCT02105636. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between May 29, 2014, and July 31, 2015, and subsequently 361 patients were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab (n=240) or investigator's choice (n=121). Among them, 129 patients (93 in the nivolumab group and 36 in the investigator's choice group) completed any of the PRO questionnaires at baseline and at least one other assessment. Treatment with nivolumab resulted in adjusted mean changes from baseline to week 15 ranging from -2·1 to 5·4 across functional and symptom domains measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, with no domains indicating clinically meaningful deterioration. By contrast, eight (53%) of the 15 domains in the investigator's choice group showed clinically meaningful deterioration (10 points or more) at week 15 (change from baseline range, -24·5 to 2·4). Similarly, on the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, clinically meaningful worsening at week 15 was seen in no domains in the nivolumab group and eight (44%) of 18 domains in the investigator's choice group. Patients in the nivolumab group had a clinically meaningful improvement (according to a difference of 7 points or greater) in adjusted mean change from baseline to week 15 on the EQ-5D visual analogue scale, in contrast to a clinically meaningful deterioration in the investigator's choice group (7·3 vs -7·8). Differences between groups were significant and clinically meaningful at weeks 9 and 15 in favour of nivolumab for role functioning, social functioning, fatigue, dyspnoea, and appetite loss on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and pain and sensory problems on the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. Median time to deterioration was significantly longer with nivolumab versus investigator's choice for 13 (37%) of 35 domains assessed across the three questionnaires. INTERPRETATION: In this exploratory analysis of CheckMate 141, nivolumab stabilised symptoms and functioning from baseline to weeks 9 and 15, whereas investigator's choice led to clinically meaningful deterioration. Nivolumab delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes compared with single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. In view of the major unmet need in this population and the importance of maintaining or improving quality of life for patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, these data support nivolumab as a new standard-of-care option in this setting. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.