Baseline Quality of Life is a Strong and Independent Prognostic Factor for Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have established that higher baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We examined the relationship between overall survival (OS) and baseline QOL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1 247 patients with mCRC participating in N9741 (comparing bolus 5-FU/LV, irinotecan [IFL] vs infusional 5-FU/leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] vs. irinotecan/oxaliplatin [IROX]) provided data at baseline on overall QOL using a single-item linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) 0-100 point scale. The association of OS according to clinically deficient (defined as CD-QOL, score 0-50) vs not clinically deficient (nCD-QOL, score 51-100) baseline QOL scores was tested. A multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to adjust for the effects of multiple baseline factors. An exploratory analysis was performed evaluating OS according to baseline QOL status among patients who did or did not receive second-line therapy. RESULTS: Baseline QOL was a strong predictor of OS for the whole cohort (CD-QOL vs nCD-QOL: 11.2 months vs 18.4 months, P < .0001), and in each arm IFL 12.4 vs 15.1 months, FOLFOX 11.1 months vs 20.6 months, and IROX 8.9 months vs 18.1 months. Baseline QOL was associated with baseline performance status (PS) (P < .0001). After adjusting for PS and treatment arm, baseline QOL was still associated with OS (P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline QOL is an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with mCRC. The demonstration that patient-assessed QOL and PS are independent prognostic indicators suggests that these assessments provide important complementary prognostic information.

Identifying meaningful change on PROMIS short forms in cancer patients: a comparison of item response theory and classic test theory frameworks.

BACKGROUND: This study compares classical test theory and item response theory frameworks to determine reliable change. Reliable change followed by anchoring to the change in categorically distinct responses on a criterion measure is a useful method to detect meaningful change on a target measure. METHODS: Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers. Baseline and follow-up assessments at 6 weeks were administered. We investigated short forms derived from PROMIS® item banks on anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain intensity, pain interference, and sleep disturbance. We detected reliable change using reliable change index (RCI). We derived the T-scores corresponding to the RCI calculated under IRT and CTT frameworks using PROMIS® short forms. For changes that were reliable, meaningful change was identified using patient-reported change in PRO-CTCAE by at least one level. For both CTT and IRT approaches, we applied one-sided tests to detect reliable improvement or worsening using RCI. We compared the percentages of patients with reliable change and reliable/meaningful change. RESULTS: The amount of change in T score corresponding to RCICTT of 1.65 ranged from 5.1 to 9.2 depending on domains. The amount of change corresponding to RCIIRT of 1.65 varied across the score range, and the minimum change ranged from 3.0 to 8.2 depending on domains. Across domains, the RCICTT and RCIIRT classified 80% to 98% of the patients consistently. When there was disagreement, the RCIIRT tended to identify more patients as having reliably changed compared to RCICTT if scores at both timepoints were in the range of 43 to 78 in anxiety, 45 to 70 in depression, 38 to 80 in fatigue, 35 to 78 in sleep disturbance, and 48 to 74 in pain interference, due to smaller standard errors in these ranges using the IRT method. The CTT method found more changes compared to IRT for the pain intensity domain that was shorter in length. Using RCICTT, 22% to 66% had reliable change in either direction depending on domains, and among these patients, 62% to 83% had meaningful change. Using RCIIRT, 37% to 68% had reliable change in either direction, and among these patients, 62% to 81% had meaningful change. CONCLUSION: Applying the two-step criteria demonstrated in this study, we determined how much change is needed to declare reliable change at different levels of baseline scores. We offer reference values for percentage of patients who meaningfully change for investigators using the PROMIS instruments in oncology.

Decision aids for localized prostate cancer in diverse minority men: Primary outcome results from a multicenter cancer care delivery trial (Alliance A191402CD).

BACKGROUND: Decision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within-visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled. METHODS: The interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12-item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation. RESULTS: Four sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within-visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within-visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within-visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within-visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual-care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within-visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: DAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

Effects of patient-reported outcome assessment order.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. METHODS: This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran-Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. RESULTS: A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach's alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. CONCLUSION: The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

A feasibility study of virtual group therapy to improve quality of life of cancer caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Cancer caregiving can negatively impact the quality of life (QOL) of the caregiver. In-person interventions for improving coping skills have been shown to be effective in improving QOL for caregivers. OBJECTIVES: This pilot project explored the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual group therapy intervention to improve short-term cancer caregiver QOL. METHODS: Caregivers of cancer patients were enrolled in a structured multidisciplinary intervention of eight virtual group therapy sessions provided over four weeks between September 9, 2013 and November 17, 2014. Group sessions were led by trained facilitators and included components of physical therapy, occupational therapy, psychosocial education, cognitive-behavioral intervention, supportive discussion, spiritual reflection, and mindfulness therapy. Feasibility was based on acceptable number of recruited participants per session; acceptability was defined using attendance and 80% QOL completion rates. QOL domains and symptom burden were assessed using validated single items. RESULTS: The 20 cancer caregivers who enrolled were mostly older (80% were ≥ 65 years), female (76.5%), married to the patient (88.2%), Caucasian (100%), and highly educated (100%). 60% attended one to five sessions, 15% attended six to eight sessions, and 25% attended no sessions. Thirty percent completed pre- and post- intervention ratings of QOL items. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Findings suggested that a virtual group therapy intervention is feasible for the cancer caregivers in this study. Although not statistically significant, the caregivers reported higher QOL and less symptom burden in multiple domains after participating in the virtual group therapy intervention.

Expanding Beyond Maximum Grade: Chemotherapy Toxicity over Time by Age and Performance Status in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in CALGB 9730 (Alliance A151729).

BACKGROUND: Prior comparisons of chemotherapy adverse events (AEs) by age and performance status (PS) are limited by the traditional maximum grade approach, which ignores low-grade AEs and longitudinal changes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To compare fatigue and neuropathy longitudinally by age (<65, ≥65 years) and PS (0-1, 2), we analyzed data from a large phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (CALGB 9730, n = 529). We performed multivariable (a) linear mixed models to estimate mean AE grade over time, (b) linear regression to estimate area under the curve (AUC), and (c) proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio of developing grade ≥2 AE, as well as traditional maximum grade analyses. RESULTS: Older patients had on average a 0.17-point (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00-0.34; p = .049) higher mean fatigue grade longitudinally compared with younger patients. PS 2 was associated with earlier development of grade ≥2 fatigue (hazard ratio [HR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.07-2.27; p = .02). For neuropathy, older age was associated with earlier development of grade ≥2 neuropathy (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.00-1.97; p = .049). Patients with PS 2 had a 1.30 point lower neuropathy AUC (95% CI, -2.36 to -0.25; p = .02) compared with PS 0-1. In contrast, maximum grade analyses only detected a higher percentage of older adults with grade ≥3 fatigue and neuropathy at some point during treatment. CONCLUSION: Our comparison of complementary but distinct aspects of chemotherapy toxicity identified important longitudinal differences in fatigue and neuropathy by age and PS that are missed by the traditional maximum grade approach. Clinical trial identification number: NCT00003117 (CALGB 9730) IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The traditional maximum grade approach ignores persistent low-grade adverse events (AEs) and changes over time. This toxicity over time analysis of fatigue and neuropathy during chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer demonstrates how to use longitudinal methods to comprehensively characterize AEs over time by age and performance status (PS). We identified important longitudinal differences in fatigue and neuropathy that are missed by the maximum grade approach. This new information about how older adults and patients with PS 2 experience these toxicities longitudinally may be used clinically to improve discussions about treatment options and what to expect to inform shared decision making and symptom management.

Preemptive Versus Reactive Topical Clobetasol for Regorafenib-Induced Hand-Foot Reactions: A Preplanned Analysis of the ReDOS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib-induced adverse event and is in need of effective prevention and palliation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS), a four-arm, previously published trial with a 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme, was analyzed in a manner in keeping with the original protocol to assess whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day for 8 weeks was more effective when prescribed preemptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the first two cycles of regorafenib. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients received preemptive clobetasol, and 55 received reactive clobetasol. Groups were balanced on demographics. Over the first two cycles, no evidence of HFSR occurred in 30% with preemptive clobetasol versus 13% with reactive clobetasol (p = .03). During the first cycle, 54% and 45% of patients had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .35). During the second cycle, 33% and 15% had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .02). During the second cycle, rates of grade 1, 2, and 3 HFSR were 30%, 8%, and 3%, respectively, with preemptive clobetasol and 43%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, with reactive clobetasol (p = .12). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised nearly all activities of daily living with worse quality of life in patients who received reactive versus preemptive clobetasol. No clobetasol-induced adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Preemptive clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced hand-foot reactions compared with reactive therapy. Further confirmatory studies are needed in a larger patient cohort. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Regorafenib causes hand-foot skin reactions. Preemptive clobetasol, a high-potency topical corticosteroid, appears to lessen the severity of this adverse event. Although further study is needed, the favorable adverse event profile of this intervention might prompt clinicians to discuss this option with their patients.

How much time do we have? Longitudinal perception of prognosis in newly-diagnosed high grade glioma patients and caregivers compared to clinicians.

PURPOSE: Discordant prognostic awareness (PA) can cause distress, impact goals of care and future planning, especially in patients with high grade glioma (pwHGG) who have limited survival. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of assessing PA of pwHGG, caregivers and clinicians using a single question and to evaluate these responses for discord, alignment and fluctuation over time. METHODS: This is a sub-study of an IRB-approved pilot study evaluating early palliative care and longitudinal symptom monitoring via a smart-device tool in 16 pwHGG and their caregivers receiving treatment at the Mayo Clinic Arizona (United States). Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years, English-speaking, newly-diagnosed, and had a willing caregiver. Participants answered a multiple-choice question asking for an estimate of their own or their loved one's survival on a monthly basis. RESULTS: All except one patient/caregiver dyad answered the question each time it was asked. The question did not appear to cause discomfort or increase conversations with clinicians around prognosis. PA of patients and caregivers fluctuated monthly, ranging from dismal to overtly optimistic, with a discordance frequency of 68%. Patients tended to be more optimistic than caregivers, and a higher QOL correlated to a more optimistic response. Clinicians' were more hopeful; their prediction tended to fluctuate less than those of patients and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: PA may be assessed in pwHGG and caregivers with a single, frank question. There is clear discordance between PA of patients, their caregivers and clinicians. Understanding fluctuates longitudinally through disease and treatment course. Additional studies on timing and ways of discussing prognosis in this population are needed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04630379.

Composite grading algorithm for the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. METHODS: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). RESULTS: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. CONCLUSION: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.

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.

Prospective longitudinal cohort study of patient recovery after major gastrointestinal surgery: is there a difference between minimally invasive and open approaches?

BACKGROUND: Surgeons use the absence of post-operative complications to define recovery while patients define recovery as return to normal function. We aimed to better define the recovery process after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: Patients scheduled for open or MIS pancreaticoduodenectomy, esophagectomy, colectomy, and proctectomy were prospectively enrolled. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected using validated PROMIS and LASA scales pre-operatively, on post-operative days 2, 7, 14, 30, and monthly until 6 months. Patients were also asked if they felt fully recovered. Descriptive statistics and area under the curve (AUC) were used to compare approaches. Multivariable mixed-effects repeated measures models and logistic regression were used to control for covariates. RESULTS: 340 patients met inclusion criteria (158 open and 182 MIS). Median age was 60 years with 44% women. The PRO showed improved post-operative QOL scores in MIS compared to open on all measures by AUC. None of these difference persisted at 6-months. After adjusting for covariates, MIS had higher overall QOL scores at day 14 (Estimate + 0.58, p = 0.02) and 30 (+ 0.56, p = 0.03). Differences did not persist at 3 and 6 months (both p > 0.05). At 1, 3, and 6 months, 20%, 47%, and 61% of patients reported feeling completely recovered. On adjusted analysis there was no difference in odds of complete recovery in MIS at 1 (OR 1.07 [95% CI 0.53-2.14] and 3 months (1.12 [0.63-2.01]) compared to open. MIS patients were more likely to report complete recovery at 6 months (1.87 [1.05-3.33]). CONCLUSION: MIS patients reported improved PRO on selected QOL measures early in the recovery period compared to open. There was no difference in long-term QOL data between MIS and open patients. Two-thirds (61%) of patients reported being fully recovered at 6 months with MIS patients being more likely to report a complete recovery.

A Case Management System for Integrating Patient-reported Outcome Assessment in Clinical Practice: The Beacon Tool.

INTRODUCTION: What if you could only ask one question of the patient during a clinic visit? Further, suppose the patient's biggest concern can pragmatically be incorporated into routine clinical care and clinical pathways that can address the patient's single biggest concern can be identified. If the principal concern can be dealt with efficiently at each visit through key stakeholder case management, positive outcomes should result. Therefore, motivated by the need for patient-centered health care visits, the Beacon electronic patient-reported outcomes (PRO) quality of life (QOL) tool was developed. METHODS: Central to the tool is that at each health care visit, the patient's biggest concern is electronically communicated to the health care team. Therefore, the tool can help catalyze important discussions between the health care team and the patient, perhaps on topics that would not have been discussed otherwise at a routine visit. In recognition of the community of resources needed to provide comprehensive care, the tool generates clinical pathways or actions that can be pursued to address the patient's biggest concern. The concern is efficiently triaged such that members of the health care community with appropriate expertise and resources are identified to address and manage that single biggest concern signaled by the patient. A report, which can be uploaded into the patient's medical chart, is created and provides a list of resources for a case manager to assist the patient and contains graphical presentations of the patient's QOL and a history of prior concerns. The report also labels potentially significant changes in QOL. DISCUSSION: The tool, which has been applied successfully in several health conditions, acts as a beacon to health care providers so that a patient's self-reported concern can be consistently and effectively integrated into their care. KEY POINTS: It is impractical to try to deal with every patient concern in every visit. The key to the Beacon tool is that at each visit the patient's biggest concern is identified, clinical pathways indicated, and resources efficiently matched to address the patient's biggest concern.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes of catheter-based accelerated partial breast brachytherapy and whole breast irradiation, a single institution experience.

PURPOSE: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) and whole breast irradiation (WBI) are treatment options for early-stage breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported-outcomes (PRO) between patients receiving multi-channel intra-cavitary brachytherapy APBI or WBI. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2015, 131 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or early stage invasive breast cancer were treated with adjuvant APBI (64) or WBI (67) and participated in a PRO questionnaire. The linear analog scale assessment (LASA), harvard breast cosmesis scale (HBCS), PRO-common terminology criteria for adverse events- PRO (PRO-CTCAE), and breast cancer treatment outcome scale (BCTOS) were used to assess quality of life (QoL), pain, fatigue, aesthetic and functional status, and breast cosmesis. Comparisons of PROs were performed using t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum, Chi square, Fisher exact test, and regression methods. RESULTS: Median follow-up from completion of radiotherapy and questionnaire completion was 13.3 months. There was no significant difference in QoL, pain, or fatigue severity, as assessed by the LASA, between treatment groups (p > 0.05). No factors were found to be predictive of overall QoL on regression analysis. BCTOS health-related QoL scores were similar between treatment groups (p = 0.52).The majority of APBI and WBI patients reported excellent/good breast cosmesis, 88.5% versus 93.7% (p = 0.37). Skin color change (p = 0.011) and breast elevation (p = 0.01) relative to baseline were more common in the group receiving WBI. CONCLUSIONS: APBI and WBI were both associated with favorable patient-reported outcomes in early follow-up. APBI resulted in a lesser degree of patient-reported skin color change and breast elevation relative to baseline.

The comparative effectiveness of decision aids in diverse populations with early stage prostate cancer: a study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Alliance A191402CD.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for localized prostate cancer present challenging tradeoffs in the face of uncertain treatment benefits. These options are best weighed in a process of shared decision-making with the patient's healthcare team. Minority men experience disparities in prostate cancer outcomes, possibly due in part to a lack of optimal communication during treatment selection. Decision aids facilitate shared decision-making, improve knowledge of treatment options, may increase satisfaction with treatment choice, and likely facilitate long-term quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will compare the effect of two evidence-based decision aids on patient knowledge and on quality of life measured one year after treatment, oversampling minority men. One decision aid will be administered prior to specialist consultation, preparing patients for a treatment discussion. The other decision aid will be administered within the consultation to facilitate transparent, preference-sensitive, and evidence-informed deliberations. The study will utilize a four-arm, block-randomized design to test whether each decision aid alone (Arms 1 and 2) or in combination (Arm 3) can improve patient knowledge and quality of life compared to usual care (Arm 4). The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), will be deployed within select institutions that have demonstrated capacity to recruit minority populations into urologic oncology trials. DISCUSSION: Upon completion of the trial, we will have 1) tested the effectiveness of two evidence-based decision aids in enhancing patients' knowledge of options for prostate cancer therapy and 2) estimated whether decision aids may improve patient quality of life one year after initial treatment choice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03103321 . The trial registration date (on ClinicalTrials.gov) was April 6, 2017.

Multicenter derivation and validation of an early warning score for acute respiratory failure or death in the hospital.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure occurs frequently in hospitalized patients and often starts before ICU admission. A risk stratification tool to predict mortality and risk for mechanical ventilation (MV) may allow for earlier evaluation and intervention. We developed and validated an automated electronic health record (EHR)-based model-Accurate Prediction of Prolonged Ventilation (APPROVE)-to identify patients at risk of death or respiratory failure requiring >= 48 h of MV. METHODS: This was an observational study of adults admitted to four hospitals in 2013 or a fifth hospital in 2017. Clinical data were extracted from the EHRs. The 2013 patients were randomly split 50:50 into a derivation/validation cohort. The qualifying event was death or intubation leading to MV >= 48 h. Random forest method was used in model derivation. APPROVE was calculated retrospectively whenever data were available in 2013, and prospectively every 4 h after hospital admission in 2017. The Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) were calculated at the same times as APPROVE. Clinicians were not alerted except for APPROVE in 2017cohort. RESULTS: There were 68,775 admissions in 2013 and 2258 in 2017. APPROVE had an area under the receiver operator curve of 0.87 (95% CI 0.85-0.88) in 2013 and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.95) in 2017, which is significantly better than the MEWS and NEWS in 2013 but similar to the MEWS and NEWS in 2017. At a threshold of > 0.25, APPROVE had similar sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) (sensitivity 63% and PPV 21% in 2013 vs 64% and 16%, respectively, in 2017). Compared to APPROVE in 2013, at a threshold to achieve comparable PPV (19% at MEWS > 4 and 22% at NEWS > 6), the MEWS and NEWS had lower sensitivity (16% for MEWS and NEWS). Similarly in 2017, at a comparable sensitivity threshold (64% for APPROVE > 0.25 and 67% for MEWS and NEWS > 4), more patients who triggered an alert developed the event with APPROVE (PPV 16%) while achieving a lower false positive rate (FPR 5%) compared to the MEWS (PPV 7%, FPR 14%) and NEWS (PPV 4%, FPR 25%). CONCLUSIONS: An automated EHR model to identify patients at high risk of MV or death was validated retrospectively and prospectively, and was determined to be feasible for real-time risk identification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02488174 . Registered on 18 March 2015.

Evaluating the efficacy of vaginal dehydroepiandosterone for vaginal symptoms in postmenopausal cancer survivors: NCCTG N10C1 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Women with estrogen deficiencies can suffer from vaginal symptoms that negatively impact sexual health. This study evaluated vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) for alleviation of vaginal symptoms. METHODS: This three-arm randomized, controlled trial evaluated DHEA 3.25 mg and DHEA 6.5 mg, each compared to a plain moisturizer (PM) over 12 weeks, to improve the severity of vaginal dryness or dyspareunia, measured with an ordinal scale, and overall sexual health using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Postmenopausal women with a history of breast or gynecologic cancer who had completed primary treatment, had no evidence of disease, and reported at least moderate vaginal symptoms were eligible. The mean change from baseline to week 12 in the severity of vaginal dryness or dyspareunia for each DHEA dose was compared to PM and analyzed by two independent t tests using a Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-four women were randomized. All arms reported improvement in either dryness or dyspareunia. Neither DHEA dose was statistically significantly different from PM at 12 weeks (6.25 mg, p = .08; 3.25 mg, p = 0.48), although a significant difference at 8 weeks for 6.5 mg DHEA was observed (p = 0.005). Women on the 6.5 mg arm of DHEA reported significantly better sexual health on the FSFI (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in provider-graded toxicities and few significant differences in self-reported side effects. CONCLUSION: PM and DHEA improved vaginal symptoms at 12 weeks. However, vaginal DHEA, 6.5 mg, significantly improved sexual health. Vaginal DHEA warrants further investigation in women with a history of cancer.

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.

Using ePrognosis to estimate 2-year all-cause mortality in older women with breast cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 49907 and 369901 (Alliance A151503).

PURPOSE: Tools to estimate survival, such as ePrognosis ( http://eprognosis.ucsf.edu/carey2.php ), were developed for general, not cancer, populations. In older patients with breast cancer, accurate overall survival estimates would facilitate discussions about adjuvant therapies. METHODS: Secondary analyses were performed of data from two parallel breast cancer studies (CALGB/Alliance 49907/NCT000224102 and CALGB/Alliance 369901/NCT00068328). We included patients (n = 971) who were age 70 years and older with complete baseline quality of life data (194 from 49907; 777 from 369901). Estimated versus observed all-cause two-year mortality rates were compared. ePrognosis score was calculated based on age, sex, and daily function (derived from EORTC QLQ-C30). ePrognosis scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating worse prognosis based on mortality of community-dwelling elders and were categorized into three groups (0-2, 3-6, 7-10). Observed mortality rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: Patient mean age was 75.8 years (range 70-91) and 73% had stage I-IIA disease. Most patients were classified by ePrognosis as good prognosis (n = 562, 58% 0-2) and few (n = 18, 2% 7-10) poor prognosis. Two-year observed mortality rates were significantly lower than ePrognosis estimates for patients scoring 0-2 (2% vs 5%, p = 0.001) and 3-6 (8% vs 12%, p = 0.01). The same trend was seen with scores of 7-10 (23% vs 36%, p = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: ePrognosis tool only modestly overestimates mortality rate in older breast cancer patients enrolled in two cooperative group studies. This tool, which estimates non-cancer mortality risk based on readily available clinical information may inform adjuvant therapy decisions but should be validated in non-clinical trial populations.

Development and Validation of a Disease-Specific Questionnaire to Assess Patient-Reported Symptoms in Polycystic Liver Disease.

UNLABELLED: Treatment of polycystic liver disease (PLD) focuses on symptom improvement. Generic questionnaires lack sensitivity to capture PLD-related symptoms, a prerequisite to determine effectiveness of therapy. We developed and validated a disease-specific questionnaire that assesses symptoms in PLD (PLD-Q). We identified 16 PLD-related symptoms (total score 0-100 points) by literature review and interviews with patients and clinicians. The developed PLD-Q was validated in Dutch (n = 200) and United States (US; n = 203) PLD patients. We assessed the correlation of PLD-Q total score with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) symptom scale, global health visual analogue scale (VAS) of EQ-5D, and liver volume. To test discriminative validity, we compared PLD-Q total scores of patients with different PLD severity stages (Gigot classification) and PLD-Q total scores of PLD patients with general controls and polycystic kidney disease patients without PLD. Reproducibility was tested by comparing original test scores with 2-week retest scores. In total, 167 Dutch and 124 US patients returned the questionnaire. Correlation between PLD-Q total score and EORTC symptom scale (The Netherlands [NL], r = 0.788; US, r = 0.811) and global health VAS (NL, r = -0.517; US, r = -0.593) was good. There was no correlation of PLD-Q total score with liver volume (NL, r = 0.138; P = 0.236; US, r = 0.254; P = 0.052). Gigot type III individuals scored numerically higher than type II patients (NL, 46 vs. 40; P = 0.089; US, 48 vs. 36; P = 0.055). PLD patients scored higher on the PLD-Q total score than general controls (NL, 42 vs. 17; US, 40 vs. 13 points) and polycystic kidney disease patients without PLD (22 points). Reproducibility of PLD-Q was excellent (NL, r = 0.94; US, 0.96). CONCLUSION: PLD-Q is a valid, reproducible, and sensitive disease-specific questionnaire that can be used to assess PLD-related symptoms in clinical care and future research. (Hepatology 2016;64:151-160).