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

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

Quality of life in cemiplimab-treated patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma in a Phase II clinical trial.

Aim: To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in cemiplimab-treated patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC).Materials & methods: Eighty-four patients with laBCC received cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (up to 9 cycles). HRQoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Skindex-16 questionnaires at baseline and each cycle. Mixed-effects repeated-measures models evaluated change from baseline across cycles.Results: Clinically meaningful improvement or maintenance was reported by 62-90% of patients on QLQ-C30 scales and by approximately 80% on Skindex-16 scales at Cycle 2, with consistent results at Cycle 9 except fatigue.Conclusion: Most cemiplimab-treated patients with laBCC reported improvement or maintenance of HRQoL with low symptom burden except fatigue.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03132636, registered 28 April 2017.

Locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) is a type of skin cancer that has the potential to invade surrounding tissues including bone, cartilage, nerve and muscle. Cemiplimab-rwlc is approved in the US for patients with laBCC following a therapy called hedgehog inhibitor (HHI) treatment or for whom HHIs are not appropriate. In a Phase II clinical trial, intravenous (in the vein) cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to nine treatment cycles resulted in clinically meaningful antitumor activity in patients with laBCC who progressed on or were intolerant to HHIs.This analysis evaluated health-related quality of life, symptom burden, emotions and functional status in these patients using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Skindex-16 questionnaires. Baseline scores (scores at the start of the clinical trial) showed moderate to high levels of functioning and low symptom burden that, except for fatigue, were maintained or improved over the course of cemiplimab treatment. These results show that despite the presence of fatigue, health-related quality of life and functional status were maintained with cemiplimab across the study duration.

Patient-reported outcomes with cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of ≥50%: The EMPOWER-Lung 1 study.

BACKGROUND: In the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540), cemiplimab conferred longer survival than platinum-doublet chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥50%. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated among trial participants. METHODS: Adults with NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. At baseline and day 1 of each treatment cycle, patients were administered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Mixed-model repeated measures analysis estimated overall change from baseline for PD-L1 ≥50% and intention-to-treat populations. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated time to definitive deterioration. RESULTS: In PD-L1 ≥50% patients (cemiplimab, n = 283; chemotherapy, n = 280), baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 scores showed moderate-to-high functioning and low symptom burden. Change from baseline favored cemiplimab on global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), functioning, and most symptom scales. Risk of definitive deterioration across functioning scales was reduced versus chemotherapy; hazard ratios were 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32-0.71) to 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.96). Cemiplimab showed lower risk of definitive deterioration for disease-related (dyspnea, cough, pain in chest, pain in other body parts, fatigue) and treatment-related symptoms (peripheral neuropathy, alopecia, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea) (nominal p < .05). Results were similar in the intention-to-treat population. CONCLUSIONS: Results support cemiplimab for first-line therapy of advanced NSCLC from the patient's perspective. Improved survival is accompanied by improvements versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in GHS/QOL and functioning and reduction in symptom burden.

Quality of life with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Patient-reported outcomes from phase 3 EMPOWER-Lung 3.

BACKGROUND: EMPOWER-Lung 3, a randomized 2:1 phase 3 trial, showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant overall survival improvement with cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. This study evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline), the start of each treatment cycle (every 3 weeks) for the first six doses, and then at start of every three cycles, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life-Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Prespecified analyses included a longitudinal mixed-effect model comparing treatment arms and a time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (TTD) analysis performed for global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) and all scales from the questionnaires. Between-arm TTD comparisons were made using a stratified log-rank test and proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 312 patients were assigned to receive cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy and 154 to receive placebo plus chemotherapy; 391 (83.9%) were male and the median age was 63.0 years (range, 25-84). For pain symptoms (EORTC QLQ-C30), a statistically significant overall improvement from baseline (-4.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8.36 to -1.60, p = .004) and a statistically significant delay in TTD (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.60, p < .0001) favoring cemiplimab plus chemotherapy were observed. Statistically significant delays in TTD, all favoring cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, were also observed in functioning and symptom scales. A significant overall improvement from baseline in GHS/QoL was seen for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy compared with nonsignificant overall change from baseline for placebo plus chemotherapy (1.69, 95% CI, 0.20-3.19 vs. 1.08, 95% CI, -1.34 to 3.51; between arms, p = .673). No analyses yielded statistically significant PRO results favoring placebo plus chemotherapy for any QLQ-C30 or QLQ-LC13 scale. CONCLUSION: Cemiplimab plus chemotherapy resulted in significant overall improvement in pain symptoms and delayed TTD in cancer-related and lung cancer-specific symptoms and functions.

Patient-reported outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated in CheckMate 9ER: an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the CheckMate 9ER trial, patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significantly better progression-free survival compared with those given sunitinib. In this study, we aimed to describe the patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from CheckMate 9ER. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 125 cancer centres, urology centres, and hospitals across 18 countries, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and available tumour tissue were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day, or oral sunitinib 50 mg per day monotherapy for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously. PROs were analysed as prespecified exploratory endpoints at common timepoints (at baseline and every 6 weeks) until week 115. Disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and global health status was assessed with the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and UK utility index. PRO analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures. A time-to-deterioration analysis was done for first and confirmed deterioration events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 328 to sunitinib. Median follow-up was 23·5 months (IQR 21·0-26·5). At baseline, patients in both groups reported low symptom burden (FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1 mean scores at baseline were 30·24 [SD 5·19] for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 30·06 [5·03] for the sunitinib group). Change from baseline in PRO scores indicated that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with more favourable outcomes versus sunitinib (treatment difference 2·38 [95% CI 1·20-3·56], nominal p<0·0001, effect size 0·33 [95% CI 0·17-0·50] for FKSI-19 total score; 1·33 [0·84-1·83], nominal p<0·0001, 0·45 [0·28-0·61] for FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1; 3·48 [1·58-5·39], nominal p=0·0004, 0·30 [0·14-0·47] for EQ-5D-3L VAS; and 0·04 [0·01-0·07], nominal p=0·0036, 0·25 [0·08-0·41] for EQ-5D-3L UK utility index), reaching significance at most timepoints. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with decreased risk of clinically meaningful deterioration for FKSI-19 total score compared with sunitinib (first deterioration event hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·56-0·86], nominal p=0·0007; confirmed deterioration event 0·63 [0·50-0·80], nominal p=0·0001). INTERPRETATION: PROs were maintained or improved with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome scores. These results suggest a benefit for nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

The impact of enzalutamide on quality of life in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on prior therapy, risk, and symptom subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival versus ADT alone in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in ARCHES (NCT02677896). While health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was generally maintained in the intent-to-treat population, we further analyzed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in defined subgroups. METHODS: ARCHES was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Patients with mHSPC received enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus ADT (n = 574) or placebo plus ADT (n = 576). Questionnaires, including the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), were completed at baseline, Week 13, and every 12 weeks until disease progression. PRO endpoints were time to first confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration (TTFCD) in HRQoL or pain. Subgroups included prognostic risk, pain/HRQoL, prior docetaxel, and local therapy (radical prostatectomy [RP] and/or radiotherapy [RT]). RESULTS: There were several between-treatment differences in TTFCD for pain and functioning/HRQoL PROs. Enzalutamide plus ADT delayed TTFCD for worst pain in the prior RT group (not reached vs. 14.06 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.56 [95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.94]) and pain interference in low-baseline-HRQoL group (19.32 vs. 11.20 months; HR: 0.64 [0.44-0.94]) versus placebo plus ADT. In prior/no prior RP, prior RT, prior local therapy, no prior docetaxel, mild baseline pain, and low-risk subgroups, TTFCD was delayed for the EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide plus ADT provides clinical benefits in defined patient subgroups versus ADT alone, while maintaining lack of pain and high HRQoL, with delayed deterioration in several HRQoL measures.

Patient-reported outcomes following enzalutamide or placebo in men with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (PROSPER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the PROSPER trial, enzalutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival in patients with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Here, we report the results of patient-reported outcomes of this study. METHODS: In the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PROSPER trial, done at 254 study sites worldwide, patients aged 18 years or older with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of up to 10 months were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive voice web recognition system to receive oral enzalutamide (160 mg per day) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by prostate-specific antigen doubling time and baseline use of a bone-targeting agent. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival, reported elsewhere. Secondary efficacy endpoints, reported here, were pain progression (assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form [BPI-SF] questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-PR25], the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 5-Levels health questionnaire visual analogue scale [EQ-5D-FL, EQ-VAS], and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P] questionnaires). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, week 17, and every 16 weeks thereafter until treatment discontinuation. We used predefined questionnaire thresholds to identify clinically meaningful changes. Enrolment for PROSPER is complete and follow-up continues. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02003924. FINDINGS: Between Nov 26, 2013, and June 28, 2017, 1401 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive enzalutamide (n=933) or placebo (n=468). Median follow-up was 18·5 months (IQR 10·7-29·2) in the enzalutamide group and 15·1 months (7·4-25·9) in the placebo group. Patient-reported outcome scores at baseline were similar between groups. Changes in least squares mean from baseline to week 97 favoured enzalutamide versus placebo for FACT-P social and family wellbeing (0·30 [95% CI -0·25 to 0·85] vs -0·64 [-1·51 to 0·24]; difference 0·94 [95% CI 0·02 to 1·85]; p=0·045) and disfavoured enzalutamide versus placebo for EORTC QLQ-PR25 hormonal treatment-related symptoms (1·55 [0·26 to 2·83) vs -1·83 [-3·86 to 0·20]; difference 3·38 [1·24 to 5·51]; p=0·0020); neither of these changes were clinically meaningful. No significant differences were observed between treatments for changes from baseline to week 97 in any other patient-reported outcome score. Time to clinically meaningful pain progression as assessed by BPI-SF pain severity was longer with enzalutamide than with placebo (median 36·83 months, [95% CI 34·69 to not reached [NR] vs NR; hazard ratio [HR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·57 to 0·97]; p=0·028); there was no significant difference for BPI-SF item 3 or pain interference. Time to clinically meaningful symptom worsening was longer with enzalutamide than with placebo for EORTC QLQ-PR25 urinary symptoms (median 36·86 months [95% CI 33·35 to NR] vs 25·86 [18·53 to 29·47]; HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46 to 0·72]; p<0·0001) and bowel symptoms (33·15 [29·50 to NR] vs 25·89 [18·43 to 29·67]; 0·72 [0·59 to 0·89]; p=0·0018), and clinically meaningful health-related quality of life as assessed by FACT-P total score (22·11 [18·63 to 25·86] vs 18·43 [14·85-19·35]; 0·83 [0·69 to 0·99]; p=0·037), emotional wellbeing (36·73 [33·12 to 38·21] vs 29·47 [22·18 to 33·15]; 0·69 [0·55 to 0·86]; p=0·0008), and prostate cancer subscale (18·43 [14·85 to 18·66] vs 14·69 [11·07 to 16·20]; 0·79 [0·67 to 0·93]; p=0·0042), although there was no significant difference for other FACT-P scores. Time to clinically meaningful deterioration in EORTC QLQ-PR25 hormonal treatment-related symptoms was shorter with enzalutamide than with placebo (median 33·15 months [95% CI 29·60 to NR] vs 36·83 [29·47 to NR]; HR 1·29 [95% CI 1·02 to 1·63]; p=0·035). Time to deterioration of EQ-VAS was significantly longer for enzalutamide than for placebo (median 22·11 months [95% CI 18·46 to 25·66] vs 14·75 [11·07 to 18·17]; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·63 to 0·90]; p=0·0013). INTERPRETATION: Patients with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving enzalutamide had longer metastasis-free survival than did those who received placebo, while maintaining low pain levels and prostate cancer symptom burden and high health-related quality of life. Enzalutamide showed a clinical benefit by delaying pain progression, symptom worsening, and decrease in functional status, compared with placebo. These findings suggest that enzalutamide is a treatment option that should be discussed with patients presenting with high-risk, non- metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma Inc, Medivation LLC (a Pfizer Company).

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib (CheckMate 214): a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3, CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with intermediate or poor risk, previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could be used to further describe the benefit-risk profile of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled, CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by risk status into favourable, intermediate, and poor risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg/day for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), and EuroQol five dimensional three level (EQ-5D-3L) instruments. The coprimary endpoints of the trial, reported previously, were overall survival, progression-free survival, and the proportion of patients who had an objective response in those categorised as at intermediate or poor risk. PROs in all randomised participants were assessed as an exploratory endpoint; here we report this exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but is now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 847 (77%) were at intermediate or poor risk and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=425) or sunitinib (n=422). Median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 23·0-27·4). PROs were more favourable with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib throughout the first 103 weeks after baseline, with mean change from baseline at week 103 for FKSI-19 total score being 4·00 (95% CI 1·91 to 6·09) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus -3·14 (-6·03 to -0·25) for sunitinib (p<0·0001), and for FACT-G total score being 4·77 (1·73 to 7·82) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus -4·32 (-8·54 to -0·11) for sunitinib (p=0·0005). Significant differences were also seen for four of five FKSI-19 domains (disease-related symptoms, physical disease-related symptoms, treatment side-effects, and functional wellbeing) and FACT-G physical and functional wellbeing domains. However, there was no significant difference between the treatment groups at week 103 in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue rating scale (VAS) scores, with mean change from baseline to week 103 of 10·07 (95% CI 4·35 to 15·80) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6·40 (-1·36 to 14·16) for sunitinib (p=0·45). Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab reduced risk of deterioration in FKSI-19 total score (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·46-0·63), FACT-G total score (0·63, 0·52-0·75), and EQ-5D-3L VAS score (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63-0·89) and UK utility scores (0·67, 0·57-0·80). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab leads to fewer symptoms and better HRQoL than sunitinib in patients at intermediate or poor risk with advanced renal cell carcinoma. These results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib comes with the additional benefit of improved HRQoL. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Plain language summary of quality of life in CheckMate 9ER: Cabozantinib plus nivolumab in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

What is this summary about? This is a plain language summary of an article about the quality-of-life analyses of the CheckMate 9ER study, originally published in the journal The Lancet Oncology.The CheckMate 9ER study compared two different treatment options in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is an advanced form of kidney cancer.Investigators compared a newer drug combination, cabozantinib plus nivolumab (CaboNivo), with another drug called sunitinib. Sunitinib was the standard of care used to treat people with advanced RCC when the study was designed. The purpose of the study was to see whether people diagnosed with advanced RCC lived longer if they were treated with CaboNivo or sunitinib as their first treatment. Their quality of life while on treatment was also measured as part of the study.To understand the effect of treatment on their quality of life, people completed two types of questionnaires at regular intervals during the study.The first was the FACT Kidney Symptom Index (or FKSI-19) questionnaire, designed for people with kidney cancer. FKSI-19 asked questions about people's cancer symptoms and their side effects of cancer treatment, and how these impacted their quality of life. The second questionnaire was the EQ-5D-3L, designed for any person (with or without cancer). EQ-5D-3L asked people to rate five common aspects of health and their overall health.The study also looked at how long it took for quality-of-life questionnaire ratings to worsen.What are the key takeaways? Results for both questionnaires suggested that quality of life was better for people in the CaboNivo group than those in the sunitinib group. People treated with CaboNivo were able to maintain their quality of life for longer than those treated with sunitinib.What are the main conclusions reported by the researchers? Overall, quality-of-life results from the CheckMate 9ER study showed that people treated with CaboNivo lived longer and were less bothered by the impact of their treatment than those treated with sunitinib.Based on these results, CaboNivo is one of the standard-of-care treatments recommended first for people with advanced RCC.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03141177 (CheckMate 9ER) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Validity and performance of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bladder (FACT-Bl) among advanced urothelial cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The recent increase in emerging novel therapies in the bladder cancer therapeutic area has increased the need for fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for these patients. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bladder (FACT-Bl) in 182 patients with advanced urothelial cancer (UC) and fills an important gap by demonstrating its validity for use in clinical trials. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a multicentre, open-label study of durvalumab in patients with inoperable or metastatic solid tumours. Psychometric properties evaluated include item and subscale characteristics (including correlation analysis), reliability (estimated using Cronbach's α), validity (by independent sample t test), responsiveness (using mixed models with repeated measures), and clinically meaningful changes using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two patients completed the FACT-Bl questionnaire at baseline. Many individual items had floor or ceiling effects indicative of minimal symptoms and high functioning. The psychometric properties of the existing established scales were assessed and found to range from acceptable to very good. Internal consistency (most Cronbach's α coefficients range 0.66-0.85) and stability (test-retest reliability) generally exceeded standards for good reliability (most estimated intraclass correlations [ICCs] exceeded 0.70, although ICCs for some items [e.g. emotional well-being, ICC 0.58; social well-being, ICC 0.66] were lower than 0.70). Evidence for known-group validity of relevant FACT-Bl subscales and total score was demonstrated by significant differences between groups defined by baseline tumour burden and quality of life scores (difference of FACT-Bl total between low/high tumour burden groups 11.72 (p = 0.001); difference between low/high QoL scores groups 30.51 (p < 0.0001)). The FACT-Bl subscale and total scores were responsive to changes in bladder cancer symptom severity. Clinically meaningful changes in FACT-Bl scores were estimated. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the use of the FACT-Bl within this patient population in future clinical research.

Health-related quality of life effects of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an in-depth post hoc analysis of EQ-5D data from the PREVAIL trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of enzalutamide on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the PREVAIL trial in chemotherapy-naïve men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was analyzed using the generic EQ-5D instrument. METHODS: Patients received oral enzalutamide 160 mg/day (n = 872) or placebo (n = 845). EQ-5D index and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-5D VAS) scores were evaluated at baseline, week 13, and every 12 weeks until week 61 due to sample size reduction thereafter. Changes on individual dimensions were assessed, and Paretian Classification of Health Change (PCHC) and time-to-event analyses were conducted. RESULTS: With enzalutamide, EQ-5D index and EQ-5D VAS scores declined more slowly versus placebo and time to diverge from full health was prolonged. Average decline in EQ-5D index (-0.042 vs. -0.070; P < .0001) and EQ-5D VAS (-1.3 vs. -4.4; P < .0001) was significantly smaller with enzalutamide. There were significant (P < .05) between-group differences favoring enzalutamide in Pain/Discomfort to week 37, Anxiety/Depression at week 13, and Usual Activities at week 25, but no significant differences for Mobility and Self-care. The PCHC analysis showed more enzalutamide patients reporting improvement than placebo patients at weeks 13, 25, and 49 (all P < .05) and week 37 (P = .0512). Enzalutamide was superior (P ≤ .0003) to placebo for time to diverge from full health and time to first deterioration on Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: This in-depth post hoc analysis showed that enzalutamide delayed HRQoL deterioration and had beneficial effects on several HRQoL domains, including Pain/Discomfort and the proportion of patients in full health, compared with placebo, and may help to support future analyses of this type. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01212991.

Effect of enzalutamide on health-related quality of life, pain, and skeletal-related events in asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic, chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PREVAIL): results from a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide significantly increased overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival compared with placebo in the PREVAIL trial of asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic, chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We report the effect of enzalutamide on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pain, and skeletal-related events observed during this trial. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive enzalutamide 160 mg/day (n=872) or placebo (n=845) orally. HRQoL was assessed at baseline and during treatment using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and EQ-5D questionnaires. Pain status was assessed at screening, baseline, week 13, and week 25 with the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF). The primary analysis of HRQoL data used a mixed-effects model to test the difference between least square means change from baseline at week 61. We assessed change from baseline, percentage improvement, and time to deterioration in HRQoL and pain, the proportion of patients with a skeletal-related event, and time to first skeletal-related event. Analysis was done on the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01212991. FINDINGS: Median treatment duration was 16·6 months (IQR 10·1-21·1) in the enzalutamide group and 4·6 months (2·8-9·7) in the placebo group. The mixed-effects model analyses showed significant treatment differences in change from baseline to week 61 with enzalutamide compared with placebo for most FACT-P endpoints and EQ-5D visual analogue scale. Median time to deterioration in FACT-P total score was 11·3 months (95% CI 11·1-13·9) in the enzalutamide group and 5·6 months (5·5-5·6) in the placebo groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·54-0·72]; p<0·0001). A significantly greater proportion of patients in the enzalutamide group than in the placebo group reported clinically meaningful improvements in FACT-P total score (327 [40%] of 826 vs 181 [23%] of 790), in EQ-5D utility index (224 [28%] of 812 vs 99 [16%] of 623), and visual analogue scale (218 [27%] of 803 vs 106 of [18%] 603; all p<0·0001). Median time to progression in BPI-SF pain at its worst was 5·7 months (95% CI 5·6-5·7) in the enzalutamide group and 5·6 months (5·4-5·6) in the placebo group (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·53-0·74]; p<0·0001). Progression of pain at its worst was less common in the enzalutamide group than in the placebo group at week 13 (220 [29%] of 769 vs 257 [42%] of 610; p<0·0001), but not at week 25 (225 [32%] of 705 vs 135 [38%] of 360; p=0·068). 278 (32%) of 872 patients in the enzalutamide group and 309 (37%) of 845 patients in the placebo group had experienced a skeletal-related event by data cutoff. Median time to first skeletal-related events in the enzalutamide group was 31·1 months (95% CI 29·5-not reached) and 31·3 months (95% CI 23·9-not reached) in the placebo group (HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·61-0·84]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: In addition to improving overall survival relative to placebo, enzalutamide significantly improves patient-related outcomes and delays occurrence of first skeletal-related event in chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma and Medivation.

Cost-effectiveness of a fixed-dose combination of solifenacin and oral controlled adsorption system formulation of tamsulosin in men with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Storage symptoms, associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), often co-exist with voiding symptoms in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Storage symptoms are likely to be most bothersome, and may not be adequately resolved by treatment with α-blocker or antimuscarinic monotherapy. A recent randomised controlled phase 3 trial (NEPTUNE) demonstrated that a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of solifenacin 6 mg plus an oral controlled absorption system (OCAS™) formulation of tamsulosin (TOCAS, 0.4 mg) improved storage symptoms, as well as quality of life, compared with TOCAS alone in men with moderate-to-severe storage symptoms and voiding symptoms. This analysis aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS relative to tolterodine plus tamsulosin given concomitantly, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov model was developed for men aged ≥45 years with LUTS/BPH who have moderate-to-severe storage symptoms and voiding symptoms. The model calculated cost-effectiveness over an analytical time horizon of 1 year and estimated total treatment costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS was associated with lower total annual costs (£860 versus £959) and increased QALYs (0.839 versus 0.836), and was therefore dominant compared with tolterodine plus tamsulosin. Time horizon, discontinuation or withdrawal rates, drug cost and utility values were the main drivers of cost-effectiveness. The probability that the FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS is cost-effective was 100% versus tolterodine plus tamsulosin, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS provides important clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment strategy in the UK NHS compared with tolterodine plus tamsulosin for men with both storage and voiding LUTS/BPH.

Clinical efficacy of fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin and metronidazole in Clostridium difficile infections: a meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of fidaxomicin treatment, which has a limited effect on the normal gut flora, compared with vancomycin and metronidazole treatment in Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in July to August 2011 and updated in July 2013. For fidaxomicin versus vancomycin, efficacy was evaluated using meta-analysis of data from two Phase III direct comparative studies (n = 1164). As there were no studies comparing fidaxomicin and metronidazole, an indirect comparison was made using data from three vancomycin versus metronidazole studies (n = 345), using the methodology of Bucher et al. (J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 683-91). This provides an OR for the indirect comparison of fidaxomicin versus metronidazole when direct evidence of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin and vancomycin versus metronidazole is available. RESULTS: Clinical cure rates were similar for fidaxomicin and vancomycin; the OR (95% CI) was 1.17 (0.82, 1.66). Recurrence [0.47 (0.34, 0.65)] was significantly lower and sustained cure rates [1.75 (1.35, 2.27)] significantly higher for fidaxomicin than vancomycin. Similar results were obtained in patient subgroups with severe CDI and with non-severe CDI. From the indirect comparison, the likelihood of recurrence [0.42 (0.18, 0.96)] and sustained cure [2.55 (1.44, 4.51)] were significantly improved for fidaxomicin versus metronidazole. Again, similar results were obtained in those with severe and non-severe CDI. CONCLUSIONS: Fidaxomicin provides improved sustained cure rates in patients with CDI compared with vancomycin. An indirect comparison indicates that the same is also true for fidaxomicin versus metronidazole. In view of these data, fidaxomicin may be considered as first-line therapy for CDI.

Mapping the FACT-P to the preference-based EQ-5D questionnaire in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a mapping algorithm for estimating EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) questionnaire values from the prostate cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) instrument Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) instrument. METHODS: The EQ-5D questionnaire and FACT-P instrument data were collected for a subset of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. We compared three statistical techniques to estimate patients' EQ-5D questionnaire index scores determined by using the UK tariff: 1) generalized estimating equations, 2) two-part model combining logistic regression and generalized estimating equation, and 3) separate mapping algorithms for patients with poor health defined as a FACT-P score of 76 or less (group-specific model). Four different sets of explanatory variables were compared. The models were cross-validated by using a 10-fold in-sample cross-validation. RESULTS: Values for both instruments were available for 236 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The group-specific model including the FACT-P subscale scores and baseline variables had the best predictive performance with R(2) 0.718, root mean square error 0.162, and mean absolute error 0.117. The two-part model and the generalized estimating equation model including the FACT-P subdomain scores and baseline variables also had good predictive performance. CONCLUSIONS: The developed algorithms for mapping the FACT-P instrument to the EQ-5D questionnaire enable the estimation of preference-based health-related quality-of-life scores for use in cost-effectiveness analyses when directly elicited EQ-5D questionnaire data are missing.

The Correlation Between Body Mass Index and Health-Related Quality of Life: Data from Two Weight Loss Intervention Studies.

INTRODUCTION: The correlation between body mass index (BMI) and utility in participants with obesity was assessed using health-related quality-of-life data collected in two weight loss intervention studies, SCALE and STEP 1. METHODS: Short Form Health Survey 36-Item (SF-36) scores from SCALE and STEP 1 were mapped to EuroQoL-5 dimensions-3 levels (EQ-5D-3L) using an established algorithm to derive utilities for the UK. SF-36 scores from STEP 1 were converted into Short Form 6 dimension (SF-6D) utilities for Portugal using the tool developed by the University of Sheffield. The correlation between baseline BMI and utility was assessed by multiple linear regression analyses, controlling for demographic and clinical parameters. RESULTS: A higher baseline BMI correlated with lower EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D utilities, although the trend was non-significant. Assuming linearity between BMI ranges 30-40 kg/m2, an additional unit of BMI correlated with 0.0041 and 0.0031 lower EQ-5D-3L scores in SCALE and 0.0039 and 0.0047 lower EQ-5D-3L and 0.0027 and 0.0020 lower SF-6D scores in STEP 1 for men and women, respectively. CONCLUSION: In individuals with comparable demographic characteristics and weight-related comorbidities, a 1 unit change in BMI leads to a difference of up to 0.005 in utility indices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: SCALE (NCT01272219) and STEP 1 (NCT03548935).

Cost-effectiveness analyses compare health benefits and costs between treatments to inform decisions on healthcare resource allocation. Health benefits are typically quantified as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The calculation of QALYs relies on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data, which are collected from participants. However, to allow comparisons across multiple interventions and diseases, HRQoL needs to be converted into a standardized, generic measure, i.e., a utility index ranging from 0 (equivalent to death) to 1 (perfect health). In this study, HRQoL data from the SCALE and STEP 1 clinical trials were converted into utility indexes and analyzed against participants' weight at study start, expressed as body mass index (BMI, kg/m²). Our study indicates that there is a negative correlation between BMI and health utility at a population level whereby an additional unit of BMI, within the range of 30­40 kg/m², was consistently correlated with an up to 0.005 worsening in the utility index across men and women. The estimated effect size was small, indicating that BMI alone may not explain the differences in participants' HRQoL and general population evaluation of these.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in COVID-19 Treatment with Monoclonal Antibodies Reveal Benefits in Return to Usual Activities.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess the effects of a monoclonal antibody (mAb) combination on symptoms, daily function, and overall health-related quality of life. METHODS: We analyzed patient-reported outcomes data from symptomatic outpatients in a phase 1/2/3 trial. Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and ≥ 1 risk factor for severe COVID-19 received mAb treatment (casirivimab plus imdevimab 1200 mg) or placebo. Prespecified exploratory assessments included time to sustained symptoms resolution, usual health, and return to usual activities (assessed daily for 29 days). The trial was conducted from September 2020 to February 2021, prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination programs and Omicron-lineage variants against which casirivimab + imdevimab is not active. RESULTS: In this analysis 736 outpatients received mAb and 1341 received placebo. Median time to sustained symptoms resolution was consistently shorter with mAb versus placebo (≥ 2 consecutive days: 14 vs 17 days, [nominal p = 0.0017]; ≥ 3 consecutive days: 17 vs 21 days, [nominal p = 0.0046]). Median time to sustained return to usual health and usual activities were both consistently shorter with mAb versus placebo (≥ 2 consecutive days: 12 vs 15 days [nominal p = 0.0001] and 9 vs 11 days [nominal p = 0.0001], respectively; ≥ 3 consecutive days: 14 vs 18 days [nominal p = 0.0003] and 10 vs 13 days [nominal p = 0.0041], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: mAb treatment against susceptible SARS-CoV-2 strains improved how patients feel and function, as evidenced by shortened time to sustained symptoms resolution and return to usual health and activities. Future studies are warranted to assess the patient experience with next generation mAbs. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: Registration number, NCT04425629; Submission date June 11, 2020.

Health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic basal cell carcinoma treated with cemiplimab: Analysis of a phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 cemiplimab study (NCT03132636) demonstrated a 24.1% objective response rate in patients diagnosed with metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) who were not candidates for continued hedgehog inhibitor (HHI) therapy due to intolerance to previous HHI therapy, disease progression while receiving HHI therapy, or having not better than stable disease on HHI therapy after 9 months. Here, health-related quality of life (QoL) for this patient population is reported. METHODS: Adult patients with mBCC were treated with intravenous cemiplimab at a dose of 350 mg every 3 weeks for 5 treatment cycles of 9 weeks/cycle then 4 treatment cycles of 12 weeks/cycle. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Skindex-16 questionnaires at baseline and Day 1 of each cycle. Across Cycles 2 to 9, the overall change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures. Responder analyses determined clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration (changes ≥10 points) or maintenance across all scales. RESULTS: Patients reported low symptom burden and moderate-to-high functioning at baseline. Maintenance for QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL and across all functioning and symptom scales was indicated by overall mean changes from baseline. Clinically meaningful improvement or maintenance was reported at Cycle 2 for GHS/QoL (77%), functioning scales (77% to 86%), and symptom scales (70% to 93%), with similar proportions of improvement or maintenance at Cycles 6 and 9, excluding fatigue. On the Skindex-16, clinically meaningful improvement or maintenance was reported across the emotional, symptom, and functional subscales, in 76%-88% of patients at Cycle 2, which were generally maintained at Cycles 6 and 9. Overall mean changes from baseline showed maintenance across these subscales. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients treated with cemiplimab reported improvement or maintenance in GHS/QoL and functioning while maintaining a low symptom burden.

Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale for Prurigo Nodularis: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a debilitating skin disease characterized by the hallmark symptom of chronic itch; the intensity of itch in PN was assessed using the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) to evaluate the primary efficacy end point of 2 recent phase 3 studies of dupilumab treatment for PN. Objective: To validate the psychometric properties and to determine the clinically meaningful improvement threshold for WI-NRS in patients with moderate to severe PN. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this secondary analysis of the PRIME and PRIME2 trials, content validity of WI-NRS was assessed through in-depth patient interviews. Psychometric assessments used pooled data from masked, intention-to-treat (ITT) patients with PN from randomized, double-masked, and placebo-controlled studies. Psychometric assessments included test-retest reliability, construct validity, known-groups validity, and sensitivity to change in adult patients with moderate-to-severe PN. Thresholds for meaningful within-patient improvement in the WI-NRS score were determined using anchor and distribution-based approaches. Data were analyzed after completion of each study, December 2019 to November 2021 for PRIME and January 2020 to August 2021 for PRIME2. Exposures: Dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. Main outcomes and measures: WI-NRS score at specified time points up to 24 weeks after randomization. Results: A total of 20 patients were included across the 2 studies (mean [SD] age, 49.3 [17.2] years; 11 female [55%]); 311 patients were included in the pooled intention-to-treat analysis (mean [SD] age, 49.5 [16.1] years; 203 female [65.3%]). The WI-NRS questions (20 of 20 patients), recall period (19 of 20 patients), and response scale (20 of 20 patients) were easy to understand and relevant for patients with PN. Adequate test-retest reliability was observed between screening and baseline (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.72, using Patient Global Impression of Severity [PGIS] to define stable patients). Convergent and discriminant validity was supported by moderate to strong correlations (absolute r range = 0.34-0.73) with other conceptually related measures and weaker correlations (absolute r range = 0.06-0.32) with less-related measures, respectively. WI-NRS was sensitive to change, as demonstrated by differences in change from baseline among groups (per PGIS change and PGI of Change [PGIC]). Using anchor-based approach with PGIS and PGIC, the clinically meaningful improvement threshold was 4 points (range, 3.0-4.5), which was also supported by distribution-based methods. Conclusion and Relevance: This study found that WI-NRS may be a fit-for-purpose instrument to support efficacy end points measuring the intensity of itching in adults with PN. Trial Registration: NCT04183335 (PRIME) and NCT04202679 (PRIME2).

Health-related quality of life with gilteritinib vs placebo posttransplant for FLT3-ITD+ acute myeloid leukemia.

ABSTRACT: The Blood and Marrow Transplant (BMT) Clinical Trials Network conducted a phase 3 randomized trial comparing gilteritinib with placebo after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for FLT3-ITD+ acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The primary analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in relapse-free survival (RFS); however, patients with FLT3-ITD measurable residual disease (MRD) peri-HCT had significantly longer RFS with gilteritinib. This analysis investigates the effect of post-HCT gilteritinib vs placebo on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). HRQOL was measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT), FACT-Leukemia (FACT-Leu), and EuroQOL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) at post-HCT randomization; day 29; months 3, 6, 12, 18, 24; and/or end of therapy. HRQOL and clinically meaningful differences were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared using mixed model repeated measures to evaluate longitudinal change from baseline and stratified Cox model to evaluate time to improvement. HRQOL completion rate was acceptable (>70%) across all time points and measures. There were no differences in HRQOL scores at any time point between cohorts. Clinically meaningful and time to improvement in HRQOL were similar in both arms. Despite higher treatment-emergent adverse effects with gilteritinib, response to the question of being "bothered by side effects of treatment" did not differ between groups. Subgroup analysis of MRD-positive and negative patients demonstrated no differences in HRQOL between arms. For patients with FLT3-ITD+ AML undergoing HCT, gilteritinib maintenance was not associated with any difference in HRQOL or patient-reported impact of side effects. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02997202.