Search

Background: In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 study, adjuvant pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival and distant-metastasis-free survival in patients with resected stage III melanoma. Earlier results showed no effect of pembrolizumab on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Little is known about HRQOL after completion of treatment with pembrolizumab, an important research area concerning patients who are likely to become long-term survivors. This study reports long-term HRQOL results., Methods: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial compared adjuvant pembrolizumab with placebo in patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0, recruited from 123 academic centres and community hospitals in 23 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographical region to receive 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses. Investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, measured with the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30. All patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation available who were alive 108 weeks from randomisation were included in this analysis of long-term HRQOL. Long-term HRQOL included assessments measured every 6 months between 108 weeks and 48 months after randomisation. The threshold of clinical relevance for all HRQOL scales used was an average change of 5 points. The trial is ongoing, recruitment is completed, and HRQOL data collection is finalised. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37., Findings: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Completion of the HRQOL evaluation at baseline exceeded 90% (481 [94%] patients in the pembrolizumab group and 467 [92%] in the placebo group), and ranged between 60% and 90% for post-baseline timepoints. Among patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation, 365 (39%) were female and 583 (61%) were male. The mean change from baseline to long-term HRQOL was -0·56 (95% CI -2·33 to 1·22) in the pembrolizumab group and 1·63 (-0·12 to 3·38) in the placebo group. The difference between the two groups was -2·19 (-4·65 to 0·27, p=0·081). Differences for all other scales were smaller than 5 and not statistically significant., Interpretation: Adjuvant pembrolizumab did not have a significant impact on long-term HRQOL compared with placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma. These findings, together with earlier results on efficacy and HRQOL, support the use of pembrolizumab in this setting., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EB's spouse and daughter hold shares in Sandoz, Galenica, Alcon, Roche, and Novartis. MK reports study funding paid to the institution by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) since the initial planning of the work, and study funding paid to the institution from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Immunocore, Johnson & Johnson, and Pierre Fabre in the past 36 months. MM reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. GVL reports consulting fees from Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Evaxion, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics, IOBiotech, Immunocore, Innovent Biologics USA, MSD, Novartis, PHMR, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Scancell, and SkylineDX BV. VA reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from BMS, MSD, Novartis; support from BMS for attending meetings or travel; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for BMS, MSD, Novartis, and Immunocore; CUB reports personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Novartis and BMS, personal fees from Roche, GSK, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMAB, Pierre Fabre, and Third Rock ventures, grants from NanoString and 4SC, during the conduct of the study. CUB has patents pending (WO 2021/177822 A1 and WO 2023/022596 A1), and reports stock ownership: co-founder of Immagene BV and Signature Oncology. AH reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, and Novartis; payments for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with BMS, MSD, and Novartis. SD reports research funding from BMS, MSD, and Pierre Fabre to the institution; payment or honoraria to the institution for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS and MSD; support for attending meetings or travel from BMS and MSD; trim 24 patent pending; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board at BMS and MSD, with payments made to the institution; spouse being a Sanofi employee. AK reports consulting fees for an advisory role at Moderna and speaker honorarium from MSD. MSC reports honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from BMS, MSD and Novartis; having served on advisory boards for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck, and Sanofi. AM reports support of scientific and educational conference from Janssen. SS reports grants or contracts from Novartis/Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA), AstraZeneca, MSD, Genentech, Senhwa, and Pfizer; funding goes to the institution to undertake investigator initiated clinical trial and translational research. SS reports participation on advisory boards for MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca—fees for attending go to research funds at the institution. SS is the chair of DSMB for two Novartis/AAA sponsored phase 3 trials—no fee accepted for chair role. SP reports payment or honoraria to her and her institution for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, and Novartis, and to her partner and her institution from Amgen and Phylogen; payments to her institution for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with MSD; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from GEM, EORTC melanoma group, and ASEICA. DS reports research grants to his institution from Amgen, Array/Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Novartis, and Roche; consulting fees paid personally from 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Haystack, Immunocore, InFlarX, Innovent, Labcorp, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, Neracare, Novartis OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Sun Pharma; personal payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and SunPharma; personal support for attending meetings or travel from BMS, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Pierre Fabre; personal payments for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board at 4SC, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Haystack, Immunocore, InFlarX, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, Neracare, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Replimune, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Sun Pharma; leadership or fiduciary role, paid or unpaid, at Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group, German Cancer Society, Hiege Stiftung, Deutsche Hautkrebsstiftung, Nationale Versorgungskonferenz Hautkrebs eV, and European Melanoma Registry; drug supply (nivolumab, ipilimumab) from BMS. RJ reports research funding from Iovance Biotherapeutics; honoraria for advisory role or speaker presentation from Merck, BMS, Medison, Pfizer, and Novartis. PR reports consulting fees paid to himself from MBS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Philogen, and Pfizer; honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events paid to himself from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, MSD, and AstraZeneca; speakers bureau Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, and BMS paid to himself; support for attending meetings or travel from Orphan Europe and Pierre Fabre paid to himself; research funding to his institution from Novarits, Pfizer, Roche, and BMS. AJMvdE reports study grants from BMS and Idera; travel expenses from Ipsen; advisory board from BMS, MSD Oncology, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, and Janssen Cilag BV. CC reports support for attending meetings or travel from Orphan Europe and Pierre Fabre. DG reports stock or stock options from Merck & Co. CK reports stock or stock options from Merck & Co and being an employee of Merck & Co. CR reports consulting fees (payments made to her) from BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Sunpharma, Ultimovacs, Regeneron, Egle, Philogen, Maat Pharma, and IO Biontech; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events (payments made to her) from Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS, MSD, and Novartis; support for attending meetings or travel from Pierre Fabre; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board (payments made to her) with BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, MSD, Merck, Sunpharma, Ultimovacs, Regeneron, Egle, Philogen, and Maat Pharma. AMME reports honoraria for scientific advisory board or independent data monitoring committee functions from Agenus, BioInvent, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brenus, CatalYm, Ellipses, EikonTX, Eurobio, Galecto, IO Biotech, IQVIQ, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, MSD, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Scorpion TX, Sairopa, Sellas, SkylineDX, TigaTx, and Trained Therapeutics Discovery; honoraria from Acetra, GenOway, GSK, Moderna, and Trained Immunity Tx; equity from IO Biotech, Sairopa, and SkylineDx; being the Editor in Chief of the European Journal of Cancer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Abstract: We hypothesized that fit older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated with decitabine (DEC) would report better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes than those receiving intensive chemotherapy (IC). We conducted a phase 3 randomized trial to compare DEC (10-day schedule) with IC (3+7) in older fit patients with AML. HRQoL was a secondary end point, and it was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) in conjunction with its elderly module (EORTC QLQ-ELD14). The following scales were a priori selected for defining the primary end point: physical and role functioning, fatigue, pain, and burden of illness. HRQoL was assessed at baseline, at regeneration from cycle 2, and at 6 and 12 months after randomization, and also before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) and 100 days after transplantation. Overall, 606 patients underwent randomization. At 2 months, the risk of HRQoL deterioration was lower in the DEC arm than in the 3+7 arm; 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69-82) vs 88% (95% CI, 82-93); odds ratio, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .003). No statistically significant HRQoL differences were observed between treatment arms at the long-term evaluation combining assessments at 6 and 12 months. HRQoL deteriorations between baseline and after allo-HSCT were observed in both arms. However, these deteriorations were not clinically meaningful in patients randomized to DEC, whereas this was the case for those in the 3+7 arm, in 4 of 5 primary HRQoL scales. Our HRQoL findings suggest that lower-intensity treatment with DEC may be preferable to current standard IC (3+7) in fit older patients with AML. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02172872., (© 2024 American Society of Hematology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Purpose: This multicenter trial by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gynecological Cancer Group was motivated by conflicting evidence on the value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in stage IB2-IIB cervical carcinoma., Methods: Between May 2002 and January 2014, 626 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB2-IIb were randomly assigned between neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (NACT-S; n = 314) and standard CCRT (n = 312). The primary end point was 5-year overall survival (OS) rate. Secondary end points were progression-free survival, OS, toxicity, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL)., Results: After a median follow-up of 8.7 years, 198 patients (31.6%) died. Age, stage, and cell type were balanced in both arms. Protocol treatment was completed in 223 of 314 (71%) patients in NACT-S and 257 of 312(82%) in CCRT arms. Main reasons for incomplete protocol treatment were toxicity (30 of 314; 9.6%) and progressive disease (21 of 314; 6.7%) in the NACT-S arm and toxicity (23 of 312; 7.4%) and patient refusal (13 of 312; 4.2%) in the CCRT arm. Additional radiotherapy after completed NACT-S was given to 107 patients (48%), and additional surgery to 20 patients (8%) after completed CCRT. Short-term adverse events (AEs) ≥grade 3 occurred more frequently with NACT-S (41% v 23%), and long-term AEs ≥grade 3 more often with CCRT (21% v 15%). The 5-year OS was not significantly different between NACT-S (72%; 95% CI, 66 to 77) and CCRT (76%; 95% CI, 70 to 80)., Conclusion: This trial failed to demonstrate superiority in favor of the NACT-S arm but resulted in acceptable morbidity and HRQOL in both arms.

Introduction: Prospective data about quality of life (QoL) in men with breast cancer (BC) are lacking. A prospective registry (EORTC10085) of men with all BC stages, including a QoL correlative study, was performed as part of the International Male Breast Cancer Program., Methods: Questionnaires at BC diagnosis included the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 (BC specific module), adapted for men. High functioning and global health/QoL scores indicate high functioning levels/high QoL; high symptom-focused measures scores indicate high symptoms/problems levels. EORTC reference data for healthy men and women with BC were used for comparisons., Results: Of 422 men consenting to participate, 363 were evaluable. Median age was 67 years, and median time between diagnosis and survey was 1.1 months. A total of 114 men (45%) had node-positive early disease, and 28 (8%) had advanced disease. Baseline mean global health status score was 73 (SD: 21), better than in female BC reference data (62, SD: 25). Common symptoms in male BC were fatigue (22, SD: 24), insomnia (21, SD: 28), and pain (16, SD: 23), for which women's mean scores indicated more burdensome symptoms at 33 (SD: 26), 30 (SD: 32), and 29 (SD: 29). Men's mean sexual activity score was 31 (SD: 26), with less sexual activity in older patients or advanced disease., Conclusions: QoL and symptom burden in male BC patients appears no worse (and possibly better) than that in female patients. Future analyses on impact of treatment on symptoms and QoL over time, may support tailoring of male BC management., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

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., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: In an international randomised controlled phase II study of temozolomide (TMZ) versus TMZ in combination with bevacizumab (BEV) in locally diagnosed non-1p/19q co-deleted World Health Organization grade 2 or 3 gliomas with a first and contrast-enhancing recurrence after initial radiotherapy, and overall survival at 12 months was not significantly different (61% in the TMZ arm and 55% in the TMZ + BEV arm)., Objectives: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a key secondary end-point in this trial, and the main objective of this study was to determine the impact of the addition of BEV to TMZ on HRQoL., Methods: HRQoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 (version 3) and QLQ-BN20 at baseline, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression. The pre-selected primary HRQoL end-point was the QLQ-C30 global health scale, with self-perceived cognitive functioning and pain selected as secondary HRQoL issues. Analysis was undertaken using linear mixed modelling and complemented with sensitivity analyses using summary statistics. A difference was considered clinically relevant with ≥10 points difference on a 100-point scale., Results: Baseline compliance was high at 94% and remained above 60% until 72 weeks, limiting the analysis to 60 weeks. Compliance was similar in both arms. We found no statistically significant or clinically significant differences between the primary HRQoL end-point in both treatment arms (p = 0.2642). The sensitivity analyses confirmed this finding. The overall test for post-baseline differences between the two treatment arms also showed no statistically or clinically significant differences regarding the selected secondary end-point scales., Interpretation: The addition of BEV to TMZ in this patient group neither improves nor negatively impacts HRQoL., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SR is a current employee of Pfizer and a former employee of Novartis Pharma. JC, PC, and JR are current employees of Pfizer. VP and IG are current employees of EMD Serono. MS is a current employee of Merk. GV has received consulting fees or payment from or related to the following organisations: Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group, and the EORTC Board. KO's organisation has received sponsorship funding or grants for various annual programmes and activities from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novocure, Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, Northwest Biotherapeutics, Karyopharm, MagForce, Medac, Photonamic, Apogenix, Elekta, and GW Pharmaceuticals/Jazz Pharmaceuticals; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis; and honoraria from Sanofi, Sharing Progress in Cancer Care, and Seagen. KO participated in an advisory board for Novartis, Novocure, Seagen, Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi, and has leadership roles in a number of organisations. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10981-22023 AMAROS trial evaluated axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus axillary radiotherapy (ART) in patients with cT1-2, node-negative breast cancer and a positive sentinel node (SN) biopsy. At 5 years, both modalities showed excellent and comparable axillary control, with significantly less morbidity after ART. We now report the preplanned 10-year analysis of the axillary recurrence rate (ARR), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS), and an updated 5-year analysis of morbidity and quality of life., Methods: In this open-label multicenter phase III noninferiority trial, 4,806 patients underwent SN biopsy; 1,425 were node-positive and randomly assigned to either ALND (n = 744) or ART (n = 681)., Results: Per intention-to-treat analysis, 10-year ARR cumulative incidence was 0.93% (95% CI, 0.18 to 1.68; seven events) after ALND and 1.82% (95% CI, 0.74 to 2.94; 11 events) after ART (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% CI, 0.67 to 4.39). There were no differences in OS (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.52) or DFS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.46). ALND was associated with a higher lymphedema rate in updated 5-year analyses (24.5% v 11.9%; P < .001). Quality-of-life scales did not differ by treatment through 5 years. Exploratory analysis showed a 10-year cumulative incidence of second primary cancers of 12.1% (95% CI, 9.6 to 14.9) after ART and 8.3% (95% CI, 6.3 to 10.7) after ALND., Conclusion: This 10-year analysis confirms a low ARR after both ART and ALND with no difference in OS, DFS, and locoregional control. Considering less arm morbidity, ART is preferred over ALND for patients with SN-positive cT1-2 breast cancer.

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EB reports receiving personal consulting fees (as consultant or scientific adviser) from AstraZeneca, Carevive Systems, Navigating Cancer, Sivan Healthcare, and Resilience Health. MC has received funds for her institution (University of Birmingham, UK) from the National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, NIHR Birmingham–Oxford Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Health Data Research UK, Innovate UK (part of UK Research and Innovation), Macmillan Cancer Support, SPINE UK, UK Research and Innovation, UCB Pharma, Janssen, GSK, and Gilead; reports personal consulting fees from Aparito, CIS Oncology, Takeda, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Glaukos, GSK, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; has a family member who owns stock in GSK; and is Director of the Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, Director of the Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, and is an NIHR Senior Investigator. AC is employed by AstraZeneca and reports grants from Carevive, Takeda, Clinical Outcomes Solutions, and LUNGevity. DC reports receiving royalties or licences as President of FACIT.org and as President-Elect and Board Member of PROMIS Health Organization. CSC reports receiving licensing fees paid to both MD Anderson Cancer Center and to his limited liability company for the Brief Pain Inventory. BLK-K has received grants from AstraZeneca, G1 Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, BluePrint Medicine, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Takeda, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals; consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Health Outcomes Solutions, University of South Florida, and Atheneum; and has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb. KO reports receiving honoraria (2010–20) from GSK for her involvement with the Healthcare Advisory Board and receiving an honorarium as a speaker at the Sharing Progress in Cancer Care webinar (October, 2021). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Maintenance of functioning and well-being during the progression-free survival (PFS) period is important for glioma patients. This study aimed to determine whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) can be maintained during progression-free time, and factors associated with HRQoL deterioration in this period., Methods: We included longitudinal HRQoL data from previously published clinical trials in glioma. The percentage of patients with stable HRQoL until progression was determined per scale and at the individual patient level (i.e. considering all scales simultaneously). We assessed time to a clinically relevant deterioration in HRQoL, expressed in deterioration-free survival and time-to-deterioration (the first including progression as an event). We also determined the association between sociodemographic and clinical factors and HRQoL deterioration in the progression-free period., Results: Five thousand five hundred and thirty-nine patients with at least baseline HRQoL scores had a median time from randomization to progression of 7.6 months. Between 9-29% of the patients deteriorated before disease progression on the evaluated HRQoL scales. When considering all scales simultaneously, 47% of patients deteriorated on ≥1 scale. Median deterioration-free survival period ranged between 3.8-5.4 months, and median time-to-deterioration between 8.2-11.9 months. For most scales, only poor performance status was independently associated with clinically relevant HRQoL deterioration in the progression-free period., Conclusions: HRQoL was maintained in only 53% of patients in their progression-free period, and treatment was not independently associated with this deterioration in HRQoL. Routine monitoring of the patients' functioning and well-being during the entire disease course is therefore important, so that interventions can be initiated when problems are signaled., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology.)

Objective: Improved treatment landscape has led to better outcomes for paediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) survivors. As the number of survivors increase, we need to elucidate the long-term quality of life (QoL) and domains of complaints in these patients. Furthermore, the main priorities of these patients need to be clarified. We assessed long-term QoL outcomes of survivors of childhood ALL compared to matched population controls., Methods: QoL data were collected from survivors recruited in France and Belgium between 2012 and 2017, including the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) and the Quality of Life Systemic Inventory (QLSI). The Wilcoxon test was used to compare SF-12 scale scores between survivors and matched population controls. For the QLSI, comparisons were mainly descriptive., Results: One hundred and eighty-six survivors (mean age: 27.6 years; range: 18.1-52.8) at follow-up completed QoL measures, amongst whom 180 were matched to controls. Overall, survivors had higher QoL on all SF12 scale scores, indicating that they had better functioning compared to controls. Statistically significant differences on the SF12 were observed for Vitality, Social Functioning, Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems and Mental Health scales. QLSI outcomes suggested that survivors were happier than controls with Couple and Social Relations. Controls were unhappiest compared to survivors with Money, Love life, Self-esteem, Nutrition and Paid Work., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that survivors of childhood ALL have better QoL outcomes on some domains compared to the general population, specifically around social and emotional functioning, and that they tend to prioritize their relationships more. Interventions for improving QoL outcomes, might build on existing positive experiences with family, friends and partners., (© 2022 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Despite recent advances in the molecular characterization of gliomas, it remains unclear which patients benefit most from which second-line treatments. The TAVAREC trial was a randomized, open-label phase II trial assessing the benefit of the addition of the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab to treatment with temozolomide in patients with a first enhancing recurrence of World Health Organization grade 2 or 3 glioma without 1p/19q codeletion. We evaluated the prognostic significance of genome-wide DNA methylation profiles and copy-number variations on the TAVAREC trial samples., Experimental Design: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status was determined via Sanger sequencing and IHC. DNA methylation analysis was performed using the MethylationEPIC BeadChip (Illumina) from which 1p/19q codeletion, MGMT promoter methylation (MGMT-STP27), and homozygous deletion of CDKN2A/B were determined. DNA methylation classes were determined according to classifiers developed in Heidelberg and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA; "Heidelberg" and "TCGA" classifier respectively)., Results: DNA methylation profiles of 122 samples were successfully determined. As expected, most samples were IDH-mutant (89/122) and MGMT promotor methylated (89/122). Methylation classes were prognostic for time to progression. However, Heidelberg methylation classes determined at time of diagnosis were no longer prognostic following enhancing recurrence of the tumor. In contrast, TCGA methylation classes of primary samples remained prognostic also following enhancing recurrence. Homozygous deletions in CDKN2A/B were found in 10 of 87 IDH-mutated samples and were prognostically unfavorable at recurrence., Conclusions: DNA methylome Heidelberg classification at time of diagnosis is no longer of prognostic value at the time of enhancing recurrence. CDKN2A/B deletion status was predictive of survival from progression of IDH-mutated tumors., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) phase II trial (75111-10114) demonstrated that combining pertuzumab with trastuzumab plus cyclophosphamide (TPM) improved median progression-free survival by seven months compared with pertuzumab and trastuzumab (TP) in older/frail patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This publication reports the findings of the health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes., Material and Methods: HRQoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC Elderly specific module (QLQ-ELD14 at baseline, week 9, 27, and 52. The primary HRQoL domains were global health status/QoL scale (GHQs), fatigue and pain. Treatment differences of ≥10 points were considered clinically significant. Correlations between change in GHQs and other HRQoL scales were obtained to identify domains impacting patients' overall perception., Results: Eighty patients were randomised to TP or TPM. Compliance with completing HRQoL forms ranged from 90% at baseline to 45% at week 52. HRQoL domains showed no statistically significant differences in the change scores over time between the two treatment arms. Improvement of ≥10 points was found at week 9 in favor of the TPM for the pain scores. This was reversed oat week 27. Sensitivity analyses, including imputation of missing data and area-under-the-curve analyses, revealed no meaningful differences between the arms for the primary HRQoL domains. ELD14 was systematically scored lower in the TPM arm., Discussion: TPM regimen in older and frail patients with HER2-positive MBC increased PFS with no impact on HRQoL. However, given the limited sample size and dropout in our study, further research is critical to confirm these results., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: No systemic treatment has been established for meningioma progressing after local therapies., Methods: This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase II study included adult patients with recurrent WHO grade 2 or 3 meningioma. Patients were 2:1 randomly assigned to intravenous trabectedin (1.5 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) or local standard of care (LOC). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints comprised overall survival (OS), objective radiological response, safety, quality of life (QoL) assessment using the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 questionnaires, and we performed tissue-based exploratory molecular analyses., Results: Ninety patients were randomized (n = 29 in LOC, n = 61 in trabectedin arm). With 71 events, median PFS was 4.17 months in the LOC and 2.43 months in the trabectedin arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.42; 80% CI, 1.00-2.03; P = .294) with a PFS-6 rate of 29.1% (95% CI, 11.9%-48.8%) and 21.1% (95% CI, 11.3%-32.9%), respectively. Median OS was 10.61 months in the LOC and 11.37 months in the trabectedin arm (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.54-1.76; P = .94). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 44.4% of patients in the LOC and 59% of patients in the trabectedin arm. Enrolled patients had impeded global QoL and overall functionality and high fatigue before initiation of systemic therapy. DNA methylation class, performance status, presence of a relevant co-morbidity, steroid use, and right hemisphere involvement at baseline were independently associated with OS., Conclusions: Trabectedin did not improve PFS and OS and was associated with higher toxicity than LOC treatment in patients with non-benign meningioma. Tumor DNA methylation class is an independent prognostic factor for OS., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: due to increasing survival rates in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the number of survivors has been expanding. A significant proportion of these survivors can experience long-term emotional and psychosocial problems. However, the exact risk factors remain inconclusive. We investigated potential risk factors for decreased daily life quality and life challenges in long-term childhood ALL survivors enrolled between 1971 and 1998 in EORTC studies., Methods: self-report questionnaires were collected from 186 survivors (109 females; mean age at diagnosis 5.62 years, range 0.2-14.7; median time since diagnosis of 20.5 years (12.9-41.6)), including the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) and Impact of Cancer-Childhood Survivors (IOC-CS). Multivariable linear regression models were used to assess the impact of gender, age at diagnosis, relapse/second neoplasm, National Cancer Institute (NCI) risk group and cranial radiotherapy on 2 subscales of the SF-12 (physical and mental health) and five subscales of the IOC-CS (life challenges, body and health, personal growth, thinking and memory problems and socializing)., Results: mental component scores of SF-12 were not significantly associated with any risk factor. Physical component scores were lower in relapsed, irradiated and NCI high-risk patients. Regarding IOC-CS negative impact subscales, life challenges was more negatively impacted by cancer in female, younger (i.e., <6 years) and relapsed patients. Regarding the positive impact scales, personal growth was more positively impacted in relapsed patients, whereas body and health, and socializing, were less positively impacted in these patients, compared to non-relapsed patients. Socializing was more positively impacted in older patients (>6 years)., Conclusions: this study demonstrates that long-term outcomes can be both adverse and positive, depending on the patient's demographic and clinical characteristics. Younger, female, and relapsed patients might encounter more life challenges years after their disease, while physical challenges could occur more often in relapsed and high-risk patients. Finally, the positive effect on socializing in the older patients sheds new light on the importance of peer interactions for this subgroup. Specific individual challenges thus need specialized support for specific subgroups.

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., (© 2021. The Author(s).)