The PlexiQoL, a patient-reported outcome measure on quality of life in neurofibromatosis type 1-associated plexiform neurofibroma: translation, cultural adaptation and validation into the Dutch language for the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Half of the patients with Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) develop one or more tumours called plexiform neurofibromas, which can have a significant impact on Quality of Life (QoL). The PlexiQoL questionnaire is a disease-specific QoL measure for adults with NF1-associated plexiform neurofibromas. The aim of this study was to adapt and validate a Dutch version of the PlexiQoL for the Netherlands. METHODS: The PlexiQoL was translated using the dual-panel methodology, followed by cognitive debriefing interviews to assess face and content validity. The psychometric properties were evaluated by administering the questionnaire on two separate occasions to a sample of adults with NF1 and plexiform neurofibromas. Feasibility was evaluated by the presence of floor/ceiling effects. Reliability was assessed by evaluating Cronbach's alpha coefficient and test-retest reliability, using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to check for known group validity. The Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) questionnaire was used as comparator questionnaire to evaluate convergent validity. RESULTS: The translation and cognitive debriefing interviews resulted in a Dutch version of the PlexiQoL that reflected the original concept and underlying semantic meanings of the UK English version. Forty participants completed the validation survey. The Dutch PlexiQoL demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.825) and test-retest reliability (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.928). The questionnaire detected differences in PlexiQoL scores between participants based on self-reported general health and disease severity. Convergent validity was confirmed for relevant NHP subsections. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch PlexiQoL demonstrated excellent psychometric properties and can be reliably used to measure plexiform neurofibroma-related QoL in adults with NF1 in the Netherlands.

Optimizing expert and patient input in pediatric trial design: Lessons learned and recommendations from a collaboration between conect4children and European Patient-CEntric ClinicAl TRial PLatforms.

Advice from multiple stakeholders is required to design the optimal pediatric clinical trial. We present recommendations for acquiring advice from trial experts and patients/caregivers, derived from advice meetings that were performed through a collaboration of the Collaborative Network for European Clinical Trials for Children (c4c) and the European Patient-CEntric ClinicAl TRial PLatforms (EU-PEARL). Three advice meetings were performed: (1) an advice meeting for clinical and methodology experts, (2) an advice meeting for patients/caregivers, and (3) a combined meeting with both experts and patients/caregivers. Trial experts were recruited from c4c database. Patients/caregivers were recruited through a patient organization. Participants were asked to provide input on a trial protocol, including endpoints, outcomes, and the assessment schedule. Ten experts, 10 patients, and 13 caregivers participated. The advice meetings resulted in modification of eligibility criteria and outcome measures. We have provided recommendations for the most effective meeting type per protocol topic. Topics with limited options for patient input were most efficiently discussed in expert advice meetings. Other topics benefit from patient/caregiver input, either through a combined meeting with experts or a patients/caregivers-only advice meeting. Some topics, such as endpoints and outcome measures, are suitable for all meeting types. Combined sessions profit from synergy between experts and patients/caregivers, balancing input on protocol scientific feasibility and acceptability. Both experts and patients/caregivers provided critical input on the presented protocol. The combined meeting was the most effective methodology for most protocol topics. The presented methodology can be used effectively to acquire expert and patient feedback.

Health-related quality of life of children with neurofibromatosis type 1: Analysis of proxy-rated PedsQL and CHQ questionnaires.

This study aims to (1) investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1) using the Pediatric Quality of Life inventory (PedsQL) and the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ); and (2) compare the psychometric properties and content of these questionnaires in NF1 patients. PedsQL and CHQ proxy-reports were administered to parents/caregivers of 160 patients with NF1 aged 5-12 years. HRQoL scores were compared with Dutch population norms using independent t-tests. Psychometric properties (feasibility and reliability) were assessed by floor/ceiling effects and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. A principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was performed to identify the data's internal structure. By content mapping, we identified unique constructs of each questionnaire. Proxy-reported HRQoL was significantly lower on all PedsQL subscales for children aged 5-7 years, and on 4/6 subscales for children aged 8-12 years compared to norms. Significantly lower HRQoL was reported on 6/14 CHQ subscales (children 5-7 years) and 9/14 subscales (children 8-12 years). The PedsQL showed slightly better feasibility and reliability. The PCA identified two components, representing psychosocial and physical aspects of HRQoL, explaining 63% of total variance. Both questionnaires showed relevant loadings on both components. The CHQ subscales concerning parents and family were considered unique contributions. Proxy-reported HRQoL of children with NF1 is significantly lower compared to norms on multiple domains. Both questionnaires adequately measure HRQoL in children with NF1. However, the PedsQL has slightly better psychometric properties, while the CHQ covers a unique dimension of HRQoL associated with disease impact on parents and family.

Lessons learned from drug trials in neurofibromatosis: A systematic review.

Neurofibromatosis (NF) is the umbrella term for neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) and schwannomatosis (SWN). EU-PEARL aims to create a framework for platform trials in NF. The aim of this systematic review is to create an overview of recent clinical drug trials in NF, to identify learning points to guide development of the framework. We searched Embase, Medline and Cochrane register of trials on October 1, 2020 for publications of clinical drug trials in NF patients. We excluded publications published before 2010, systematic reviews, secondary analyses and studies with <10 patients. Data was extracted on manifestations studied, study design, phase, number of participating centres and population size. Full-text review resulted in 42 articles: 31 for NF1, 11 for NF2, none for SWN. Most NF1 trials focused on plexiform neurofibromas (32%). Trials in NF2 solely studied vestibular schwannomas. In NF1, single-arm trials (58%) were most common, and the majority was phase II (74%). For NF2 most trials were single-arm (55%) and exclusively phase II. For both diseases, trials were predominantly single-country and included five centres or less. Study population sizes were small, with the majority including ≤50 patients (74%). In conclusion, NF research is dominated by studies on a limited number out of the wide range of manifestations. We need more trials for cutaneous manifestations and high-grade gliomas in NF1, manifestations other than vestibular schwannoma in NF2 and trials for SWN. Drug development in NF may profit from innovative trials on multiple interventions and increased international collaboration.

Identifying challenges in neurofibromatosis: a modified Delphi procedure.

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) and schwannomatosis (SWN) are rare conditions with pronounced variability of clinical expression. We aimed to reach consensus on the most important manifestations meriting the development of drug trials. The five-staged modified Delphi procedure consisted of two questionnaires and a consensus meeting for 40 NF experts, a survey for 63 patient representatives, and a final workshop. In the questionnaires, manifestations were scored on multiple items on a 4-point Likert scale. The highest average scores for NF experts deciding the 'need for new treatment' were for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour (MPNST) (4,0) and high grade glioma (HGG) (3,9) for NF1; meningioma (3,9) for NF2 and pain (3,9) for SWN. The patient representatives assigned high scores to all manifestations, with plexiform neurofibroma being highest in NF1 (4,0), vestibular schwannoma in NF2 (4,0), and pain in SWN (3,9). Twelve experts participated in the consensus meeting and prioritised manifestations. MPNST was ranked the highest for NF1, followed by benign peripheral nerve sheath tumours. Tumour manifestations received highest ranking in NF2, and pain was the most prominent problem for SWN. Patient representative ratings for NF1 were similar to the experts' opinions, except that they ranked HGG as the most important manifestation. For NF2 and SWN, the patient representatives agreed with the experts. We conclude that NF experts and patient representatives consent to prioritise development of drug trials for MPNST, benign peripheral nerve sheath tumours, cutaneous manifestations and HGG for NF1; tumours for NF2; and pain for SWN.