Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI): stakeholder views, objectives, and procedures.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

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.

Duration of treatment among patients prescribed afatinib or erlotinib as first-line therapy for EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the USA.

Aim: Evaluate duration of therapy among patients treated with afatinib or erlotinib as first-line therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials & methods: NSCLC patients initiating afatinib or erlotinib between 2014 and 2017 were identified in three large claims databases in the USA. Propensity score matching was conducted to compare the duration of treatment between patients by treatment. Results: Patients prescribed afatinib had a significantly longer median duration of treatment compared with those prescribed erlotinib (12.1 vs 9.9 months; p = 0.035) and experienced a 14% reduction in risk of discontinuing therapy (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.86; CI: 0.75-0.99). Conclusion: First-line treatment duration in a real-world setting was significantly longer for patients prescribed afatinib compared with erlotinib.

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.

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.

Nintedanib plus docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer of adenocarcinoma histology: a network meta-analysis vs new therapeutic options.

PATIENTS & METHODS: We provide an update to a network meta-analysis evaluating the relative efficacy of nintedanib + docetaxel versus other second-line agents in adenocarcinoma histology non-small-cell lung cancer. RESULTS: Overall similarity of nintedanib + docetaxel versus ramucirumab + docetaxel, and versus nivolumab. Comparing nintedanib + docetaxel with nivolumab, hazards ratio (HR) of overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) pointed in opposite directions (overall survival: HR: 1.20 [95% credible interval: 0.92-1.58]; PFS: HR: 0.91 [0.68-1.21]). Exploratory subgroup analysis indicated superiority of nivolumab in high PD-L1 expression level subgroups; results were more favorable for nintedanib in all subgroups with low (<1%, <5%, <10%) PD-L1 expression levels - in particular, with regard to PFS. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrated similar efficacy of nintedanib + docetaxel compared with the new therapeutic options ramucirumab + docetaxel and nivolumab, with potential differences in subgroups according to PD-L1 expression level.

Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards.

Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes generate important data in cancer randomised trials to assist in assessing the risks and benefits of cancer therapies and fostering patient-centred cancer care. However, the various ways these measures are analysed and interpreted make it difficult to compare results across trials, and hinders the application of research findings to inform publications, product labelling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. To address these problems, the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data (SISAQOL) initiative has been established. This consortium, directed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was convened to provide recommendations on how to standardise the analysis of HRQOL and other patient-reported outcomes data in cancer randomised trials. This Personal View discusses the reasons why this project was initiated, the rationale for the planned work, and the expected benefits to cancer research, patient and provider decision making, care delivery, and policy making.

Nintedanib plus docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nintedanib plus docetaxel has proven an overall survival benefit over docetaxel monotherapy in second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer of adenocarcinoma histology in the LUME-Lung 1 pivotal trial. No published trials have previously compared nintedanib plus docetaxel with agents ­ other than docetaxel ­ that are approved second-line treatments for non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: The relative efficacy of nintedanib plus docetaxel versus second-line agents was evaluated by conducting a network meta-analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Nine suitable studies were identified. The estimated probability of nintedanib plus docetaxel being the best treatment with regard to overall survival was 70% (versus 16% for pemetrexed, 10% for docetaxel and 3% for erlotinib). Results for progression-free survival were similar. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer of adenocarcinoma histology, results suggest that nintedanib plus docetaxel offers clinical benefit compared with docetaxel alone, when used as second-line treatment, and suggests that this combination may also add clinical benefit compared with erlotinib in this patient group.

Patient-reported outcome labeling claims and measurement approach for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatments in the United States and European Union.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and its treatment significantly affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Our objectives were to evaluate and compare patient-reported outcome (PRO) claims granted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for 5 recently approved mCRPC treatments and to examine key characteristics, development, and measurement properties of the PRO measures supporting these claims against current regulatory standards. METHODS: Five products approved for treatment of mCRPC by the FDA and the EMA (2010-2013) were examined: enzalutamide, abiraterone, sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel, and radium Ra 223 dichloride. United States (US) drug approval packages and European Public Assessment Reports were reviewed. PRO claims in the US labels and European Summaries of Product Characteristics and supporting measures were identified. For PRO measures supporting claims, a targeted literature review was conducted to identify information on key characteristics and measurement properties; this information was compared against FDA PRO guidance criteria. RESULTS: Nine PRO "claims" were granted across 4 of 5 products reviewed. The EMA granted more claims (7 claims-4 for pain, 3 for HRQOL) than the FDA (2 claims, both for pain). The Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) worst pain item supported most pain claims and was the only measure supporting US claims. EMA pain claims were supported by BPI-SF worst pain (n = 2) and average pain (n = 1) items and the McGill Pain Questionnaire Present Pain Intensity component (n = 1). EMA HRQOL claims were supported by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate Module (n = 2) and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions with visual analogue scale (n = 1). Pain and prostate cancer-specific HRQOL measures supporting claims met US regulatory standards for construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness; these properties were strongest for the BPI-SF worst pain item. Only the BPI-SF worst pain item has documented content validity in mCRPC. CONCLUSIONS: PRO label claims were commonly granted across the mCRPC products reviewed. Among the measures reviewed, only the BPI-SF worst pain item supported US label claims. The BPI-SF worst pain item is recommended for pain assessment for the evaluation of new mCRPC treatments.

A Mixed-Methods Study to Better Measure Patient-Reported Pain and Fatigue in Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

INTRODUCTION: Pain and fatigue are commonly reported by patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) as distressing symptoms, yet no patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been validated or developed specifically for STS. This study aimed to develop novel PRO scales using existing item banks to measure pain and fatigue in STS. METHODS: A three-stage mixed-methods approach was used. Stage 1: a literature review examined the development and validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) library, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain/fatigue item banks, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, and FACIT-Fatigue. Conceptual models were developed for pain and fatigue. Stage 2: semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinical experts (n = 3) and STS patients (n = 28) to ensure conceptual coverage and cognitively debrief the selected PRO items. Stage 3: exploratory Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analyses were performed to examine the measurement properties of the proposed scales. RESULTS: Stage 1: The conceptual model for fatigue was organized into two overarching domains: fatigability and fatigue, further split into two subdomains: symptoms and impact. The conceptual model for pain had one overarching domain split into two subdomains: descriptors and impact. Pain (n = 56) and fatigue (n = 40) items were selected from the EORTC item library. Stage 2: qualitative findings ensured conceptual coverage, provided insight into the relevance and comprehension of the items, and informed subsequent item reduction. Stage 3: The total item number was reduced to 43 (pain n = 18, fatigue n = 25). Exploratory RMT analyses supported the final scales' psychometric properties. CONCLUSIONS: This mixed-methods research generated important information on the experience of pain and fatigue in specific subtypes of STS. Five novel PRO scales have been developed through careful item selection in consultation with experts and supported by qualitative and quantitative evidence. These scales may be of value to future clinical trials for STS.

Development of a disease conceptual model of patient experience with metastatic colorectal cancer: identification of the most salient symptoms and impacts.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) experience multiple symptoms and impacts affecting their health-related quality of life. However, there is limited data on self-reported experience of the most relevant and bothersome aspects of patients living with mCRC. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in patients with mCRC to identify and understand the signs, symptoms and impacts experienced. Patients were also asked to rate the level of bothersomeness for each concept reported on a scale ranging from 0 ("not bothersome at all") to 10 ("extremely bothersome"). Verbatim transcripts were analysed following a thematic analysis approach. The most salient concepts were identified (i.e. reported by > 50% of patients with a bothersome rating ≥ 5 out of 10). RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (USA; age: 26 to 72 years old) were interviewed. Patients reported 58 signs and symptoms, amongst which 8 were considered salient: fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, diarrhoea, loss of appetite, constipation, weight loss, and abdominal pain; 35 impacts were identified, and 7 were considered salient: reduced ability to work, interference with daily activities, impact on cognitive functioning, financial impact, sleep changes, impact on social life and walking difficulties. The concepts identified helped refine a literature-based disease conceptual model of patient experience with mCRC. CONCLUSIONS: The interviews provided insights into the most bothersome and salient signs, symptoms and impacts affecting the HRQoL of patients living with mCRC. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: There is a need to improve clinical strategies for future clinical development and inform clinical practice decision-making for mCRC survivors.

Measuring the Patient Experience in Rare Disorders: Benefit of Pragmatic Mixed-Methods Research in NUT Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-centered outcome measurement (PCOM) is essential to capture the outcomes important to patients. However, it presents unique challenges in rare diseases, particularly those that are "young" (not diagnosed before the twenty-first century), with limited literature, lack of disease-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, and difficult sampling and data collection. One example of this is NUT (nuclear protein in testis) carcinoma (NUTca), a rare and rapidly progressing cancer, with tumors preliminary in the head, neck, and lungs. The published literature on NUTca is scarce. The limited number of case reports focus primarily on the clinical development and presentation of tumors. Currently, there are no publications describing the patient experience of NUTca and no specific PRO measures to assess the patient experience. We conducted mixed-methods research, including concept elicitation interviews, cognitive debriefing, and quantitative data analyses, to fill this evidence gap and describe challenges and solutions in the context of NUTca. METHODS: As published previously, our conceptualization of NUTca was based on elicitation interviews with 27 participants (n = 10 patients; n = 17 caregivers) using a semi-structured format; this framework formed the basis for a bolt-on strategy to develop a bespoke PRO measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30, supplemented by targeted items from the EORTC Item Library and new items. In this publication, 20 participants were interviewed (n = 10 patients; n = 10 caregivers) to debrief items. Given the variety of tumor locations and related symptoms, and the small sample of patients providing responses to location-specific symptom items, we used response option endorsement frequencies to illuminate the variability of response for the concepts measured. RESULTS: This study highlights the challenges in implementing patient-centric research to inform and develop PRO measures in rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Our mixed-methods research used pragmatic solutions to collect patient experience data and provides an evidence base to inform PCOM in clinical programs in this rapidly progressing rare cancer with high unmet need.

Understanding the Patient Experience in NUT Carcinoma: Qualitative Interviews with Patients and Caregivers to Develop a Conceptual Framework.

INTRODUCTION: NUT (nuclear protein of the testis) carcinoma (NUTca) is a rare and aggressive cancer that is genetically hallmarked by a chromosomal abnormality in the NUT gene, and presents with tumors in the head, neck, and lungs. Currently there is no standard of care, but patients may undergo surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy. There is a lack of published research describing the patient experience of NUTca. The objective of this study was to develop a conceptual framework (CF) that describes patients' experience of NUTca to inform the selection of outcome measures and design of patient-centric endpoints for future clinical research. METHODS: Individual, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with patients and caregivers of patients who have/had NUTca (caregivers interviewed due to recruitment challenges resulting from the rarity of NUTca). Participants were asked about their disease symptoms, impacts, and treatment experience. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive coding. The CF was developed through inductive categorization of concepts, sub-domains, and domains. RESULTS: Twenty-seven interviews were completed (patients n = 10; caregivers n = 17). Participants reported systemic symptoms (e.g., fatigue) and symptoms related to the location of the tumor (e.g., nose blockage for head/neck tumor). Pain emerged as an important and bothersome symptom across tumor locations. Participants reported impacts on their daily activities (e.g., showering), emotions (e.g., preoccupation), sleep, social life (e.g., isolation), roles (e.g., caring for children), and finances. The final CF was organized into four symptom domains [systemic, location-specific (head/neck, lung), pain, and digestive] and six impact domains (daily activities, emotional, sleep, social, role, and financial). CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the patient experience of NUTca and proposes an evidence-based CF that informs both the clinical community's understanding of the disease and selection of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure to assess treatment benefit in future NUTca trials.

SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

Network meta-analyses for EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: systematic review and overview of methods and shortcomings.

Aim: To perform a review of network meta-analyses (NMAs) for the first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, and to provide an overview of methodological approaches and potential shortcomings. Materials & methods: We conducted a systematic review of NMAs and evaluated their methodologies, including inclusion/exclusion criteria, information sources, results and outcomes, and statistical methodologies. Results: We identified ten published NMAs using five archetypical network structures. Despite similar objectives, there was substantial variability in the number of trials included in each NMA and in the relative treatment efficacy of the tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Conclusion: We identified methodological issues to explain differences in the findings, criteria for inclusion in NMAs and the degree of lumping of treatments. These factors should be given particular consideration in future research.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with patients prescribed afatinib or erlotinib as first-line therapy for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC in the United States.

Aims: To assess healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors afatinib or erlotinib as first-line treatment.Materials and methods: This retrospective analysis used data from three large administrative claims databases in the US: Truven MarketScan, IMS PharMetrics Plus, and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. Patients with diagnosis codes of lung cancer treated with afatinib or erlotinib were included in the sample. Treatment cohorts were matched on baseline characteristics using propensity scores to account for potential selection bias. HCRU and healthcare costs were compared between the matched afatinib and erlotinib cohorts.Results: In total, 3,152 patients met the study inclusion criteria; propensity score matching of the afatinib and erlotinib patients yielded 525 matched pairs with well-balanced baseline characteristics. The afatinib cohort had significantly fewer patients with ≥1 inpatient visits (40.4% vs 52.2%, p = 0.0001) and outpatient emergency room (ER) visits (45.7% vs 54.1%, p = 0.0066). Per patient per month (PPPM) visits were significantly different between afatinib compared to erlotinib for inpatient visits (0.1 vs 0.2, p = 0.0152), other outpatient visits PPPM (2.6 vs 3.0, p = 0.022) and outpatient office visits (2.0 vs 1.7, p = 0.0059). Although costs of outpatient office ($1,624 vs $1,070; p = 0.0086) and pharmacy ($6,709 vs $5,932; p < 0.0001) visits were higher for afatinib vs erlotinib, total costs did not differ significantly between cohorts ($14,972 vs $14,412; p = 0.4415).Limitations: Retrospective claims data can be subject to coding errors or data omissions; patients were required to have continuous health plan enrolment; EGFR mutation status was not confirmed.Conclusions: Patients treated with afatinib as first-line monotherapy experienced fewer inpatient stays and ER visits compared with erlotinib. Total costs were not significantly different between the two treatment cohorts.

Budget impact of sequential treatment with first-line afatinib versus first-line osimertinib in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with common EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic landscape for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that have common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations has changed radically in the last decade. The availability of these treatment options has an economic impact, therefore a budget impact analysis was performed. METHODS: A budget impact analysis was conducted from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients receiving first-line afatinib (Gilotrif®) versus first-line osimertinib (Tagrisso®), followed by subsequent treatments. A decision analysis model was constructed in Excel. Scenario analyses and one-way sensitivity analysis were used to test the models' robustness. RESULTS: Sequential treatment with afatinib versus first-line treatment with osimertinib showed mean total time on treatment (ToT) of 29.1 months versus 24.7 months, quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) of 20.2 versus 17.4 with mean cost of €108,166 per patient versus €143,251 per patient, respectively. The 5-year total budget impact was €110.4 million for the afatinib sequence versus €158.6 million for the osimertinib sequence, leading to total incremental cost savings of €48.15 million. CONCLUSIONS: First-line afatinib treatment in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC had a lower financial impact on the Dutch healthcare budget with a higher mean ToT and QALM compared to osimertinib sequential treatment.

What is an estimand & how does it relate to quantifying the effect of treatment on patient-reported quality of life outcomes in clinical trials?

BACKGROUND: Published in 2019, a new addendum to the ICH E9 guideline presents the estimand framework as a systematic approach to ensure alignment among clinical trial objectives, trial execution/conduct, statistical analyses, and interpretation of results. The use of the estimand framework for describing clinical trial objectives has yet to be extensively considered in the context of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We discuss the application of the estimand framework to PRO objectives when designing clinical trials in the future, with a focus on PRO outcomes in oncology trial settings as our example. MAIN: We describe the components of an estimand and take a naïve PRO trial objective to illustrate how to apply attributes described in the estimand framework to inform construction of a detailed clinical trial objective and its related estimand. We discuss identifying potential post-randomization events that alter the interpretation of the endpoint or render its observation impossible (also defined as intercurrent events) in the context of PRO endpoints, and the implications of how to handle intercurrent events in the construction of the PRO objective. Using a simple objective statement, "What is the effect of treatment X on patient's quality of life?", we build up an example estimand statement and also use a previously published phase III oncology clinical trial to illustrate how an estimand for a PRO objective could have been written to align to the estimate framework. CONCLUSION: The use of the estimand framework, as described in the new ICH E9 (R1) addendum guideline will become a key common framework for developing clinical trial objectives for evaluating effects of treatment. In the context of considering PROs, the framework provides an opportunity to more precisely specify and build the rationale for patient-focused objectives. This will help to ensure that clinical trials used for registration are designed and analysed appropriately, enabling all stakeholders to accurately interpret conclusions about the treatment effects for patient-focused outcomes.

Health-related Quality of Life in the Phase III LUME-Colon 1 Study: Comparison and Interpretation of Results From EORTC QLQ-C30 Analyses.

INTRODUCTION: We used European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) data from the LUME-Colon 1 study to illustrate different methods of statistical analysis for health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and compared the results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nintedanib 200 mg twice daily plus best supportive care (n = 386) or matched placebo plus best supportive care (n = 382). Five methods (mean treatment difference averaged over time, using a mixed-effects growth curve model; mixed-effects models for repeated measurements (MMRM); time-to-deterioration (TTD); status change; and responder analysis) were used to analyze EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL and scores from functional scales. RESULTS: Overall, GHS/QoL and physical functioning deteriorated over time. Mean treatment difference slightly favored nintedanib over placebo for physical functioning (adjusted mean, 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-4.34) and social functioning (adjusted mean, 2.62; 95% CI, 0.66-4.47). GHS/QoL was numerically better with nintedanib versus placebo (adjusted mean, 1.61; 95% CI, -0.004 to 3.27). MMRM analysis had similar results, with better physical functioning in the nintedanib group at all timepoints. There was no significant delay in GHS/QoL deterioration (10%) and physical functioning (16%) with nintedanib versus placebo (TTD analysis). Status change analysis showed a higher proportion of patients with markedly improved GHS/QoL and physical functioning in the nintedanib versus placebo groups. Responder analysis showed a similar, less pronounced pattern. CONCLUSION: Analyses of EORTC QLQ-C30 data showed that HRQoL was not impaired by treatment with nintedanib versus placebo. Analysis and interpretation of HRQoL endpoints should consider symptom type and severity and course of disease.

An economic evaluation of cetuximab combined with radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: A phase III randomized trial that compared the combination of cetuximab and radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck provided a platform for a comprehensive economic evaluation. The study was conducted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in combination with radiotherapy compared to radiotherapy alone, for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer in patients for whom chemoradiotherapy is inappropriate or intolerable. METHODS: Separate economic analyses were conducted for Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The economic model was based on individual patient data extracted from an international phase III trial. Country-specific costs of care from official sources were applied in each analysis. Clinical expert panels supplemented resource use estimates from the phase III trial and validated assumptions used to extrapolate costs and health outcomes beyond the follow-up of the phase III trial. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year for patients receiving radiotherapy in combination with cetuximab compared to radiotherapy alone among all countries was in the range of 7538 euros to 10,836 euros. Sensitivity analysis showed the results to be robust. CONCLUSION: This cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that the addition of cetuximab to high-dose radiotherapy offers a good value-for-money alternative to radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer in five European countries.