A hard truth to swallow: critically evaluating the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) as an endpoint in human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer trials.

The MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), a measure of swallowing-related quality of life (swQol), has become the preferred patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in contemporary clinical trials evaluating the experience of human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPVOPSCC) survivors. With many potentially practice-changing studies using the MDADI composite score as either a primary or co-primary endpoint, or a key secondary endpoint, it is important to understand its psychometric properties as judged by contemporary PROM standards with a particular focus on its application to contemporary HPVOPSCC populations. In this critical review, we evaluate contemporary HPVOPSCC studies reporting MDADI outcomes, followed by a detailed evaluation of the psychometric properties of the MDADI. While the focus of this review was the MDADI, the issues discussed are not unique to the MDADI and have broader applicability to the evaluation and assessment of other PROMs currently in use. First, it may be possible to improve administration of the instrument, as related to missing items, scoring, and the number of items required. Second, while in many instances the MDADI has been intended as a direct or surrogate measure of swallowing physiology, the MDADI composite score captures a broader health-related quality of life construct affected by both swallowing and eating, the latter of which may be affected by a range of non-swallowing treatment-related toxicities. Finally, a clinically meaningful change (CMC) of 10 in the MDADI composite score, widely accepted and applied to the clinical trial setting, represents an undoubtably clinically relevant difference in unselected HNC survivors. However, the smallest difference that might be clinically important to a highly functional HPVOPSCC cohort remains uncertain. Understanding the purpose and properties of the MDADI instrument and furthering the sophistication with which we apply it in this population would improve its interpretation in clinical trials.

Cancer-Specific Health Utilities: Evaluation of Core Measurement Properties of the EORTC QLU-C10D in Lung Cancer Patients-Data from Four Multicentre LUX-Lung Trials, Applying Six Country Tariffs.

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analysis generally requires valid preference-based measures (PBMs) to assess the utility of patient health. While generic PBMs are widely used, disease-specific PBMs may capture additional aspects of health relevant for certain patient populations. This study investigates the construct and concurrent criterion validity of the cancer-specific European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) in non-small-cell lung cancer patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data from four multicentre LUX-Lung trials, all of which had administered the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the EQ-5D-3L. We applied six country-specific value sets (Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom) to both instruments. Criterion validity was assessed via correlations between the instruments' utility scores. Correlations of divergent and convergent domains and Bland-Altman plots investigated construct validity. Floor and ceiling effects were assessed. RESULTS: The comparison of the EORTC QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L produced homogenous results for five of the six country tariffs. High correlations of utilities (r > 0.7) were found for all country tariffs except for the Netherlands. Moderate to high correlations of converging domain pairs (r from 0.472 to 0.718) were found with few exceptions, such as the Social Functioning-Usual Activities domain pair (max. r = 0.376). For all but the Dutch tariff, the EORTC QLU-C10D produced consistently lower utility values compared to the EQ-5D-3L (x̄ difference from - 0.082 to 0.033). Floor and ceiling effects were consistently lower for the EORTC QLU-C10D (max. 4.67% for utilities). CONCLUSIONS: The six country tariffs showed good psychometric properties for the EORTC QLU-C10D in lung cancer patients. Criterion and construct validity was established. The QLU-C10D showed superior measurement precision towards the upper and lower end of the scale compared to the EQ-5D-3L, which is important when cost-utility analysis seeks to measure health change across the severity spectrum.

The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analysis typically relies on preference-based measures (PBMs). While generic PBMs are widely used, disease-specific PBMs can capture aspects relevant for certain patient populations. Here the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific PBM based on the QLQ-C30, is validated using Dutch trial data with the EQ-5D-3L as a generic comparator measure. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data from four Dutch randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comprising the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-5D-3L. Respective Dutch value sets were applied. Correlations between the instruments were calculated for domains and index scores. Bland-Altman plots and intra-class correlations (ICC) displayed agreement between the measures. Independent and paired t-tests, effect sizes and relative validity indices were used to determine the instruments' performance in detecting clinically known-group differences and health changes over time. RESULTS: We analysed data from 602 cancer patients from four different trials. In overall, the EORTC QLU-C10D showed good relative validity with the EQ-5D-3L as a comparator (correlations of index scores r = 0.53-0.75, ICCs 0.686-0.808, conceptually similar domains showed higher correlations than dissimilar domains). Most importantly, it detected 63% of expected clinical group differences and 50% of changes over time in patients undergoing treatment. Both instruments showed poor performance in survivors. Detection rate and measurement efficiency were clearly higher for the QLU-C10D than for the EQ-5D-3L. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D showed good comparative validity in patients undergoing treatment. Our results underline the benefit that can be achieved by using a cancer-specific PBM for generating health utilities for cancer patients from a measurement perspective.

Hidden in plain sight - Survival consequences of baseline symptom burden in women with recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the baseline symptom burden(SB) experienced by patients(pts) with recurrent ovarian cancer(ROC) prior and associations with progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: We analysed baseline SB reported by pts. with platinum resistant/refractory ROC (PRR-ROC) or potentially­platinum sensitive ROC receiving their third or greater line of chemotherapy (PPS-ROC≥3) enrolled in the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup - Symptom Benefit Study (GCIG-SBS) using the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns (MOST). The severity of baseline symptoms was correlated with PFS and OS. RESULTS: The 948 pts. reported substantial baseline SB. Almost 80% reported mild to severe pain, and 75% abdominal symptoms. Shortness of breath was reported by 60% and 90% reported fatigue. About 50% reported moderate to severe anxiety, and 35% moderate to severe depression. Most (89%) reported 1 or more symptoms as moderate or severe, 59% scored 6 or more symptoms moderate or severe, and 46% scored 9 or more symptoms as moderate or severe. Higher SB was associated with significantly shortened PFS and OS; five symptoms had OS hazard ratios larger than 2 for both moderate and severe symptom cut-offs (trouble eating, vomiting, indigestion, loss of appetite, and nausea; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pts with ROC reported high SB prior to starting palliative chemotherapy, similar among PRR-ROC and PPS-ROC≥3. High SB was strongly associated with early progression and death. SB should be actively managed and used to stratify patients in clinical trials. Clinical trials should measure and report symptom burden and the impact of treatment on symptom control.

Health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted progression free survival for carfilzomib and dexamethasone maintenance following salvage autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: a randomized phase 2 trial by the Nordic Myeloma Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding maintenance therapy in patients with multiple myeloma should be based on both treatment efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQL) consequences. In the CARFI trial, patients with first relapse of multiple myeloma underwent salvage autologous stem cell transplantation (salvage ASCT) before randomization to carfilzomib-dexamethasone maintenance therapy (Kd) or observation. The primary clinical endpoint was time to progression, which was extended by 8 months by Kd. The aim of this paper is to present the all HRQL endpoints of the CARFI trial including the HRQL effect of Kd maintenance therapy relative to observation. The primary HRQL endpoint was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 Summary score (QLQ-C30-sum) at 8 months follow-up. A key secondary HRQL endpoint was quality-adjusted progression-free-survival (QAPFS). METHODS: HRQL was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-MY20 and FACT/GOG-Ntx at randomization and every second month during follow-up. HRQL data were analyzed with linear mixed effect models until 8 months follow-up. QAPFS per individual was calculated by multiplying progression-free survival (PFS) by two quality-adjustment metrics, the QLQ-C30-sum and EORTC Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D). The QAPFS per treatment group was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. P < 0.05 was used for statistical significance, and a between-group minimal important difference of 10 points was interpreted as clinically relevant for the QLQ-C30-sum. RESULTS: 168 patients were randomized. HRQL questionnaire compliance was 93%. For the QLQ-C30-sum, the difference of 4.62 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -8.9: -0.4, p = 0.032) was not clinically relevant. PFS was 19.3 months for the Kd maintenance group and 16.8 months for the observation group; difference = 2.5 months (95% CI 0.5; 4.5). QAPFS based on the QLQ-C30-sum for the Kd maintenance group was 18.0 months (95% CI 16.4; 19.6) and for the observation group 15.0 months (95% CI 13.5; 16.5); difference = 3.0 months (95% CI 0.8-5.3). QAPFS based on the QLU-C10D for the Kd maintenance group was 17.5 months (95% CI 15.9; 19.2) and 14.0 months (95% CI 12.4; 15.5) for the observation group; difference = 3.5 months (95% CI 1.1-5.9). CONCLUSIONS: Kd maintenance therapy after salvage ASCT did not adversely affect overall HRQL, but adjustment for HRQL reduced the PFS compared to unadjusted PFS. PFS of maintenance therapy should be quality-adjusted to balance the benefits and HRQL impact.

Danish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument.

PURPOSE: In this study, we developed Danish utility weights for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. METHODS: Following a standardized methodology, 1001 adult participants from the Danish general population were quota-sampled and completed a cross-sectional web-based survey and discrete choice experiment (DCE). In the DCE, participants considered 16 choice sets constructed from the key 10 dimensions of the QLU-C10D and chose their preferred health state for each one. Utility weights were calculated using conditional logistic regression with correction for non-monotonicity. RESULTS: The sample (n = 1001) was representative of the Danish general population with regard to age and gender. The domains with the largest utility decrements, i.e., the domains with the biggest impact on health utility, were physical functioning (- 0.224), pain (- 0.160), and role functioning (- 0.136). The smallest utility decrements were observed for the domains lack of appetite (- 0.024), sleep disorders (- 0.057), and fatigue (- 0.064). Non-monotonicity of severity levels was observed for the domains sleep disturbances, lack of appetite, and bowel problems. Deviations from monotonicity were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The EORTC QLU-C10D is a relatively new multi-attribute utility instrument and is a promising cancer-specific health technology assessment candidate measure. The country-specific Danish utility weights from this study can be used for cost-utility analyses in Danish patients and for comparison with other country-specific utility data.

External validation and diagnostic value of the Elderly Functional Index version 2.0 for assessing functional status and frailty in older Danish patients with gastrointestinal cancer receiving chemotherapy: A prospective, clinical study.

INTRODUCTION: Patient perspectives on functioning are often overlooked in oncology practice. This study externally validates the ELderly Functional Index (ELFI), a patient-reported measure for assessing multidimensional functioning, in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer receiving chemotherapy. The study compares ELFI scoring methods, evaluates its diagnostic value with geriatric oncology tools, and proposes a cut-off point for clinical use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Danish patients aged ≥70 years with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing chemotherapy from a prospective, observational study were included. Two ELFI scoring methods, item-based and domain-based, were compared. Internal consistency reliability, validity, and correlations between ELFI, its component scales, and measures of functioning/frailty (including Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status [ECOG-PS], Geriatric-8 [G8], Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 [VES-13], Timed-Up-and-Go [TUG], and 30-s chair stand test [30CST]) were investigated. Sensitivity and specificity analyses evaluated the ability of ELFI to predict frailty outcomes and identified frailty thresholds. Receiver operating characteristic analyses assessed the diagnostic ability of ELFI, alongside other measures, for oncological outcomes and frailty differentiation. Equipercentile equating methods enabled ECOG-PS, ELFI, and G8 mapping. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four patients (median age 73.5 years, range 70-85) undergoing curative- or palliative-intent chemotherapy (49%) were included. ELFI demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82) and acceptable convergent, structural, and discriminant validity. ELFI showed moderate to very strong correlations with its component scales (r = 0.40-0.93), and weaker correlations with frailty measures (r = 0.02-0.60). ELFI score < 80 indicated frailty risk, with almost fivefold risk of ECOG-PS 2 at follow-up (odds ratio[OR] = 4.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-15.9), and predicted G8, VES-13, TUG, and 30CST frailty at follow-up, not completing planned chemotherapy (OR = 3.1; 95%CI 1.5-6.2), mono-therapy (OR = 3.5; 95%CI 1.5-8.1), initial dose reduction (OR = 4.9; 95%CI 2.0-12.1), and shorter overall survival (hazard ratio = 2.0, 95%CI 1.4-3.0). A preliminary crosswalk between ECOG-PS, ELFI, and G8 was established. DISCUSSION: ELFI was validated as a concise patient-reported measure of functional status in older patients with cancer and its relationship to frailty. ELFI demonstrated comparable predictive ability to other tools for oncological outcomes. Both scoring methods yielded similar results, with the domain-based method (ELFI v2.0) endorsed for consistency. ELFI v2.0 score of 80 was suggested as the frailty threshold in this population, supporting its clinical utility.

United States Value Set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Eight Dimensions (FACT-8D), a Cancer-Specific Preference-Based Quality of Life Instrument.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a value set reflecting the United States (US) general population's preferences for health states described by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) eight-dimensions preference-based multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D), derived from the FACT-General cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) questionnaire. METHODS: A US online panel was quota-sampled to achieve a general population sample representative by sex, age (≥ 18 years), race and ethnicity. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to value health states. The valuation task involved choosing between pairs of health states (choice-sets) described by varying levels of the FACT-8D HRQL dimensions and survival (life-years). The DCE included 100 choice-sets; each respondent was randomly allocated 16 choice-sets. Data were analysed using conditional logit regression parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework, weighted for sociodemographic variables that were non-representative of the US general population. Preference weights were calculated as the ratio of HRQL-level coefficients to the survival coefficient. RESULTS: 2562 panel members opted in, 2462 (96%) completed at least one choice-set and 2357 (92%) completed 16 choice-sets. Pain and nausea were associated with the largest utility weights, work and sleep had more moderate utility weights, and sadness, worry and support had the smallest utility weights. Within dimensions, more severe HRQL levels were generally associated with larger weights. A preference-weighting algorithm to estimate US utilities from responses to the FACT-General questionnaire was generated. The worst health state's value was -0.33. CONCLUSIONS: This value set provides US population utilities for health states defined by the FACT-8D for use in evaluating oncology treatments.

Development and implementation barriers of a new patient-reported measure: The Radiation therapy-related Inconvenience Questionnaire (RIQ).

INTRODUCTION: Radiation therapy (RT) can benefit approximately 50% of cancer patients and contribute to 40% of all cancer cures, yet its utilisation in cancer is low globally. Several factors contribute to this including perceived inconvenience related to accessing and utilising RT. To quantitatively assess the latter, a new tool - the Radiation therapy-related Inconvenience Questionnaire (RIQ) - was developed. This study aimed to pre-test the RIQ and explore barriers and facilitators to implementing it in routine clinical practice and clinical trials. METHODS: Semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted with patients undertaking RT, recruited via three hospitals to examine content validity, acceptability, and comprehensibility of the RIQ. Interviews identified inconsistencies, relevance, and clarity of items. Semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of care to individuals undertaking RT explored barriers and facilitators to routine usage. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS: Patients (N = 15) identified problems in content, instructions, layout, length, and response options; consequently, 25 items were revised and eight removed, resulting in a final 29-item questionnaire. Clinicians identified staff- and patient-specific barriers to implementing RIQ in clinical practice. Perceived facilitators included the following: (a) workplace factors, (b) mode of administration, and (c) imparting knowledge. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated acceptability and comprehensibility of the 29-item RIQ amongst cancer patients undertaking RT and treating clinicians. The next phase will evaluate the RIQ's measurement properties in a larger clinical study. The barriers and facilitators identified can guide future implementation of RIQ in clinical practice and clinical trials.

The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study.

OBJECTIVE: The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new preference-based measure derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Country-specific value sets are required to support the cost-utility analysis of cancer-related interventions. This study aimed to generate an EORTC QLU-C10 value set for Hong Kong (HK). METHODS: A HK online panel was quota-sampled to achieve an adult general population sample representative by sex and age. Participants were invited to complete an online discrete choice experiment survey. Each participant was asked to complete 16 choice-pairs, randomly assigned from a total of 960 choice-pairs, each comprising two QLU-C10D health states and a duration attribute. Conditional and mixed logistic regression analyses were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The analysis included data from 1041 respondents who had successfully completed the online survey. The distribution of sex did not differ from that of the general population, but a significant difference was found among age groups. A weighting analysis for non-representative variable (age) was used. Utility decrements were generally monotonic, with the largest decrements for physical functioning (- 0.308), role functioning (- 0.165), and pain (- 0.161). The mean QLU-C10D utility score of the participants was 0.804 (median = 0.838, worst to best = - 0.169 to 1). The value of the worst health state was - 0.223, which was sufficiently lower than 0 (being dead). CONCLUSIONS: This study established HK utility weights for the QLU-C10D, which can facilitate cost-utility analyses across cancer-related health programmes and technologies.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Ovarian Cancer: Facilitating and Enhancing the Reporting of Symptoms, Adverse Events, and Subjective Benefit of Treatment in Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide a valid, standardized way of assessing symptoms, adverse events and the subjective benefit of treatment from the patient's perspective. Assessment of PROs is critical in ovarian cancer due to the high morbidity of the disease and its treatments. Several well-validated PRO measures are available to assess PROs in ovarian cancer. Their inclusion in clinical trials can provide evidence on the benefits and harms of new treatments based on patients' experiences to guide improvements in clinical practice and health policy. Aggregate PRO data collected in clinical trials can be used to inform patients about likely treatment impacts and assist them to make informed treatment decisions. In clinical practice, PRO assessments can facilitate monitoring of a patient's symptoms throughout treatment and follow-up to guide their clinical management; in this context, an individual patient's responses can facilitate communication with their treating clinician about troublesome symptoms and their impact on their quality of life. This literature review aimed to provide clinicians and researchers with a better understanding of why and how PROs can be incorporated into ovarian cancer clinical trials and routine clinical practice. We discuss the importance of assessing PROs throughout the ovarian cancer disease and treatment trajectory in both clinical trials and clinical practice, and provide examples from existing literature to illustrate the uses of PROs as the goals of treatment change in each setting.

Minimally important differences for interpreting EORTC QLQ-C30 change scores over time: A synthesis across 21 clinical trials involving nine different cancer types.

INTRODUCTION: Early guidelines for minimally important differences (MIDs) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 proposed ≥10 points change as clinically meaningful for all scales. Increasing evidence that MIDs can vary by scale, direction of change, cancer type and estimation method has raised doubt about a single global standard. This paper identifies MID patterns for interpreting group-level change in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores across nine cancer types. METHODS: Data were obtained from 21 published EORTC Phase III trials that enroled 13,015 patients across nine cancer types (brain, colorectal, advanced breast, head/neck, lung, mesothelioma, melanoma, ovarian, and prostate). Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change and between-group differences in change over time were obtained via mean change method and linear regression, respectively. Separate MIDs were estimated for improvements and deteriorations. Distribution-based estimates were derived and compared with anchor-based MIDs. RESULTS: Anchor-based MIDs mostly ranged from 5 to 10 points. Differences in MIDs for improvement vs deterioration, for both within-group and between-group, were mostly within a 2-points range. Larger differences between within-group and between-group MIDs were observed for several scales in ovarian, lung and head/neck cancer. Most anchor-based MIDs ranged between 0.3 SD and 0.5 SD distribution-based estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reinforce recent claims that no single MID can be applied to all EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and disease settings. MIDs varied by scale, improvement/deterioration, within/between comparisons and by cancer type. Researchers applying commonly used rules of thumb must be aware of the risk of dismissing changes that are clinically meaningful or underpowering analyses when smaller MIDs apply.

The Psychology of COVID-19 Booster Hesitancy, Acceptance and Resistance in Australia.

COVID-19 booster vaccinations have been recommended as a primary line of defence against serious illness and hospitalisation. This study identifies and characterises distinct profiles of attitudes towards vaccination, particularly the willingness to get a booster dose. A sample of 582 adults from Australia completed an online survey capturing COVID-related behaviours, beliefs and attitudes and a range of sociodemographic, psychological, political, social and cultural variables. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) identified three subgroups: Acceptant (61%), Hesitant (30%) and Resistant (9%). Compared to the Acceptant group, the Hesitant and Resistant groups were less worried about catching COVID-19, used fewer official COVID-19 information sources, checked the news less, were lower on the agreeableness personality dimension and reported more conservatism, persecutory thinking, amoral attitudes and need for chaos. The Hesitant group also reported checking the legitimacy of information sources less, scored lower on the openness to new experiences personality dimension and were more likely than the Resistant and Acceptant groups to report regaining freedoms (e.g., travel) and work requirements or external pressures as reasons to get a booster. The Resistant group were higher on reactance, held more conspiratorial beliefs and rated their culture as being less tolerant of deviance than the Hesitant and Acceptant groups. This research can inform tailored approaches to increasing booster uptake and optimal strategies for public health messaging.

Adjuvant chemotherapy following chemoradiotherapy as primary treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer versus chemoradiotherapy alone (OUTBACK): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer is chemoradiotherapy, but many patients relapse and die of metastatic disease. We aimed to determine the effects on survival of adjuvant chemotherapy after chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: The OUTBACK trial was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 157 hospitals in Australia, China, Canada, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and the USA. Eligible participants were aged 18 year or older with histologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous cell carcinoma, or adenocarcinoma of the cervix (FIGO 2008 stage IB1 disease with nodal involvement, or stage IB2, II, IIIB, or IVA disease), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate bone marrow and organ function. Participants were randomly assigned centrally (1:1) using a minimisation approach and stratified by pelvic or common iliac nodal involvement, requirement for extended-field radiotherapy, FIGO 2008 stage, age, and site to receive standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (40 mg/m2 cisplatin intravenously once-a-week for 5 weeks, during radiotherapy with 45·0-50·4 Gy external beam radiotherapy delivered in fractions of 1·8 Gy to the whole pelvis plus brachytherapy; chemoradiotherapy only group) or standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with four cycles of carboplatin (area under the receiver operator curve 5) and paclitaxel (155 mg/m2) given intravenously on day 1 of a 21 day cycle (adjuvant chemotherapy group). The primary endpoint was overall survival at 5 years, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all eligible patients who were randomly assigned). Safety was assessed in all patients in the chemoradiotherapy only group who started chemoradiotherapy and all patients in the adjuvant chemotherapy group who received at least one dose of adjuvant chemotherapy. The OUTBACK trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01414608, and the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12610000732088. FINDINGS: Between April 15, 2011, and June 26, 2017, 926 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the chemoradiotherapy only group (n=461) or the adjuvant chemotherapy group (n=465), of whom 919 were eligible (456 in the chemoradiotherapy only group and 463 in the adjuvant chemotherapy group; median age 46 years [IQR 37 to 55]; 663 [72%] were White, 121 [13%] were Black or African American, 53 [6%] were Asian, 24 [3%] were Aboriginal or Pacific islander, and 57 [6%] were other races) and included in the analysis. As of data cutoff (April 12, 2021), median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 45 to 65). 5-year overall survival was 72% (95% CI 67 to 76) in the adjuvant chemotherapy group (105 deaths) and 71% (66 to 75) in the chemoradiotherapy only group (116 deaths; difference 1% [95% CI -6 to 7]; hazard ratio 0·90 [95% CI 0·70 to 1·17]; p=0·81). In the safety population, the most common clinically significant grade 3-4 adverse events were decreased neutrophils (71 [20%] in the adjuvant chemotherapy group vs 34 [8%] in the chemoradiotherapy only group), and anaemia (66 [18%] vs 34 [8%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 107 (30%) in the adjuvant chemotherapy group versus 98 (22%) in the chemoradiotherapy only group, most commonly due to infectious complications. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy given after standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy for unselected locally advanced cervical cancer increased short-term toxicity and did not improve overall survival; therefore, it should not be given in this setting. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council and National Cancer Institute.

Patient-Reported Symptom Severity, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Emotional Distress Trajectories During and After Radiation Therapy for Human Papillomavirus-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer: A TROG 12.01 Secondary Analysis.

PURPOSE: This secondary analysis of clinical trial TROG 12.01, involving patients with human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, aimed to identify patient-reported outcome (PRO) trajectories before, during, and after chemoradiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Head and neck cancer symptom severity (HNSS) and interference (HNSI), generic health-related quality of life (HRQL), and emotional distress were assessed with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaires, respectively. Latent class growth mixture modeling (LCGMM) was used to identify distinct underlying trajectories. Baseline and treatment variables were compared between trajectory groups. RESULTS: The LCGMM identified latent trajectories for all PROs: HNSS, HNSI, HRQL, anxiety, and depression. Four HNSS trajectories (HNSS1-4) were identified, distinguished by differences in HNSS at baseline, during the peak of treatment symptoms, and during early and intermediate recovery. All trajectories were stable beyond 12 months. The reference trajectory (HNSS4, n = 74) score was 0.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1-0.2) at baseline, peaking at 4.6 (95% CI, 4.2-5.0), with rapid early recovery (1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2) and gradual improvement to 12 months (0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.8). Patients in HNSS2 (high baseline, n = 30) reported higher baseline scores (1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.0) but were otherwise similar to HNSS4. Patients in HNSS3 (low acute, n = 53) reported reduced acute symptoms (2.5; 95% CI, 2.2-2.9) with stable scores beyond 9 weeks after chemoradiotherapy (1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.4). Patients in HNSS1 (slow recovery, n = 25) had slower recovery from an acute peak of 4.9 (95% CI, 4.3-5.6) to 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.3) at 12 months. Age, performance status, education, receipt of cetuximab, and baseline anxiety varied between trajectories. The other PRO models demonstrated clinically relevant trajectories, with distinct associations with baseline factors. CONCLUSIONS: LCGMM identified distinct PRO trajectories during and after chemoradiotherapy. These and their associations with variations in the characteristics and treatment factors of patients with human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma provide clinically relevant insights into identifying patients who may require increased support before, during, or after chemoradiotherapy.

An extension minimal important difference credibility item addressing construct proximity is a reliable alternative to the correlation item.

OBJECTIVES: Minimal important difference (MID), the smallest change or difference that patients perceive as important, aids interpretation of change in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores. A credibility instrument that assesses the methodological rigor of an anchor-based MID includes one core item addressing the correlation between the PROM and the anchor. However, the majority of MID studies in the literature fail to report the correlation. To address this issue, we extended the anchor-based MID credibility instrument by adding an item addressing construct proximity as an alternative to the correlation item. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Informed by an MID methodological survey, we added an alternative item-a subjective assessment of similarity of the constructs (i.e., construct proximity) between PROM and anchor-to the correlation item and generated principles for the assessment. We sampled 101 MIDs and analyzed the assessments performed by each pair of raters. By calculating weighted Cohen's kappa, we assessed the reliability of the assessments. RESULTS: Construct proximity assessment is based on the anticipated association between the anchor and PROM constructs: the closer the anticipated association, the higher the rating. Our detailed principles address the most frequently used anchors: transition ratings, measures of satisfaction, other PROMs, and clinical measures. The assessments showed acceptable agreement (weighted kappa 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-0.94) between raters. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a reported correlation coefficient, construct proximity assessment provides a useful alternative in the credibility assessment of anchor-based MID estimates.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neurotoxicity: Defining Minimal and Clinically Important Changes.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) is a common complication of cancer treatment that produces functional disability. Increasingly, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to assess CIPN, providing a broader symptom perspective than clinician-graded scales. Understanding when a reported change in CIPN symptoms meets the threshold for clinical significance is challenging. This study aimed to provide interpretation guidelines for validated CIPN PROMs, and thereby enable estimation of thresholds to identify clinically relevant symptoms. METHODS: Patients commencing neurotoxic cancer treatments were assessed at 3 timepoints: baseline, midtreatment, and end-of-treatment. Trajectory of CIPN development was assessed by means of CIPN PROMs, EORTC Quality of Life - Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy questionnaire (QLQ-CIPN20), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group - Neurotoxicity questionnaire (FACT/GOG-NTX). Thresholds were estimated for CIPN PROMs using the NCI CTCAE sensory neuropathy scale as the clinical anchor by midtreatment and end-of-treatment. Patients were assigned to a clinical change group according to CIPN development: either no development; grade 1 neuropathy (minimally important difference [MID]); or grade 2 neuropathy (clinically important difference). Distribution-based estimates (SD, 0.5) were also evaluated as supportive evidence. RESULTS: In total, 406 patients were recruited to the study, of whom 62% (n=199/320) developed CIPN by midtreatment and 80% (n=274/343) by end-of-treatment. Anchor-based MID estimates by midtreatment were 5.06 (95% CI, 4.26-5.86) for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 3.54 (95% CI, 2.87-4.20) for the FACT/GOG-NTX. End-of-treatment MIDs were estimated to be 7.32 (95% CI, 6.23-8.40) for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 4.84 (95% CI, 3.98-5.70) for the FACT/GOG-NTX. Distribution-based MID estimations yielded lower values than anchor-based methods, at 3.73 for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 2.64 for the FACT/GOG-NTX at midtreatment and 5.52 for the QLQ-CIPN20 and 3.64 for the FACT/GOG-NTX at end-of-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the present series aid meaningful interpretation for commonly used validated CIPN PROMs and provide thresholds that serve as guidance on how to interpret score changes, which will be useful for design and evaluation of clinical trials and clinical practice.

Patient and healthcare provider perceptions on using patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in routine clinical care: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assess quality-of-care from patients' perspectives. PREMs can be used to enhance patient-centered care and facilitate patient engagement in care. With increasing quality improvement studies in clinical practice, the use of PREMs has surged. As a result, knowledge about stakeholder experiences of using PREMs to assess quality of care across diverse clinical settings is needed to inform PREM implementation efforts. To address this, this review examines the qualitative literature on patient and healthcare provider experiences of using PREMs in clinical practice. METHODS: Medline, Embase and PsycInfo were systematically searched from inception to May 2021. Additional searching of reference lists for all included articles and relevant review articles were performed. Retrieved articles were screened for eligibility by one reviewer and 25% cross-checked by a second reviewer across all stages of the review. Full texts meeting eligibility criteria were appraised against the COREQ checklist for quality assessment and thematic analysis was used to analyze textual data extracted from the results. RESULTS: Electronic searches identified 2683 records, of which 20 studies met eligibility criteria. Extracted data were synthesized into six themes: facilitators to PREM implementation; barriers to PREM implementation; healthcare providers' perspectives towards using PREMs; patients' perspectives towards using PREMs; advantages of using PREMs in clinical practice; limitations and practical considerations to reduce resistance of PREM usage. The primary factors facilitating and impeding the use of PREMs include organizational-, staff- and patient-related factors. CONCLUSION: Results can be used to guide the usage and implementation of PREMs in clinical settings by addressing the identified barriers and building on the perceived benefits to encourage adoption of PREMs. Results around facilitators to PREM implementation and practical considerations could also promote appropriate use of PREMs by healthcare providers, helping to improve practice and the quality of care based on patient feedback.

Integrated Geriatric Assessment and Treatment Effectiveness (INTEGERATE) in older people with cancer starting systemic anticancer treatment in Australia: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in improving health outcomes in cancer settings is unclear. We evaluated whether CGA can improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in older people with cancer who are starting systemic anticancer treatment. METHODS: INTEGERATE is a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial that was done at three hospitals in Australia. Participants aged 70 years and older with solid cancer or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma planned for chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy, were randomly assigned (1:1; using a central computer-generated minimisation algorithm with a random element, balancing treatment intent, cancer type, age, sex, and performance status) to receive CGA integrated into oncology care (integrated oncogeriatric care) or usual care only. Group assignment was not concealed from the participants and clinicians. The primary outcome was HRQOL over 24 weeks, assessed at baseline, week 12, week 18, and week 24, using the Elderly Functional Index (ELFI; score range 0-100). Analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ANZCTR.org.au, ACTRN12614000399695, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Aug 18, 2014, and Sept 5, 2018, 154 participants were randomly assigned to integrated oncogeriatric care (n=76) or usual care (n=78). 13 participants died by week 12 and 130 (92%) of the remaining 141 participants completed two or more ELFI assessments. Participants assigned to integrated oncogeriatric care reported better adjusted ELFI change scores over 24 weeks compared with those in the usual care group (overall main effect of group: t=2·1, df=213, p=0·039; effect size=0·38), with maximal between-group differences at week 18 (mean difference in change 9·8 [95% CI 2·4-17·2]; p=0·010, corrected p=0·030, effect size=0·48). The integrated oncogeriatric care group also had significantly fewer unplanned hospital admissions at 24 weeks (multivariable-adjusted incidence rate ratio 0·60 [95% CI 0·42-0·87]; p=0·0066). No statistically significant between-group difference was observed in overall survival. INTERPRETATION: CGA led to better quality of life and health-care delivery in older people receiving systemic anticancer treatment. Routine CGA-based interventions should be considered in at-risk older people starting systemic anticancer treatment. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Monash University, and Eastern Health.