Perioperative Nivolumab in Resectable Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment with neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy significantly improves outcomes in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Perioperative treatment (i.e., neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy) with nivolumab may further improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned adults with resectable stage IIA to IIIB NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus placebo every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 1 year. The primary outcome was event-free survival according to blinded independent review. Secondary outcomes were pathological complete response and major pathological response according to blinded independent review, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: At this prespecified interim analysis (median follow-up, 25.4 months), the percentage of patients with 18-month event-free survival was 70.2% in the nivolumab group and 50.0% in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or recurrence, abandoned surgery, or death, 0.58; 97.36% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.81; P<0.001). A pathological complete response occurred in 25.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 4.7% of those in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 6.64; 95% CI, 3.40 to 12.97); a major pathological response occurred in 35.4% and 12.1%, respectively (odds ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.48 to 6.49). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32.5% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 25.2% of those in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative treatment with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer event-free survival than chemotherapy in patients with resectable NSCLC. No new safety signals were observed. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; CheckMate 77T ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04025879.).

The Relationship Between Health-Related Quality of Life and Overall Survival in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in CheckMate 214.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 214 (median follow-up, 25.2 months), nivolumab plus ipilimumab yielded greater overall survival (OS) benefit than sunitinib in patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19) was also more favorable for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group than the sunitinib group. We investigated whether HRQoL scores can predict OS of patients with 5 years follow-up in CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 214 was an open-label, phase III trial in previously untreated aRCC (N = 1096). Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk disease (International mRCC Database Consortium prognostic score ≥ 1; n = 847) were randomized to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib monotherapy. Pooled data for OS and FKSI-19 total and subscales (disease-related symptoms [DRS], DRS-physical [DRS-P], and function/well-being [FWB]) were analyzed. Relationships between HRQoL and OS were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with baseline and longitudinal scores. Associations between HRQoL changes and OS were assessed by landmark analyses. RESULTS: Patients with higher FKSI-19 total and subscale scores at baseline had longer OS than patients with lower scores (HR ≤ 0.834; P < .0001). Longitudinal models indicated stronger associations between HRQoL and OS (HR ≤ 0.69; P < .001 for each). At 3 months after randomization, patients with stable/improved HRQoL versus baseline had longer median OS than patients with worsened/unobserved HRQoL versus baseline (55.9 and 26.0 months, respectively; HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.67; P < .0001). Results at 6-, 9-, and 12-month landmarks were consistent with these findings. CONCLUSION: In aRCC, patient-reported outcomes are important for HRQoL and prognostic evaluation. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02231749; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749.

Patient-reported outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated in CheckMate 9ER: an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the CheckMate 9ER trial, patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significantly better progression-free survival compared with those given sunitinib. In this study, we aimed to describe the patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from CheckMate 9ER. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 125 cancer centres, urology centres, and hospitals across 18 countries, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and available tumour tissue were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day, or oral sunitinib 50 mg per day monotherapy for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously. PROs were analysed as prespecified exploratory endpoints at common timepoints (at baseline and every 6 weeks) until week 115. Disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and global health status was assessed with the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and UK utility index. PRO analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures. A time-to-deterioration analysis was done for first and confirmed deterioration events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 328 to sunitinib. Median follow-up was 23·5 months (IQR 21·0-26·5). At baseline, patients in both groups reported low symptom burden (FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1 mean scores at baseline were 30·24 [SD 5·19] for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 30·06 [5·03] for the sunitinib group). Change from baseline in PRO scores indicated that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with more favourable outcomes versus sunitinib (treatment difference 2·38 [95% CI 1·20-3·56], nominal p<0·0001, effect size 0·33 [95% CI 0·17-0·50] for FKSI-19 total score; 1·33 [0·84-1·83], nominal p<0·0001, 0·45 [0·28-0·61] for FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1; 3·48 [1·58-5·39], nominal p=0·0004, 0·30 [0·14-0·47] for EQ-5D-3L VAS; and 0·04 [0·01-0·07], nominal p=0·0036, 0·25 [0·08-0·41] for EQ-5D-3L UK utility index), reaching significance at most timepoints. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with decreased risk of clinically meaningful deterioration for FKSI-19 total score compared with sunitinib (first deterioration event hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·56-0·86], nominal p=0·0007; confirmed deterioration event 0·63 [0·50-0·80], nominal p=0·0001). INTERPRETATION: PROs were maintained or improved with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome scores. These results suggest a benefit for nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test-retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures.

PURPOSE: Score reproducibility is an important measurement property of fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. It is commonly assessed via test-retest reliability, and best evaluated with a stable participant sample, which can be challenging to identify in diseases with highly variable symptoms. To provide empirical evidence comparing the retrospective (patient global impression of change [PGIC]) and current state (patient global impression of severity [PGIS]) approaches to identifying a stable subgroup for test-retest analyses, 3 PRO Consortium working groups collected data using both items as anchor measures. METHODS: The PGIS was completed on Day 1 and Day 8 + 3 for the depression and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) studies, and daily for the asthma study and compared between Day 3 and 10. The PGIC was completed on the final day in each study. Scores were compared using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for participants who reported "no change" between timepoints for each anchor. RESULTS: ICCs using the PGIS "no change" group were higher for depression (0.84 vs. 0.74), nighttime asthma (0.95 vs. 0.53) and daytime asthma (0.86 vs. 0.68) compared to the PGIC "no change" group. ICCs were similar for NSCLC (PGIS: 0.87; PGIC: 0.85). CONCLUSION: When considering anchor measures to identify a stable subgroup for test-retest reliability analyses, current state anchors perform better than retrospective anchors. Researchers should carefully consider the type of anchor selected, the time period covered, and should ensure anchor content is consistent with the target measure concept, as well as inclusion of both current and retrospective anchor measures.

Scale development with small samples: a new application of longitudinal item response theory.

PURPOSE: Measurement development in hard-to-reach populations can pose methodological challenges. Item response theory (IRT) is a useful statistical tool, but often requires large samples. We describe the use of longitudinal IRT models as a pragmatic approach to instrument development when large samples are not feasible. METHODS: The statistical foundations and practical benefits of longitudinal IRT models are briefly described. Results from a simulation study are reported to demonstrate the model's ability to recover the generating measurement structure and parameters using a range of sample sizes, number of items, and number of time points. An example using early-phase clinical trial data in a rare condition demonstrates these methods in practice. RESULTS: Simulation study results demonstrate that the longitudinal IRT model's ability to recover the generating parameters rests largely on the interaction between sample size and the number of time points. Overall, the model performs well even in small samples provided a sufficient number of time points are available. The clinical trial data example demonstrates that by using conditional, longitudinal IRT models researchers can obtain stable estimates of psychometric characteristics from samples typically considered too small for rigorous psychometric modeling. CONCLUSION: Capitalizing on repeated measurements, it is possible to estimate psychometric characteristics for an assessment even when sample size is small. This allows researchers to optimize study designs and have increased confidence in subsequent comparisons using scores obtained from such models. While there are limitations and caveats to consider when using these models, longitudinal IRT modeling may be especially beneficial when developing measures for rare conditions and diseases in difficult-to-reach populations.

Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments to Assess Chronic Low Back Pain.

Objective: To identify patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments that assess chronic low back pain (cLBP) symptoms (specifically pain qualities) and/or impacts for potential use in cLBP clinical trials to demonstrate treatment benefit and support labeling claims. Design: Literature review of existing PRO measures. Methods: Publications detailing existing PRO measures for cLBP were identified, reviewed, and summarized. As recommended by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) PRO development guidance, standard measurement characteristics were reviewed, including development history, psychometric properties (validity and reliability), ability to detect change, and interpretation of observed changes. Results: Thirteen instruments were selected and reviewed: Low Back Pain Bothersomeness Scale, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, PainDETECT, Pain Quality Assessment Scale Revised, Revised Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Low Back Pain Impact Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, Pain Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Brief Pain Inventory and Brief Pain Inventory Short Form, Musculoskeletal Outcomes Data Evaluation and Management System Spine Module, Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire, and the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory Interference Scale. The instruments varied in the aspects of pain and/or impacts that they assessed, and none of the instruments fulfilled all criteria for use in clinical trials to support labeling claims based on recommendations outlined in the FDA PRO guidance. Conclusions: There is an unmet need for a validated PRO instrument to evaluate cLBP-related symptoms and impacts for use in clinical trials.

Economic Evaluation of Linaclotide for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Chronic Idiopathic Constipation in the United States.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and costs of linaclotide (Linzess) versus lubiprostone (Amitiza) in the treatment of adult patients with chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC). DESIGN: A decision-tree model using model inputs derived from published literature, linaclotide phase 3 trial data, and a physician survey. METHODOLOGY: Measures of treatment efficacy were selected based on comparability between trial data, with posthoc analyses of linaclotide required to ensure comparability with available lubiprostone data. Response to therapy was defined as (1) having one of the best two satisfaction answers of a 5-point global treatment satisfaction scale at Week 4 or (2) having a weekly spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) frequency 4 at Week 4. Patients who do not respond to therapy are assumed to accrue costs associated with a treatment failure. Model time horizon is aligned with the lubiprostone clinical trial duration of 4 weeks. Model outputs include response rates, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct costs. RESULTS: Linaclotide was associated with lower per-patient costs vs lubiprostone for both definitions of response ($946 vs $1,015 for global assessment and $727 vs $737 for SBM frequency). When treatment response was based on a global assessment of treatment satisfaction, linaclotide was associated with higher effectiveness (response: 39.3% vs 35.0%). For SBM frequency, linaclotide was slightly less effective compared to lubiprostone (response: 58.6% vs 59.6%), but also less costly. Base-case results were robust in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Linaclotide is less expensive with similar effectiveness when compared to lubiprostone for the treatment of CIC in adult patients.

Development and validation of the Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain Impact (DPNPI) measure, a patient-reported outcome measure.

PURPOSE: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) occurs in 26-47 % of diabetes patients and may have negative impacts on physical functioning, sleep, well-being, and quality of life. The Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain Impact measure (DPNPI) was developed to measure disease impacts and treatment effects. Presented are the DPNPI conceptual development and validation findings. METHODS: The DPNPI was developed following the FDA Guidance for Industry on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Concept elicitation (CE) included literature review, clinical expert interviews, and patient interviews/focus groups. Qualitative data were analyzed following grounded theory principles, and draft items were cognitively debriefed. The measure underwent psychometric validation, and an a priori statistical analysis plan assessed the measurement model, reliability, and validity. Simultaneous analyses of item functioning were conducted using Rasch measurement theory (RMT). All tests were performed for the total score and each domain. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients and three clinical experts participated in CE which resulted in a 27-item validation ready measure. In the validation study (N = 124), nine draft items were dropped due to high missing data and/or high correlations between items. Factor analysis revealed three domains: physical functioning/mobility, sleep, and daily activities. RMT confirmed adequate item fit and placement within domains. Internal consistency ranged from 0.91 to 0.96 and test-retest from 0.84 to 0.91. All prespecified hypotheses for convergent and discriminant validity were met. CONCLUSIONS: CE and psychometric results provide evidence that the final, 18-item DPNPI is a reliable and valid PRO measure of disease impacts and treatment for DPNP. Further validation work should include responsiveness assessment.

General population reference values for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung and PROMIS-29.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic advances in lung cancer have turned attention toward patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as important clinical outcomes. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) is a common endpoint in lung cancer trials. This study calculated FACT-L reference values for the United States (US) general population. METHODS: Adults from the US general population (N = 2001) were surveyed between September 2020 and November 2020. Surveys contained 126 questions, including the FACT-L [36 items; FACT-G and four subscales (Physical Well-Being [PWB], Social Well-Being [SWB], Emotional Well-Being [EWB], and Functional Well-Being [FWB]) and the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS), and a Trial Outcome Index (TOI)]. Reference values for each FACT-L scale were calculated with means for the total sample and separately for participants with: no comorbidities, COVID-19 as only comorbidity, no COVID-19. RESULTS: In the total sample, the reference scores were as follows: PWB = 23.1; SWB = 16.8; EWB = 18.5; FWB = 17.6; FACT-G = 76.0; LCS = 23.0, TOI = 63.7, and FACT-L Total = 99.0. Scores were lower for those reporting a prior diagnosis of COVID-19, especially for SWB (15.7) and FWB (15.3). SWB scores were lower than previous references values. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide US general adult population reference value set for FACT-L. While some of the subscale results were lower than those found in the reference data for other PROMs, these data were obtained in a more contemporaneous time frame juxtaposed with the COVID-19 pandemic and may represent a new peri-pandemic norm. Thus, these reference values will be useful for future clinical research.

A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426. INTERVENTION: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (four cycles) in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: CheckMate 9LA 2-year patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy (2 cycles) significantly improved overall survival versus chemotherapy (4 cycles) in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and no known sensitising epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations. We present exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs; minimum follow-up, 2 years). METHODS: In patients (N = 719) randomised 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone, disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life were assessed using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L). Treatment-phase changes in LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI), LCSS three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) over time were analysed descriptively and using mixed-effect model repeated measures. Time-to-deterioration/improvement analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Treatment-phase PRO questionnaire completion rates were >80%. Mean treatment-phase changes showed no deterioration from baseline in both arms for LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI; however, minimally important differences were not met. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses showed overall reduction in symptom burden from baseline for both arms; changes from baseline for LCSS 3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI were numerically improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, but minimally important differences were not met. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy delayed time-to-definitive-deterioration versus chemotherapy (LCSS ASBI: hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.87]); results were similar across PRO measures. CONCLUSIONS: At 2-year minimum follow-up, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy reduced the risk of definitive deterioration in disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy and maintained QoL in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03215706.

Five-Year Survival Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in CheckMate 227.

PURPOSE: We present 5-year results from CheckMate 227 Part 1, in which nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. METHODS: Adults with stage IV/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer without EGFR mutations or ALK alterations and with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1% or < 1% (n = 1739) were randomly assigned. Patients with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1% were randomly assigned to first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy. Patients with tumor PD-L1 < 1% were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. End points included exploratory 5-year results for efficacy, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 61.3 months, 5-year OS rates were 24% versus 14% for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 19% versus 7% (PD-L1 < 1%). The median duration of response was 24.5 versus 6.7 months (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 19.4 versus 4.8 months (PD-L1 < 1%). Among patients surviving 5 years, 66% (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 64% (PD-L1 < 1%) were off nivolumab plus ipilimumab without initiating subsequent systemic anticancer treatment by the 5-year time point. Survival benefit continued after nivolumab plus ipilimumab discontinuation because of treatment-related adverse events, with a 5-year OS rate of 39% (combined PD-L1 ≥ 1% and < 1% populations). Quality of life in 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was similar to that in the general US population through the 5-year follow-up. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: With all patients off immunotherapy treatment for ≥ 3 years, nivolumab plus ipilimumab increased 5-year survivorship versus chemotherapy, including long-term, durable clinical benefit regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. These data support nivolumab plus ipilimumab as an effective first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Health-Related Quality of Life With Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer or Esophageal Adenocarcinoma From CheckMate 649.

PURPOSE: In CheckMate 649, first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy prolonged overall survival versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced/metastatic non-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We present exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: In patients (N = 1,581) concurrently randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy and in those with tumor PD-L1 expression at a combined positive score (CPS) of ≥5, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the EQ-5D and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric (FACT-Ga), which included the FACT-General (FACT-G) and Gastric Cancer subscale (GaCS). The FACT-G GP5 item assessed treatment-related symptom burden. Longitudinal changes in HRQoL were assessed using mixed models for repeated measures in the PRO analysis population (randomly assigned patients with baseline and ≥1 postbaseline assessments). Time to symptom or definitive deterioration analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: In the PRO analysis population (n = 1,360), PRO questionnaire completion rates were mostly >80% during treatment. Patient-reported symptom burden was not increased with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. Mean improved changes from baseline were greater with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for FACT-Ga total, GaCS, and EQ-5D visual analog scale in patients with a CPS of ≥5; results were similar for the overall PRO analysis population. In CPS ≥5 and all randomly assigned populations, nivolumab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk of symptom deterioration versus chemotherapy, on the basis of FACT-Ga total score and GaCS; time to definitive deterioration was longer, and the risk of definitive deterioration in HRQoL was reduced with nivolumab plus chemotherapy across EQ-5D and most FACT-Ga measures (hazard ratio [95% CI] <1). CONCLUSION: Compared with chemotherapy alone, first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy showed stable or better on-treatment HRQoL in patients with advanced/metastatic non-HER2-positive GC/GEJC/EAC and also showed decreased risk of definitive HRQoL deterioration.

Three-year follow-up and patient-reported outcomes from CheckMate 078: Nivolumab versus docetaxel in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: In the phase 3 CheckMate 078 study, nivolumab prolonged overall survival (OS) and showed a favorable safety profile versus docetaxel in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). However, long-term efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life findings with second-line nivolumab are very limited in Asian patients with previously treated aNSCLC. Here, we report updated clinical data and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the phase 3 CheckMate 078 trial with a 3-year minimum follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with aNSCLC and disease progression after platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival, safety, and disease-related symptom deterioration assessed using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) by Week 12. Additional PRO assessments were exploratory endpoints. RESULTS: At ≥ 37.3 months follow-up, 3-year OS rates were 19% with nivolumab and 12% with docetaxel; 30% and 0% of responders remained in response for ≥ 3 years, respectively. Incidence of treatment-related adverse events occurring after 2 years was lower than during the first 2 years. No new treatment-related deaths were reported. By Week 12 of treatment, rates of disease-related symptom deterioration were 32% with nivolumab and 47% with docetaxel. Completion rates for PRO questionnaires were ≥ 80% in both arms. Clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in LCSS Average Symptom Burden Index scores and delayed time to first symptom deterioration were observed with nivolumab against docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years, nivolumab continued to demonstrate survival benefit versus docetaxel, exhibiting improvements in disease-related symptoms and overall health status in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated aNSCLC. No new safety signals were observed. These findings are similar to the global population.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced NSCLC With 1% or Greater Tumor PD-L1 Expression: Patient-Reported Outcomes From CheckMate 227 Part 1.

INTRODUCTION: In CheckMate 227 (NCT02477826), patients with treatment-naive stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and 1% or greater tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression had significantly improved overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. We present the patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Patients (N = 1189) were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy. PROs were exploratory. Changes in Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) average symptom burden index, LCSS 3-item global index, EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), and EQ-5D utility index were analyzed descriptively. Mixed-effect model repeated measures and time-to-first deterioration and improvement analyses were conducted. RESULTS: PRO completion rates were generally greater than 80%. On-treatment improvements from baseline in LCSS measures of symptom burden and global health status with nivolumab plus ipilimumab generally met or exceeded the minimal important difference (smallest clinically meaningful change) from weeks 24 and 30, respectively; improvements with chemotherapy generally remained below the minimal important difference. Mean on-treatment EQ-5D VAS scores for both treatments approached the U.K. population norm at week 24, remaining so throughout the treatment period. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses revealed numerically greater improvements from baseline with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy across LCSS average symptom burden index and 3-item global index, and EQ-5D VAS and utility index. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had delayed time-to-first deterioration (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.74 [0.56 to 0.98]) and a trend for more rapid time-to-first improvement (1.24 [0.98 to 1.59]) versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab revealed delayed deterioration and numerical improvement in symptoms and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and 1% or greater programmed death ligand 1 expression.

Symptoms and impacts in anemia of chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is a frequent complication of chronic kidney disease (CKD) that negatively affects patients' health-related quality of life. METHODS: We conducted qualitative concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive debriefing (CD) interviews to assess the frequency, duration, and severity of symptoms and impacts associated with anemia of CKD and to facilitate the development of a new patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure. We interviewed 36 patients with CKD and hemoglobin levels ≥8.0 to <12.0 g/dL using a semi-structured interview guide developed specifically for this study until saturation was reached. We used MAXQDA to perform qualitative analysis of interview transcripts to determine the most relevant symptoms and impacts (based on the frequency of concept mentions) experienced by participants. RESULTS: Most participants had stage 4/5 CKD (81%) and were being treated with an erythropoietin stimulating agent (69%). Spontaneously reported symptoms included feeling tired (79%), shortness of breath (39%), and weak/lacking strength (36%). We developed the Chronic Kidney Disease and Anemia Questionnaire (CKD-AQ), which includes 23 items assessing frequency and severity of the most relevant symptoms and impacts identified by patients with anemia of CKD. The CD interviews confirmed the clarity and relevance of the concepts identified in the CE phase. CONCLUSION: The CKD-AQ is a novel PRO measure that captures the frequency and severity of the most relevant symptoms and impacts associated with anemia of CKD. Future studies will evaluate its psychometric properties and its potential utility in anemia management.

Development and adaptation of patient-reported outcome measures for patients who experience itch associated with primary biliary cholangitis.

PURPOSE: To conduct qualitative interviews to evaluate and refine the Itch Diary (ID) and weekly version of the PBC-40 in patients with itching associated with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). METHODS: Twenty adults with self-reported PBC diagnoses and recent/ongoing itching of at least moderate intensity participated in face-to-face qualitative combined concept elicitation (CE) interviews and cognitive interviews after completing the morning and evening versions of the ID and weekly version of the PBC-40. These questionnaires were evaluated to confirm saturation of concepts of interest and cognitively test the English language versions of the measures in patients with PBC in the US and Canada. Transcripts were organized into descriptions of PBC-related symptoms and symptom-related impacts using a structured coding framework. Two waves of interviews were conducted; revisions made after wave 1 were further tested in wave 2. RESULTS: Interview results confirmed the relevance of concepts presented in the PBC-40 and ID to patients' experiences. Saturation of concept was achieved. Itching-related signs and symptoms (46%) were the most commonly expressed symptom concept in the CE interviews followed by energy-related (14%) and additional signs/symptoms (13%). Several changes to the ID were made in response to cognitive interview results. Changes to the PBC-40 included adaptations from British to North American English, and the appropriateness of a 7-day recall period was confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: Relevance of the symptom and impact concepts in the ID to measure PBC-related itch were confirmed. Adaptation of the PBC-40 to a weekly recall period and for North American English was successful.

Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2-The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I).

We describe qualitative and quantitative development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews (qualitative methods) were used to identify and refine symptom concepts. Classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory (quantitative methods) were used to evaluate item-level and scale-level performance of the PAL-I using an iterative approach between qualitative and quantitative methods. Patients with cLBP participated in concept elicitation interviews (N = 43), cognitive interviews (N = 38), and assessment of paper-to-electronic format equivalence (N = 8). A web-based sample of self-reported patients with cLBP participated in quantitative studies to evaluate preliminary (N = 598) and revised (n = 401) drafts and patients with physician-diagnosed cLBP (N = 45) participated in preliminary validation of the PAL-I. The instrument contained 9 items describing cLBP impacts (walking, sitting, standing, lifting, sleep, social activities, travelling, climbing, and body movements). Item-level performance, scale structure, and scoring seemed to be appropriate. One-week test-retest reproducibility was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.94]). Convergent validity was demonstrated with PAL-I total score and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (Pearson correlation 0.82), MOS-36 Physical Functioning (-0.71), and MOS-36 Bodily Pain (-0.71). Individual item scores and total score discriminated between numeric rating scale tertile groups and painDETECT categories. Interpretation of paper and electronic administration modes was equivalent. The PAL-I demonstrated content validity and is potentially useful to assess treatment benefit in clinical trials of cLBP therapies.

Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 1-the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain - Symptoms (PAL-S).

We describe the mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Symptoms (PAL-S), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Qualitative methods (concept elicitation and cognitive interviews) were used to identify and refine symptom concepts and quantitative methods (classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory) were used to evaluate item- and scale-level performance of the measure using an iterative approach. Patients with cLBP participated in concept elicitation interviews (N = 43), cognitive interviews (N = 38), and interview-based assessment of paper-to-electronic mode equivalence (N = 8). A web-based sample of patients with self-reported cLBP participated in quantitative studies to evaluate preliminary (N = 598) and revised (n = 401) drafts and a physician-diagnosed cohort of patients with cLBP (N = 45) participated in preliminary validation of the measure. The PAL-S contained 14 items describing symptoms (overall pain, sharp, prickling, sensitive, tender, radiating, shocking, shooting, burning, squeezing, muscle spasms, throbbing, aching, and stiffness). Item-level performance, scale structure, and scoring seemed to be appropriate. One-week test-retest reproducibility was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.91]). Convergent validity was demonstrated with total score and MOS-36 Bodily Pain (Pearson correlation -0.79), Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (0.73), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (0.67), and MOS-36 Physical Functioning (-0.65). Individual item scores and total score discriminated between numeric rating scale tertile groups and painDETECT categories. Respondent interpretation of paper and electronic administration modes was equivalent. The PAL-S has demonstrated content validity and is potentially useful to assess treatment benefit in cLBP clinical trials.