Post-diagnosis adiposity, physical activity, sedentary behaviour, dietary factors, supplement use and colorectal cancer prognosis: Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) summary of evidence grading.

Based on the World Cancer Research Fund Global Cancer Update Programme, we performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses to investigate the association of post-diagnosis adiposity, physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and dietary factors with colorectal cancer prognosis. We searched PubMed and Embase until 28th February, 2022. An independent expert committee and expert panel graded the quality of evidence. A total of 167 unique publications were reviewed, and all but five were observational studies. The quality of the evidence was graded conservatively due to the high risk of several biases. There was evidence of non-linearity in the associations between body mass index and colorectal cancer prognosis. The associations appeared reverse J-shaped, and the quality of this evidence was graded as limited (likelihood of causality: limited-no conclusion). The evidence on recreational physical activity and lower risk of all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] highest vs. lowest: 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.77) and recurrence/disease-free survival (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.92) was graded as limited-suggestive. There was limited-suggestive evidence for the associations between healthy dietary and/or lifestyle patterns (including diets that comprised plant-based foods), intake of whole grains and coffee with lower risk of all-cause mortality, and between unhealthy dietary patterns and intake of sugary drinks with higher risk of all-cause mortality. The evidence for other exposures on colorectal cancer outcomes was sparse and graded as limited-no conclusion. Analyses were conducted excluding cancer patients with metastases without substantial changes in the findings. Well-designed intervention and cohort studies are needed to support the development of lifestyle recommendations for colorectal cancer patients.

Post-diagnosis dietary factors, supplement use and colorectal cancer prognosis: A Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

The role of diet in colorectal cancer prognosis is not well understood and specific lifestyle recommendations are lacking. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies on post-diagnosis dietary factors, supplement use and colorectal cancer survival outcomes in PubMed and Embase from inception until 28th February 2022. Random-effects dose-response meta-analyses were conducted when at least three studies had sufficient information. The evidence was interpreted and graded by the CUP Global independent Expert Committee on Cancer Survivorship and Expert Panel. Five RCTs and 35 observational studies were included (30,242 cases, over 8700 all-cause and 2100 colorectal cancer deaths, 3700 progression, recurrence, or disease-free events). Meta-analyses, including 3-10 observational studies each, were conducted for: whole grains, nuts/peanuts, red and processed meat, dairy products, sugary drinks, artificially sweetened beverages, coffee, alcohol, dietary glycaemic load/index, insulin load/index, marine omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, supplemental calcium, circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and all-cause mortality; for alcohol, supplemental calcium, circulating 25(OH)D and colorectal cancer-specific mortality; and for circulating 25(OH)D and recurrence/disease-free survival. The overall evidence was graded as 'limited'. The inverse associations between healthy dietary and/or lifestyle patterns (including diets that comprised plant-based foods), whole grains, total, caffeinated, or decaffeinated coffee and all-cause mortality and the positive associations between unhealthy dietary patterns, sugary drinks and all-cause mortality provided 'limited-suggestive' evidence. All other exposure-outcome associations provided 'limited-no conclusion' evidence. Additional, well-conducted cohort studies and carefully designed RCTs are needed to develop specific lifestyle recommendations for colorectal cancer survivors.

Post-diagnosis physical activity and sedentary behaviour and colorectal cancer prognosis: A Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Low physical activity and high sedentary behaviour have been clearly linked with colorectal cancer development, yet data on their potential role in colorectal cancer survival is limited. Better characterisation of these relationships is needed for the development of post-diagnosis physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidance for colorectal cancer survivors. We searched PubMed and Embase through 28 February 2022 for studies assessing post-diagnosis physical activity, and/or sedentary behaviour in relation to all-cause and cause-specific mortality and recurrence after colorectal cancer diagnosis. Total and recreational physical activity were assessed overall and by frequency, duration, intensity, and volume using categorical, linear, and non-linear dose-response random-effects meta-analyses. The Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) independent Expert Committee on Cancer Survivorship and Expert Panel interpreted and graded the likelihood of causality. We identified 16 observational studies on 82,220 non-overlapping patients from six countries. Physical activity was consistently inversely associated with colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality outcomes, with 13%-60% estimated reductions in risk. Sedentary behaviour was positively associated with all-cause mortality. The evidence had methodological limitations including potential confounding, selection bias and reverse causation, coupled with a limited number of studies for most associations. The CUP Global Expert panel concluded limited-suggestive evidence for recreational physical activity with all-cause mortality and cancer recurrence. Total physical activity and its specific domains and dimensions, and sedentary behaviour were all graded as limited-no conclusion for all outcomes. Future research should focus on randomised trials, while observational studies should obtain objective and repeated physical activity measures and better adjustment for confounders.

Post-diagnosis adiposity and colorectal cancer prognosis: A Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

The adiposity influence on colorectal cancer prognosis remains poorly characterised. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on post-diagnosis adiposity measures (body mass index [BMI], waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight) or their changes and colorectal cancer outcomes. PubMed and Embase were searched through 28 February 2022. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted when at least three studies had sufficient information. The quality of evidence was interpreted and graded by the Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) independent Expert Committee on Cancer Survivorship and Expert Panel. We reviewed 124 observational studies (85 publications). Meta-analyses were possible for BMI and all-cause mortality, colorectal cancer-specific mortality, and cancer recurrence/disease-free survival. Non-linear meta-analysis indicated a reverse J-shaped association between BMI and colorectal cancer outcomes (nadir at BMI 28 kg/m2). The highest risk, relative to the nadir, was observed at both ends of the BMI distribution (18 and 38 kg/m2), namely 60% and 23% higher risk for all-cause mortality; 95% and 26% for colorectal cancer-specific mortality; and 37% and 24% for cancer recurrence/disease-free survival, respectively. The higher risk with low BMI was attenuated in secondary analyses of RCTs (compared to cohort studies), among studies with longer follow-up, and in women suggesting potential methodological limitations and/or altered physiological state. Descriptively synthesised studies on other adiposity-outcome associations of interest were limited in number and methodological quality. All the associations were graded as limited (likelihood of causality: no conclusion) due to potential methodological limitations (reverse causation, confounding, selection bias). Additional well-designed observational studies and interventional trials are needed to provide further clarification.

Using Machine Learning to Predict Unplanned Hospital Utilization and Chemotherapy Management From Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

PURPOSE: Adverse effects of chemotherapy often require hospital admissions or treatment management. Identifying factors contributing to unplanned hospital utilization may improve health care quality and patients' well-being. This study aimed to assess if patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) improve performance of machine learning (ML) models predicting hospital admissions, triage events (contacting helpline or attending hospital), and changes to chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical trial data were used and contained responses to three PROMs (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire [QLQ-C30], EuroQol Five-Dimensional Visual Analogue Scale [EQ-5D], and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G]) and clinical information on 508 participants undergoing chemotherapy. Six feature sets (with following variables: [1] all available; [2] clinical; [3] PROMs; [4] clinical and QLQ-C30; [5] clinical and EQ-5D; [6] clinical and FACT-G) were applied in six ML models (logistic regression [LR], decision tree, adaptive boosting, random forest [RF], support vector machines [SVMs], and neural network) to predict admissions, triage events, and chemotherapy changes. RESULTS: The comprehensive analysis of predictive performances of the six ML models for each feature set in three different methods for handling class imbalance indicated that PROMs improved predictions of all outcomes. RF and SVMs had the highest performance for predicting admissions and changes to chemotherapy in balanced data sets, and LR in imbalanced data set. Balancing data led to the best performance compared with imbalanced data set or data set with balanced train set only. CONCLUSION: These results endorsed the view that ML can be applied on PROM data to predict hospital utilization and chemotherapy management. If further explored, this study may contribute to health care planning and treatment personalization. Rigorous comparison of model performance affected by different imbalanced data handling methods shows best practice in ML research.

EORTC QLQ-C30 normative data for the United Kingdom: Results of a cross-sectional survey of the general population.

OBJECTIVE: The cancer-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaire of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the EORTC QLQ-C30, is a frequently applied questionnaire to assess cancer patients' self-reported health used as part of research and clinical practice. Normative data obtained from the general population can facilitate the interpretation of these data. Despite its frequent application, no detailed EORTC QLQ-C30 normative data have yet been published for the United Kingdom (UK). This study presents detailed EORTC QLQ-C30 normative data for the United Kingdom overall and by sex and age. METHODS: The data are drawn from a larger published, international, cross-sectional online survey. For the recruitment, the sample was stratified by sex (males, females) and age in five age groups with a sample size of n = 100 per subgroup. RESULTS: A total of N = 1026 UK respondents completed the survey (n = 517 females, n = 509 males). There were no clear subgroup patterns by sex or age; however, older patients tended to show higher (i.e., better) scores in emotional and social functioning; they also reported some of the lowest (i.e., best) scores for symptoms, such as insomnia, appetite loss, diarrhoea, nausea/vomiting or financial difficulties. CONCLUSION: This paper provides EORTC QLQ-C30 general population normative data for the UK, further stratified by sex and age. These data will greatly support the interpretation of EORTC QLQ-C30 scale scores obtained from UK cancer patients, and also enable comparison with other detailed national normative datasets collected in the same project, across several other European countries and the US.

The evolving value assessment of cancer therapies: Results from a modified Delphi study.

The move toward early detection and treatment of cancer presents challenges for value assessment using traditional endpoints. Current cancer management rarely considers the full economic and societal benefits of therapies. Our study used a modified Delphi process to develop principles for defining and assessing value of cancer therapies that aligns with the current trajectory of oncology research and reflects broader notions of value. 24 experts participated in consensus-building activities across 5 months (16 took part in structured interactions, including a survey, plenary sessions, interviews, and off-line discussions, while 8 participated in interviews). Discussion focused on: 1) which oncology-relevant endpoints should be used for assessing treatments for early-stage cancer and access decisions for early-stage treatments, and 2) the importance of additional value components and how these can be integrated in value assessments. The expert group reached consensus on 4 principles in relation to the first area (consider oncology-relevant endpoints other than overall survival; build evidence for endpoints that provide earlier indication of efficacy; develop evidence for the next generation of predictive measures; use managed entry agreements supported by ongoing evidence collection to address decision-maker evidence needs) and 3 principles in relation to the second (routinely use patient reported outcomes in value assessments; assess broad economic impact of new medicines; consider other value aspects of relevance to patients and society).

Long-term health-related quality of life in meningioma survivors: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Background: Meningiomas account for ~25% of all primary brain tumors. These tumors have a relatively favorable prognosis with ~92% of meningioma patients surviving >5 years after diagnosis. Yet, patients can report high disease burden and survivorship issues even years after treatment, affecting health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We aimed to systematically review the literature and synthesize evidence on HRQOL in meningioma patients across long-term survival, defined as ≥2 years post-diagnosis. Methods: Systematic literature searches were carried out using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection. Any published, peer-reviewed articles with primary quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods data covering the physical, mental, and/or social aspects of HRQOL of meningioma survivors were included. A narrative synthesis method was used to interpret the findings. Results: Searches returned 2253 unique publications, of which 21 were included. Of these, N = 15 involved quantitative methodology, N = 4 mixed methods, and N = 2 were qualitative reports. Patient sample survival ranged from 2.75 to 13 years. HRQOL impairment was seen across all domains. Physical issues included persevering symptoms (eg, headaches, fatigue, vision problems); mental issues comprised emotional burden (eg, high prevalence of depressive symptoms and anxiety) and cognitive complaints; social issues included role limitations, social isolation, and affected work productivity. Due to study heterogeneity, the impact of treatment on long-term HRQOL remains unclear. Conclusions: The findings from this review highlight the areas of HRQOL that can be impacted in long-term survivorship for patients with meningioma. These findings could help raise awareness among clinicians and patients, facilitating support provision.

Cost-Effectiveness of eRAPID eHealth Intervention for Symptom Management During Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: A randomized controlled trial of online symptom monitoring during chemotherapy with electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) system found improved symptom control and patient self-efficacy, without increasing hospital admissions and visits. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the eRAPID eHealth intervention compared with usual care for patients receiving systemic treatment for colorectal, breast, or gynecologic cancers in the United Kingdom. METHODS: An embedded economic evaluation was conducted alongside the trial evaluating the effectiveness of eRAPID from health care provider and societal perspectives. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients were compared over 18 weeks of the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Uncertainty around the ICER was explored using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. Follow-up data were collected 12-months after random assignment for a subset of the study sample to conduct exploratory analysis of potential longer-term effects. RESULTS: Patients in the eRAPID group had the highest QALY gain and lowest costs over 18 weeks. Although differences were small and not statistically significant, eRAPID had a 55%-58% probability of being more cost-effective than usual care. Patient out-of-pocket costs were lower in the eRAPID group, indicating eRAPID may help patients access support needed within the National Health Service. Exploratory 12-months analysis showed small differences in costs and QALYs, with higher QALY gains in the eRAPID group but also higher costs. Exploratory subgroup analysis by disease status indicated that the eRAPID intervention was cost-effective for patients with early-stage cancers but not for patients with metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Despite small differences in QALYs and costs, the analyses show potential cost-effectiveness of online symptom monitoring, when added to usual care, particularly during adjuvant systemic treatment for early-stage cancers.

Standard Versus Modified Ipilimumab, in Combination With Nivolumab, in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial (PRISM).

PURPOSE: Ipilimumab (IPI), in combination with nivolumab (NIVO), is an approved frontline treatment option for patients with intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We conducted a randomized phase II trial to evaluate whether administering IPI once every 12 weeks (modified), instead of once every 3 weeks (standard), in combination with NIVO, is associated with a favorable toxicity profile. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell aRCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive four doses of modified or standard IPI, 1 mg/kg, in combination with NIVO (3 mg/kg). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event (trAE) among those who received at least one dose of therapy. The key secondary end point was 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified arm compared with historical sunitinib control. The study was not designed to formally compare arms for efficacy. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and January 2020, 192 patients (69.8% intermediate/poor-risk) were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. The incidence of grade 3-5 trAEs was significantly lower among participants receiving modified versus standard IPI (32.8% v 53.1%; odds ratio, 0.43 [90% CI, 0.25 to 0.72]; P = .0075). The 12-month PFS (90% CI) using modified IPI was 46.1% (38.6 to 53.2). At a median follow-up of 21 months, the overall response rate was 45.3% versus 35.9% and the median PFS was 10.8 months versus 9.8 months in the modified and standard IPI groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rates of grade 3-5 trAEs were significantly lower in patients receiving modified versus standard IPI. Although 12-month PFS did not meet the prespecified efficacy threshold compared with historical control, informal comparison of treatment groups did not suggest any reduction in efficacy with the modified schedule.

Fixing the Leaky Pipe: How to Improve the Uptake of Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Prognostic and Predictive Models in Cancer Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: This discussion paper outlines challenges and proposes solutions for successfully implementing prediction models that incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer practice. METHODS: We organized a full-day multidisciplinary meeting of people with expertise in cancer care delivery, PRO collection, PRO use in prediction modeling, computing, implementation, and decision science. The discussions presented here focused on identifying challenges to the development, implementation and use of prediction models incorporating PROs, and suggesting possible solutions. RESULTS: Specific challenges and solutions were identified across three broad areas. (1) Understanding decision making and implementation: necessitating multidisciplinary collaboration in the early stages and throughout; early stakeholder engagement to define the decision problem and ensure acceptability of PROs in prediction; understanding patient/clinician interpretation of PRO predictions and uncertainty to optimize prediction impact; striving for model integration into existing electronic health records; and early regulatory alignment. (2) Recognizing the limitations to PRO collection and their impact on prediction: incorporating validated, clinically important PROs to maximize model generalizability and clinical engagement; and minimizing missing PRO data (resulting from both structural digital exclusion and time-varying factors) to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities. (3) Statistical and modeling challenges: incorporating statistical methods to address missing data; ensuring predictive modeling recognizes complex causal relationships; and considering temporal and geographic recalibration so that model predictions reflect the relevant population. CONCLUSION: Developing and implementing PRO-based prediction models in cancer care requires extensive multidisciplinary working from the earliest stages, recognition of implementation challenges because of PRO collection and model presentation, and robust statistical methods to manage missing data, causality, and calibration. Prediction models incorporating PROs should be viewed as complex interventions, with their development and impact assessment carried out to reflect this.

Accelerated versus standard epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (UK TACT2; CRUK/05/19): quality of life results from a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with early breast cancer improves outcomes but its toxicity affects patients' quality of life (QOL). The UK TACT2 trial investigated whether accelerated epirubicin improves time to recurrence and if oral capecitabine is non-inferior to cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) for efficacy with less toxicity. Results showed no benefit for accelerated epirubicin and capecitabine was non-inferior. As part of the QOL substudy, we aimed to assess the effect of chemotherapies on psychological distress, physical symptoms, and functional domains. METHODS: TACT2 was a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial done in 129 UK centres. Participants were aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed node-positive or high-risk node-negative invasive primary breast cancer, who had undergone complete excision, and due to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to four cycles of 100 mg/m2 epirubicin either every 3 weeks (standard epirubicin) or every 2 weeks with 6 mg pegfilgrastim on day 2 of each cycle (accelerated epirubicin), followed by four 4-week cycles of either CMF (600 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide intravenously on days 1 and 8 or 100 mg/m2 orally on days 1-14; 40 mg/m2 methotrexate intravenously on days 1 and 8; and 600 mg/m2 fluorouracil intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle) or four 3-week cycles of 2500 mg/m2 capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 given twice daily on days 1-14 of each cycle). The randomisation schedule was computer generated in random permuted blocks, stratified by centre, number of nodes involved (none vs 1-3 vs ≥4), age (≤50 years vs >50 years), and planned endocrine treatment (yes vs no). QOL was one of the secondary outcomes and is reported here. All patients from a subset of 44 centres were invited to complete QOL questionnaires (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS] and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module [QLQ-C30] and Quality of Life Questionnaire breast module [QLQ-BR23]) at baseline, end of standard or accelerated epirubicin, end of CMF or capecitabine, and at 12 and 24 months after randomisation. The QOL substudy prespecified two coprimary QOL outcomes assessed in the intention-to-treat population: overall QOL (reported elsewhere) and HADS total score. Prespecified secondary QOL outcomes were EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales of physical function, role function, and fatigue and EORTC QLQ-BR23 subscales of sexual function and systemic therapy side-effects. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN68068041, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00301925. FINDINGS: From Dec 16, 2005, to Dec 5, 2008, 4391 patients (20 [0·5%] of whom were male) were enrolled in TACT2; 1281 (85·8%) of 1493 eligible patients were included in the QOL substudy. Eight (0·6%) participants in the QOL substudy were male and 1273 (99·4%) were female. Median follow-up was 85·6 months (IQR 80·6-95·9). Analysis was performed on the complete QOL dataset (as of Sept 15, 2011) when all participants had passed the 24-month timepoint. Prerandomisation questionnaires were completed by 1172 (91·5%) patients and 1179 (92·0%) completed at least one postrandomisation questionnaire. End-of-treatment HADS depression score (p=0·0048) and HADS total change score (p=0·0093) were worse for CMF versus capecitabine. Accelerated epirubicin led to worse physical function (p=0·0065), role function (p<0·0001), fatigue (p=0·0002), and systemic side-effects (p=0·0001), but not sexual function (p=0·36), compared with standard epirubicin during treatment, but the effect did not persist. Worse physical function (p=0·0048), sexual function (p=0·0053), fatigue (p<0·0001), and systemic side-effects (p<0·0001), but not role functioning (p=0·013), were seen for CMF versus capecitabine at end of treatment; these differences persisted at 12 months and 24 months. INTERPRETATION: Accelerated epirubicin was associated with worse QOL than was standard epirubicin but only during treatment. These findings will help patients and clinicians make an informed choice about accelerated chemotherapy. CMF had worse QOL effects than did capecitabine, which were persistent for 24 months. The favourable capecitabine QOL compared with CMF supports its use as an adjuvant option after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Amgen, Pfizer, and Roche.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Improve the Care Continuum for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: Opportunities and Implications for Nursing Practice.

OBJECTIVES: Albeit treatable, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains incurable. To achieve remaining life years lived well, extended survival should be balanced with optimal health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and timely initiated supportive, palliative, and end-of-life care. The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) Global Alliance identified 10 urgent and actionable goals for the decade between 2015 and 2025 to achieve substantial improvement in the lives of patients living with ABC, including MBC. Enhancements are needed for HRQoL, research, quality of care, and survival. We explore the potential of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in addressing these gaps and aim to describe opportunities and current initiatives for improving the MBC care continuum through PROMs. DATA SOURCES: Narrative description of recent literature on MBC and PROMs. CONCLUSION: We believe PROMs can make valuable contributions to seven of the 10 goals described: 1) enhancing the understanding of MBC through high-quality data collection, 2) improving HRQoL and raising consideration of survival versus HRQoL, 2) prolonging survival, 4) increasing referral to nonclinical support services, 5) supporting patient-healthcare provider communication, 6) encouraging improvements in healthcare access, and 7) supporting meeting patients' informational needs. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Maximizing the benefits of PROMs requires effective implementation. Because nurses and nurse practitioners are at the forefront of care, they can offer a comprehensive understanding of patients' needs and play a crucial role in facilitating the integration of PROMs into routine care for MBC patients and ultimately optimizing patients' outcomes and life years and months left.

Acceptability, fidelity and trial experience of four intervention components to support medication adherence in women with breast cancer: A process evaluation protocol for a pilot fractional factorial trial.

Background: The Refining and Optimising a behavioural intervention to Support Endocrine Therapy Adherence (ROSETA) programme has developed four intervention components aiming to improve medication adherence in women with early-stage breast cancer. These are (a) text messages, (b) information leaflet, (c) Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based guided self-help (ACT), (d) side-effect management website. Guided by the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy, our pilot trial will use a fractional factorial design to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a larger optimisation trial. The pilot will include a process evaluation to maximise learning regarding the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention components before proceeding with a larger trial. The trial process evaluation has three aims: to assess the (1) fidelity and (2) acceptability of the intervention components; and (3) to understand participant's trial experience, and barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention. Methods: The process evaluation will use multiple methods. Fidelity of the intervention components will be assessed using self-reported questionnaire data, trial data on intervention component adherence, and observations of the ACT sessions. Acceptability of the intervention components and trial experience will be explored using an acceptability questionnaire and interviews with patients and trial therapists. Trial experience will be assessed using a questionnaire and interviews with participants, while barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention will be assessed using a questionnaire completed by research nurses and participant interviews. The pilot trial opened for recruitment on 20th May 2022 and was open at the time of submission. Conclusions: This process evaluation will provide information regarding whether the intervention components can be delivered with fidelity within a national healthcare setting and are acceptable to participants. We will also better understand participant experience in a pilot trial with a fractional factorial design, and any barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention. Registration: ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN10487576, 16/12/2021).

BACKGROUND: The majority of women with early-stage breast cancer are recommended adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) to reduce the chances of their cancer coming back. Many women given this medication don't take it every day or stop taking it earlier than they should. We have developed four different interventions to help women take AET. These are; text messages reminding women to take AET; an information leaflet explaining how AET works and its benefits and side-effects; a therapy programme to reduce distress, consisting of five support sessions and four module booklets; and a website with strategies to manage AET side-effects. We are now testing whether these interventions can be delivered within the NHS in different combinations, in a small trial. STUDY METHODS: We have three aims: 1. To find out if the interventions can be given and are received in the way they were supposed to (fidelity).2. To find out if the support received as part of the trial was acceptable to women with breast cancer (acceptability).3. To find out what women's experience was of taking part in the trial overall (trial experience). To do this we will: 1. Interview participants to ask them how acceptable they found the interventions, what they understood, whether they used the interventions, and how they found participating in the trial.2. Interview therapists who delivered the therapy programme to see if they delivered it as they were supposed to, and how they found delivering the intervention.3. Ask participants to complete questionnaires about how acceptable the interventions were, and whether they read and used them.4. Ask the staff involved in finding participants for the trial about challenges and improvements. We will use what we find to make improvements in a future trial where we will test whether the interventions help women to take AET.

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.

Development and validation of a patient reported outcome measure for health-related quality of life for locally recurrent rectal cancer: a multicentre, three-phase, mixed-methods, cohort study.

Background: Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) occurs in 5-10% of patients following previous treatment of rectal cancer. It has a significant impact on patients' overall health-related quality of life (HrQoL). Major advances in surgical treatments have led to improved survival outcomes. However, due to the lack of disease-specific, validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), HrQoL, is variably assessed. The aim of this study is to develop a disease-specific, psychometrically robust, and validated PROM for use in LRRC. Methods: A multicentre, three phase, mixed-methods, observational study was performed across five centres in the UK and Australia. Adult patients (>18 years old) with an existing or previously treated LRRC within the last 2 years were eligible to participate. Patients completed the proposed LRRC-QoL, EORTC QLQ-CR29, and FACT-C questionnaires. Scale structure was analysed using multi-trait scaling analysis and exploratory factor analysis, reliability was assessed using Cronbach's and the intra-class coefficient, convergent validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation, and known-groups comparison was assessed using the student t-test or ANOVA. Findings: Between 01/03/2015 and 31/12/2019, 117 patients with a diagnosis of LRRC were recruited. The final scale structure of the LRRC-QoL consisted of nine multi-item scales (healthcare services, psychological impact, pain, urostomy-related symptoms, lower limb symptoms, stoma, sexual function, sexual interest, and urinary symptoms) and three single items. Cronbach's Alpha and Intraclass correlation values of >0.7 across the majority of scales supported overall reliability. Convergent validity was demonstrated between LRRC-QoL Pain Scale and FACT-C Physical Well Being scale (r = 0.528, p < 0.001), LRRC-QoL Psychological Impact scale with EORTC QLQ CR29 Body Image (r = 0.680, p < 0.001) and the FACT-C Emotional Well Being scale (r = 0.326, p < 0.001), and LRRC-QoL Urinary Symptoms scale with EORTC QLQ-CR29 Urinary Frequency scale (r = 0.310, p < 0.001). Known-groups validity was demonstrated for gender, disease location, treatment intent, and re-recurrent disease. Interpretation: The LRRC-QoL has demonstrated robust psychometric properties and can be used in clinical and academic practice. Funding: None.

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.