A Review of Meaningful Change Thresholds for EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G Within Oncology.

OBJECTIVES: This literature review provides an overview of meaningful change thresholds for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) used across hematological cancers and solid tumors (melanoma, lung, bladder, and prostate). METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched to identify relevant oncology publications from 2016 to 2021. Label claims from the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for 7 recently approved drugs (pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, glasdegib, gilteritinib, tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, and daratumumab plus hyaluronidase-fihj) were reviewed. RESULTS: Publications providing guidance on meaningful change thresholds for the QLQ-C30 displayed a growing trend away from broad "legacy" thresholds of 10 points for all QLQ-C30 scales), toward deriving "contemporary" thresholds (eg, subscale specific, population specific). Contemporary publications generally provide guidance on selecting thresholds for specific scales that account for improved or worsening thresholds (eg, QLQ-C30 subscales). This trend was not clear for FACT-G, with less new guidance available. Most clinical trials used in regulatory label submissions have used thresholds of 10 points for the QLQ-C30 subscales and 3 to 7 points for the FACT-G total score. Despite the availability of more recent guidelines, contemporary meaningful change thresholds seem slow to emerge in the published literature and regulatory labels. CONCLUSIONS: Trialists should consider using contemporary thresholds, rather than legacy thresholds, for QLQ-C30 endpoints. Thresholds derived for a similar patient-population should be used where available. Further work is required to provide these across a broader range of cancer sites.

The impact of COVID-19 on PRO development, collection and implementation: views of UK and Ireland professionals.

BACKGROUND: PROs are valuable tools in clinical care to capture patients' perspectives of their health, symptoms and quality of life. However the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound impacts on all aspects of life, in particular healthcare and research. This study explores the views of UK and Irish health professionals, third sector and pharmaceutical industry representatives and academic researchers on the impact of COVID-19 on PRO collection, use and development in clinical practice. METHODS: A volunteer sample took part in a 10 question cross sectional qualitative survey, on the impact of COVID-19, administered online via Qualtrics. Demographic data was descriptively analysed, and the qualitative free text response data was subject to thematic analysis and summarised within the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) framework. RESULTS: Forty nine participants took part located in a range of UK settings and professions. Participants highlighted staff strengths during the pandemic including colleagues' flexibility and ability to work collaboratively and the adoption of novel communication tools. Weaknesses were a lack of staff capacity to continue or start PRO projects and insufficient digital infrastructure to continue studies online. Opportunities included the added interest in PROs as useful outcomes, the value of electronic PROs for staff and patients particularly in relation to integration into systems and the electronic patient records. However, these opportunities came with an understanding that digital exclusion may be an issue for patient groups. Threats identified included that the majority of PRO research was stopped or delayed and funding streams were cut. CONCLUSIONS: Although most PRO research was on hold during the pandemic, the consensus from participants was that PROs as meaningful outcomes were valued more than ever. From the opportunities afforded by the pandemic the development of electronic PROs and their integration into electronic patient record systems and clinical practice could be a lasting legacy from the COVID-19 pandemic.

International validation of a health-related quality-of-life questionnaire for Hodgkin lymphoma: the EORTC QLQ-HL27.

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) has become 1 of the most curable cancers. Therefore, rigorous assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden of these patients is essential to support informed clinical decisions. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group previously developed the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ) Hodgkin Lymphoma 27. This paper reports the final results of an international study by the EORTC group to develop a HRQoL disease-specific measure for these patients: the EORTC QLQ-HL27. Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HL (N = 381) were enrolled from 12 countries and completed the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-HL27, and a debriefing questionnaire at baseline (any time after diagnosis). A subset completed a retest (n = 126) or responsiveness-to-change analyses (RCA) second measurement (n = 98). Psychometrics were evaluated. Confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable fit of the 27 items of the QLQ-HL27 on its 4 scales (symptom burden, physical condition/fatigue, emotional impact, and worries about health/functioning). Test-retest reliability, convergent validity, known-group comparisons, and RCA find satisfactory results. Symptom burden and fatigue was higher among patients on treatment (with 36%-83% reporting at least a few problems) compared with those who had completed treatment (19%-61% reporting at least a few problems). Prevalence of worries about health and functioning (reporting at least some worry) was similar for patients on treatment (51%-81%) vs those who had completed treatment (52%-78%). Implementation of the EORTC QLQ-HL27 in research and clinical applications will increase sensitivity of HRQoL assessment in patients with HL. High quality data generated through use of this questionnaire are expected to facilitate clinical decision making in the HL setting.

Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcome Data After Treatment Discontinuation in Cancer Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are critical in understanding treatments from the patient perspective in cancer clinical trials. The potential benefits and methodological approaches to the collection of PRO data after treatment discontinuation (eg, because of progressive disease or unacceptable drug toxicity) are less clear. The purpose of this article is to describe the Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence and the Critical Path Institute cosponsored 2-hour virtual roundtable, held in 2020, to discuss this specific issue. METHODS: We summarize key points from this discussion with 16 stakeholders representing academia, clinical practice, patients, international regulatory agencies, health technology assessment bodies/payers, industry, and PRO instrument development. RESULTS: Stakeholders recognized that any PRO data collection after treatment discontinuation should have clearly defined objectives to ensure that data can be analyzed and reported. CONCLUSIONS: Data collection after discontinuation without a justification for its use wastes patients' time and effort and is unethical.

Healthcare resource utilization of maribavir versus investigator-assigned therapy in transplant recipients with cytomegalovirus infection refractory (with or without genotypic resistance) to prior treatment: Exploratory analysis of the Phase 3 SOLSTICE trial.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV), a common post-transplant infection, is associated with increased healthcare resource utilization. In the Phase 3 SOLSTICE trial, maribavir was superior to investigator-assigned therapy (IAT; valganciclovir/ganciclovir, foscarnet, and cidofovir) for CMV viremia clearance at Week 8 in transplant recipients with confirmed refractory CMV infection with/without resistance. This exploratory analysis evaluated hospital admissions of patients during the SOLSTICE trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized to maribavir (400 mg twice daily) or IAT for an 8-week treatment phase with a 12-week follow-up. After ≥3 weeks of treatment, patients on IAT who met pre-specified criteria could enter a maribavir rescue arm (8-week maribavir treatment, 12-week follow-up). Adjusted hospitalization rates and length of hospital stay (LOS) were estimated using negative binomial models adjusting for the time in the relevant study phase. Subgroup analysis for the maribavir rescue arm was conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 352 patients were randomized (maribavir: 235; IAT: 117); 22 entered the maribavir rescue arm. After adjusting for treatment exposure, patients on maribavir had a 34.8% reduction in hospitalization rate and 53.8% reduced LOS (days/person/year) versus IAT during the treatment phase. No significant differences between treatments were observed during the follow-up phase, although in both arms, hospitalization rates were lower than in the treatment phase. In the maribavir rescue arm, hospitalizations were 60.6% lower on/after maribavir rescue versus pre-rescue treatment (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In patients requiring post-transplant CMV treatment, hospitalization rate and LOS were lower for maribavir than IAT, and hospitalization rates were lower on/after maribavir rescue than pre-rescue. Reducing hospitalizations can alleviate the burden on patients and healthcare systems.

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.

International validation of two EORTC questionnaires for assessment of health-related quality of life for patients with high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (QLQ-NHL-HG29) and low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (QLQ-NHL-LG20).

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a critical aspect to consider when making treatment decisions for patients with non-Hodgkin-lymphoma (NHL). This international study by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) tested the psychometric properties of two newly developed measures for patients with high-grade (HG)- and low-grade (LG)-NHL: the EORTC QLQ-NHL-HG29 and the EORTC QLQ-NHL-LG20 to supplement the core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). METHODS: Overall, 768 patients with HG-NHL (N = 423) and LG-NHL (N = 345) from 12 countries completed the QLQ-C30, QLQ-NHL-HG29/QLQ-NHL-LG20 and a debriefing questionnaire at baseline, and a subset at follow-up for either retest (N = 125/124) or responsiveness to change (RCA; N = 98/49). RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable to good fit of the 29 items of the QLQ-NHL-HG29 on its five scales (symptom burden [SB], neuropathy, physical condition/fatigue [PF], emotional impact [EI], and worries about health/functioning [WH]), and of the 20 items of the QLQ-NHL-LG20 on its four scales (SB, PF, EI, and WH). Completion took on average 10 minutes. Test-retest reliability, convergent validity, known-group comparisons, and RCA find satisfactory results of both measures. A total of 31%-78% of patients with HG-NHL and 22%-73% of patients with LG-NHL reported symptoms and/or worries (e.g., tingling in hands/feet, lack of energy, and worries about recurrence). Patients reporting symptoms/worries had substantially lower HRQOL compared to those without. DISCUSSION: The use of the EORTC QLQ-NHL-HG29 and QLQ-NHL-LG20 questionnaires in clinical research and practice will provide clinically relevant data to better inform treatment decision-making. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group developed two questionnaires. These questionnaires measure health-related quality of life. The questionnaires are for patients with high-grade or low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They are called the EORTC QLQ-NHL-HG29 and QLQ-NHL-LG20. The questionnaires are now internationally validated. This study demonstrates that the questionnaires are reliably and valid, which are important aspects of a questionnaire. The questionnaires can now be used in clinical trials and practice. With the information gathered from the questionnaires, patients and clinicians can better evaluate treatments and discuss the best choice for a patient.

International Validation of the EORTC QLQ-ANL27, a Field Study to Test the Anal Cancer-Specific Health-Related Quality-of-Life Questionnaire.

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) health-related quality of life questionnaire for anal cancer (QLQ-ANL27) supplements the EORTC cancer generic measure (QLQ-C30) to measure concerns specific to people with anal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. This study tested the psychometric properties and acceptability of the QLQ-ANL27. METHODS AND MATERIALS: People with anal cancer were recruited from 15 countries to complete the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-ANL27 and provide feedback on the QLQ-ANL27. Item responses, scale structure (multitrait scaling, factor analysis), reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility) and sensitivity (known group comparisons and responsiveness to change) of the QLQ-ANL27 were evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 382 people were included in the analyses. The EORTC QLQ-ANL27 was acceptable, comprehensive, and easy to complete, taking an average 8 minutes to complete. Psychometric analyses supported the EORTC QLQ-ANL27 items and reliability (Cronbach's α ranging from 0.71-0.93 and test-retest coefficients above 0.7) and validity of the scales (particularly nonstoma bowel symptoms and pain/discomfort). Most scales distinguished people according to treatment phase and performance status. Bowel (nonstoma), pain/discomfort, and vaginal symptoms were sensitive to deteriorations over time. The stoma-related scales remained untested because of low numbers of people with a stoma. Revisions to the scoring and question ordering of the sexual items were proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The QLQ-ANL27 has good psychometric properties and is available in 16 languages for people treated with chemoradiotherapy for anal cancer. It is used in clinical trials and has a potential role in clinical practice.

Content validity of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30 for use in cancer.

AIM: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) is among the most widely used patient-reported outcome measures in cancer research and practice. It was developed prior to guidance that content should be established directly from patients to confirm it measures concepts of interest and is appropriate and comprehensive for the intended population. This study evaluated the content validity of the QLQ-C30 for use with cancer patients. METHODS: Adults undergoing cancer treatment in Europe and the USA participated in open-ended concept elicitation interviews regarding their functional health, symptoms, side-effects and impacts on health-related quality of life. Thematic analysis was conducted, and similarities across cancer types, disease stages and countries or languages were explored. RESULTS: Interviews with 113 patients with cancer (85 European, 28 USA) including breast, lung, prostate, colorectal and other cancers were conducted between 2016 and 2020. Conceptual saturation was achieved. The most frequently reported concepts were included in the QLQ-C30 conceptual framework. QLQ-C30 items were widely understood across language versions and were relevant to patients across cancer types and disease stages. While several new concepts were elicited such as difficulty climbing steps or stairs, weight loss, skin problems and numbness, many were not widely experienced and/or could be considered sub-concepts of existing concepts. CONCLUSIONS: The QLQ-C30 demonstrates good evidence of content validity for the assessment of functional health, symptom burden and health-related quality of life in patients with localised-to-advanced cancer.

How scoring limits the usability of minimal important differences (MIDs) as responder definition (RD): an exemplary demonstration using EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales.

PURPOSE: The recommended method for establishing a meaningful threshold for individual changes in patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores over time uses an anchor-based method. The patients assess their perceived level of change and this is used to define a threshold on the PRO score which may be considered meaningful to the patient. In practice, such an anchor may not be available. In the absence of alternative information often the meaningful change threshold for assessing between-group differences, the minimally important difference, is used to define meaningful change at the individual level too. This paper will highlight the issues with this, especially where the underlying measurement scale is not continuous. METHODS: Using the EORTC QLQ-C30 as an example, plausible score increments ("state changes") are calculated for each subscale highlighting why commonly used thresholds may be misleading, including leading to sensitivity analyses that are inadvertently testing the same underlying threshold. RESULTS: The minimal possible individual score change varies across subscales; 6.7 for Physical Functioning, 8.3 for Global Health Scale and Emotional Functioning, 11.1 for fatigue, 16.7 for role functioning, cognitive functioning, social functioning, nausea and vomiting, pain and 33.3 for single items. CONCLUSIONS: The determination of meaningful change for an individual patient requires input from the patients but being mindful of the underlying scale ensures that these thresholds are also guided by what is a plausible change for patients to achieve on the scale.

How strong should my anchor be for estimating group and individual level meaningful change? A simulation study assessing anchor correlation strength and the impact of sample size, distribution of change scores and methodology on establishing a true meaningful change threshold.

PURPOSE: Treatment benefit as assessed using clinical outcome assessments (COAs), is a key endpoint in many clinical trials at both the individual and group level. Anchor-based methods can aid interpretation of COA change scores beyond statistical significance, and help derive a meaningful change threshold (MCT). However, evidence-based guidance on the selection of appropriately related anchors is lacking. METHODS: A simulation was conducted which varied sample size, change score variability and anchor correlation strength to assess the impact of these variables on recovering the simulated MCT for interpreting individual and group-level results. To assess MCTs derived at the individual-level (i.e. responder definitions; RDs), Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Predictive Modelling (PM) analyses were conducted. To assess MCTs for interpreting change at the group-level, the mean change method was conducted. RESULTS: Sample sizes, change score variability and magnitude of anchor correlation affected accuracy of the estimated MCT. For individual-level RDs, ROC curves were less accurate than PM methods at recovering the true MCT. For both methods, smaller samples led to higher variability in the returned MCT, but higher variability still using ROC. Anchors with weaker correlations with COA change scores had increased variability in the estimated MCT. An anchor correlation of around 0.50-0.60 identified a true MCT cut-point under certain conditions using ROC. However, anchor correlations as low as 0.30 were appropriate when using PM under certain conditions. For interpreting group-level results, the MCT derived using the mean change method was consistently underestimated regardless of the anchor correlation. CONCLUSION: Sample size and change score variability influence the necessary anchor correlation strength when recovering individual-level RDs. Often, this needs to be higher than the commonly accepted threshold of 0.30. Stronger correlations than 0.30 are required when using the mean change method. Results can assist researchers selecting and assessing the quality of anchors.

Minimally important differences of EORTC QLQ-C30 scales in patients with lung cancer or malignant pleural mesothelioma - Interpretation guidance derived from two randomized EORTC trials.

OBJECTIVES: A minimally important difference (MID) is the smallest difference in quality of life (QoL) perceived as relevant by patients or clinicians. MIDs aid interpretation of QOL data in research and clinical practice. We aimed to determine MIDs for the EORTC QLQ-C30 for patients with lung cancer or malignant pleural mesothelioma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were drawn from two EORTC-sponsored randomized clinical trials (RCTs): a three-arm RCT of two cisplatin-based treatments and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, and an RCT comparing cisplatin with or without raltitrexed in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. MIDs for interpreting within-group change and between-group differences in change over time were computed using anchor-based approaches, for improvements and deteriorations separately. Distribution-based approaches provided corroborative evidence. RESULTS: The combined data from the trials comprised 730 patients. Available data allowed us to determine 8/14 anchor-based MIDs for EORTC scales for improvements, and 9/14 MIDs for deterioration. Furthermore, we provided distribution-based estimates for all 14 QLQ-C30 scales. Most MIDs for improvements ranged between 5 and 10, for both within-group and between-group differences. Outliers were appetite loss and constipation, with MIDs up to 15 score points. MIDs were slightly larger for within-group deterioration, ranging from -5 to - 15, with the largest for Nausea/vomiting (-1 to 4) and Appetite loss (-1 to 5). MIDs for between-group differences in deterioration ranged from - 4 (Physical, Role, and Social functioning, and Global quality of life) to -9 (Nausea/vomiting, Appetite loss and Constipation). CONCLUSIONS: MIDs vary over scales and for between- versus within-group comparisons; this must be taken into account when interpreting changes. Nevertheless, the majority of MIDs range between 5 and 10 score points, in line with previously used thresholds for QLQ-C30. These findings and those from other tumor-specific MID analyses will inform a planned consensus process identifying commonalities and differences across tumor sites.

International validation of the EORTC QLQ-CLL17 questionnaire for assessment of health-related quality of life for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

Selecting the most appropriate chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) treatment is challenging. Patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is therefore a critical aspect to consider. This international study by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) tested the psychometric properties of a newly developed measure for CLL patients: the EORTC QLQ-CLL17 to supplement the core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Patients with CLL (n = 341) from 12 countries completed the QLQ-C30, QLQ-CLL17 and a debriefing questionnaire. Sociodemographic and clinical data were recorded from medical records. A high percentage (30%-66%) reported symptoms and/or worries (e.g. aches/pains in muscles, lack of energy and worry/fears about health). Confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable to good fit of the 17 items on the three scales (i.e. symptom burden, physical condition/fatigue and worries/fears about health and functioning). Completion took on average 8 min. Test-retest and convergent validity was demonstrated. The QLQ-CLL17 differentiated between patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology group (ECOG) performance of 0 versus 1-3 (p's < 0.01 and clinically relevant). The newly developed EORTC QLQ-CLL17 will increase sensitivity of HRQoL assessment in patients with CLL. Implementation of this questionnaire both in clinical research and practice will help to generate unique clinically relevant data to better inform CLL treatment decision-making.

Validity of a single-item indicator of treatment side effect bother in a diverse sample of cancer patients.

PURPOSE: With higher efficacy of cancer therapies, the numbers and types of side effects experienced by patients have also increased, evidencing a need for brief assessments of side effect bother. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) includes the item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" (GP5). This study aimed to confirm GP5's validity in a large, diverse, real-world patient sample. METHODS: Real-world data were drawn from 10 Adelphi Disease Specific Programmes (DSP™) conducted between 2015 and 2019 in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and the USA, covering 10 cancer sites. We examined correlations between GP5 responses and varied measures of patient-reported global health and the number of side effects experienced. We explored whether more advanced patients and those with worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Rating (ECOG PSR) reported greater side effect bother. Finally, we conducted differential item functioning (DIF) assessment using the Mantel-Haenszel approach. RESULTS: The sample included 6755 advanced cancer patients. GP5 responses were distributed similarly across most cancer sites. A moderate, negative correlation (rpolyserial = - 0.43) between GP5 responses and global health evidenced convergent validity. Known groups validity was evidenced by dichotomised distributions of GP5, showing expected results between cancer stage 2 vs. 3 and 4 and with ECOG PSR (p < 0.001). Little evidence of DIF was found. CONCLUSION: GP5 exhibited evidence of validity across cancer sites and countries and appeared to measure the same construct across these countries. GP5 has significant promise as a summary indicator of side effect bother.

Minimally important differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in prostate cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for interpreting group-level change over time, both within a group and between groups, for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: We used data from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors were selected by strength of correlations with QLQ-C30 scales. In addition, clinicians' input was obtained with regard to plausibility of the selected anchors. The mean change method was applied for interpreting change over time within a group of patients and linear regression models were fitted to estimate MIDs for between-group differences in change over time. Distribution-based estimates were also evaluated. RESULTS: Two clinical anchors were eligible for MID estimation; performance status and the CTCAE diarrhoea domain. MIDs were developed for 7 scales (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, pain, fatigue, global quality of life, diarrhoea) and varied by scale and direction (improvement vs deterioration). Within-group MIDs ranged from 4 to 14 points for improvement and - 13 to - 5 points for deterioration and MIDs for between-group differences in change scores ranged from 3 to 13 for improvement and - 10 to - 5 for deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings aid the meaningful interpretation of changes on a set of EORTC QLQ-C30 scale scores over time, both within and between groups, and for performing more accurate sample size calculations for clinical trials in prostate cancer.

A Comparison of Generic and Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures Using Data From Nivolumab Trials: EQ-5D-3L, Mapping to the EQ-5D-5L, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing interest in condition-specific preference measures, including the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D). This research assessed the implications of using utility indices on the basis of the EQ-5D-3L, a mapping of EQ-5D-3L to the EQ-5D-5L, and the QLU-C10D, and compared their psychometric properties. METHODS: Data were taken from 8 phase 3 randomized controlled trials of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab for the treatment of solid tumors. Utilities for progression-related states were calculated using the UK and English value sets and incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from established UK cost-effectiveness models. The psychometric properties of the utility indices were assessed using pooled trial data. RESULTS: Compared with the EQ-5D-3L index, the mapped EQ-5D-5L index yielded an average of 6% more and the QLU-C10D index an average of 2% fewer incremental QALYs for nivolumab versus comparators. All indices could differentiate between groups defined by performance status, cancer stage, or self-reported health status at baseline and detect meaningful changes in performance status, tumor response, health status, and quality of life over approximately 12 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The lower QALY yield of the QLU-C10D was balanced by evidence of greater validity and responsiveness. Benefits gained from using the QLU-C10D may be apparent when treatments affect targeted symptoms and functional aspects, including sleep, bowel function, appetite, nausea, and fatigue. The observed differences in QALYs may not be sufficiently large to affect health technology assessment decisions.

Reliability, validity and important difference estimates for the NCCN-FACT Ovarian Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18).

Objective: To evaluate psychometric performance of the NCCN-FACT Ovarian Cancer Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18) in advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: Cross-sectional, observational data from patients receiving treatment for ovarian cancer. Other measures included European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core (EORTC QLQ-C30) and associated ovarian cancer module (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment. Internal consistency reliability, construct validity and anchor-based clinically important differences were assessed. Results: 897 patients were analyzed. Reliability was acceptable for all NFOSI-18 scores; construct validity was supported. Twelve anchors sufficiently correlated with NFOSI-18 scores and suggested clinically important differences: NFOSI-18 total score (5-7), disease-related symptoms - physical (3-4), disease-related symptoms - emotional (1), treatment side effects (2) and functional well-being (1-2). Conclusions: Results provide evidence of reliability and validity of NFOSI-18 scores. Generated CIDs will help improve interpretation of between-group treatment differences in clinical trials.

Lay abstract The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy ­ Ovarian Cancer Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18) is a questionnaire assessing the health of patients with ovarian cancer. When using such questionnaires, it is important to evidence that they produce consistent scores (referred to as reliability) and are aligned with other assessments of health (referred to as construct validity). It is also important to set guidelines on what constitutes a clinically important difference in scores, so clinicians and researchers can judge how effective new treatments are. This study analyzed data from 897 patients with advanced ovarian cancer, providing evidence of reliability and construct validity. Guidelines for clinically important differences were also provided. The findings support continued use of the NFOSI-18.

Health-related quality of life in pediatric patients with partial onset seizures or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures receiving adjunctive perampanel.

RATIONALE: Study 311 (E2007-G000-311; NCT02849626) was a Phase 3, multicenter, open-label single-arm study of adjunctive perampanel oral suspension in pediatric patients (aged 4 to <12 years) with partial-onset seizures (POS) (with/without secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures [SGTCS]) or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was an exploratory endpoint initially analyzed through simple descriptive summaries. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to provide a more thorough assessment of HRQoL. METHODS: This analysis focused on EQ-5D-Y data collected at Baseline, Week 23, and Week 52. Individual dimensions, visual analog scale (VAS) and summed misery index (MI) were evaluated at all visits and compared by seizure type (POS versus SGTCS versus PGTCS), age (4 to <7 versus 7 to <12), and use of concomitant enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) (yes versus no). Paretian Classification of Health Change (PCHC) analysis summarized the proportion of patients who showed improvement or deterioration in HRQoL. Waterfall plots assessed changes in EQ-5D-Y scores by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and by reduction in seizure frequency. Health state utility values associated with differing seizure frequency states were estimated using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen patients completed EQ-5D-Y at relevant study visits (Seizure type: POS n = 84 [of which 21 had SGTCS], PGTCS n = 31; Age: 4 to <7 years n = 30, 7 to <12 years n = 85; Concomitant EIAEDs: Yes n = 35, No n = 80). Completion rates out of those expected to complete EQ-5D-Y were high at both timepoints (84.4% at Week 23 and 97.2% at Week 52). Overall, VAS/MI remained stable over time (did not exceed minimal important difference); this was similar according to seizure type, age, and EIAED usage. In patients with 'no problems' on any EQ-5D-Y dimension at Baseline, nearly all retained their full health at Week 23 (94.7%), and all retained it at Week 52 (100.0%). PCHC analysis showed fewer patients with POS experienced deterioration in EQ-5D-Y than patients with PGTCS at Week 23 (24.1% versus 42.1%). Not experiencing a TEAE, or remaining seizure-free, was associated with improvements in VAS score at Week 23 compared to those experiencing TEAEs or seizures, respectively. Health state utility values (HSUVs) were estimated as follows: seizure free (LS Mean 0.914 [95% CIs 0.587, 1.240]), ≥1 seizure per year (0.620 [0.506, 0.734]), ≥1 seizure per month (0.596 [0.338, 0.855]), ≥1 seizure per week (0.284 [-0.014, 0.582]). CONCLUSIONS: An in-depth analysis of EQ-5D-Y data allowed for a more nuanced exploration of HRQoL than previous descriptive summaries. Our findings provide evidence that perampanel as adjunctive therapy did not result in deterioration of patient HRQoL. The association between TEAEs or remaining seizure-free and HRQoL warrants further exploration. Increasing seizure frequency was associated with decreasing HSUVs; these can inform cost-effectiveness modeling of perampanel and other therapies aiming to reduce seizure frequency in pediatric patients.