Search

Purpose: The GODDESS © tool was developed to assess Desmoid Tumor/Aggressive Fibromatosis (DT/AF) symptom severity and impact on patients' lives. This study evaluated GODDESS © 's cross-sectional and longitudinal measurement properties., Methods: The Phase 3, randomized placebo-controlled, DeFi study (NCT03785964) of nirogacestat in DT/AF was used to assess GODDESS © 's reliability, construct validity, responsiveness, and estimate of meaningful change thresholds (MCTs). Other patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures included Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS) in DT/AF symptoms, EORTC QLQ-C30, Brief Pain Inventory Short Form, and PROMIS Physical Function short-form 10a v2.0 plus 3 items., Results: DeFi participants (N = 142) had a median age of 34 years (range: 18-76) and were mostly female (64.8%), with extra-abdominal (76.8%) or intra-abdominal tumors (23.2%). The GODDESS © symptom/impact scales showed internal consistency at baseline, cycles 4 and 7 (Cronbach's α > 0.70) and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient > 0.85). GODDESS © scales correlated moderately to highly with PRO measures capturing similar content and differentiated among PGIS and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group groups. GODDESS © scales detected improvement over time. For the total symptom score, a 1.30-point decrease was estimated as the within-person MCT and a 1.00-point decrease as the between-group MCT. For the physical functioning impact score, estimated within- and between-group MCTs were 0.60-point and 0.50-point decreases, respectively. Few participants exhibited symptom worsening., Conclusion: GODDESS © was found to be reliable, valid, responsive, and interpretable as a clinical trial endpoint in the pooled sample of DT/AF patients. Estimated MCTs can be used to define responders and assess group-level differences in future, unblinded, efficacy analyses., Trial Registration Number and Registration Date: NCT03785964; December 24, 2018., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and related considerations for instrument selection and trial design in registrational cancer clinical trials, building on prior communications about the use of PROs to assess efficacy and tolerability in oncology drug development. The International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Standards and Best Practices Committee led an initiative to draft a commentary about the guidance, focusing on its positive aspects and areas that would benefit from additional clarification and consideration. For comprehensiveness, the authors reviewed existing public comments on the draft guidance, and the commentary underwent a thorough review process through three ISOQOL Special Interest Groups (Psychometrics, Clinical Practice, and Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Engagement) followed by the ISOQOL Board. The goal of this commentary is to situate this new and relevant guidance document within the context of recent regulatory efforts on PROs and highlight areas in which further work may ultimately benefit the field., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To determine whether treatment of anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), vs active monitoring, is effective in reducing incidence of anal cancer in persons living with HIV, the US National Cancer Institute funded the Phase III ANal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) clinical trial. As no established patient-reported outcomes (PRO) tool exists for persons with anal HSIL, we sought to estimate the construct validity and responsiveness of the ANCHOR Health-Related Symptom Index (A-HRSI)., Methods: The construct validity phase enrolled ANCHOR participants who were within two weeks of randomization to complete A-HRSI and legacy PRO questionnaires at a single time point. The responsiveness phase enrolled a separate cohort of ANCHOR participants who were not yet randomized to complete A-HRSI at three time points: prior to randomization (T1), 14-70 (T2), and 71-112 (T3) days following randomization., Results: Confirmatory factor analysis techniques established a three-factor model (i.e., physical symptoms, impact on physical functioning, impact on psychological functioning), with moderate evidence of convergent validity and strong evidence of discriminant validity in the construct validity phase (n = 303). We observed a significant moderate effect for changes in A-HRSI impact on physical functioning (standardized response mean = 0.52) and psychological symptoms (standardized response mean = 0.60) from T2 (n = 86) to T3 (n = 92), providing evidence of responsiveness., Conclusion: A-HRSI is a brief PRO index that captures health-related symptoms and impacts related to anal HSIL. This instrument may have broad applicability in other contexts assessing individuals with anal HSIL, which may ultimately help improve clinical care and assist providers and patients with medical decision-making., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Purpose: As we begin to leverage Big Data in health care settings and particularly in assessing patient-reported outcomes, there is a need for novel analytics to address unique challenges. One such challenge is in coding transcribed interview data, typically free-text entries of statements made during a face-to-face interview. Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) offers statistical rigor and consistency in automating the interpretation of patients' expressed concerns and coping strategies., Methods: LDA was applied to interview data collected as part of a prospective, longitudinal study of QOL in N = 211 patients undergoing radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer. LDA analyzed personal goal statements to extract the latent topics and themes, stratified by time, and on things patients wanted to accomplish and prevent. Model comparison metrics determined the number of topics to extract., Results: LDA extracted seven latent topics. Prior to surgery, patients' priorities were primarily in cancer surgery and recovery. Six months after the surgery, they were replaced by goals on regaining a sense of normalcy, to resume work, to enjoy life more fully, and to appreciate friends and family more. LDA model parameters showed changing priorities, e.g., immediate concerns on surgery and resuming employment decreased post-surgery and were replaced by concerns over cancer recurrence and a desire to remain healthy and strong., Conclusions: Novel Big Data analytics such as LDA offer the possibility of summarizing personal goals without the need for conventional fixed-length measures and resource-intensive qualitative data coding.

Purpose: The Anal Cancer HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) trial aims to determine whether treating precancerous anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), versus active surveillance, is effective in reducing anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected individuals. We evaluated the reliability (i.e., internal consistency, test-retest) and between-group stability of a 25-item ANCHOR Health-Related Symptom Index (A-HRSI)., Methods: ANCHOR participants at least 1-month post-randomization to treatment or active surveillance completed the A-HRSI via telephone. Participants were contacted 7-10 days later to complete the A-HRSI and a participant global impression of change (PGIC) item., Results: Participants (n = 100) were enrolled (mean age = 51.4, 79% cisgender-male, 73% African American, 9% Hispanic) from five ANCHOR sites. Cronbach's α was good for the physical symptoms (0.82) domain and fair for the physical impacts (0.79) and psychological symptoms (0.73) domains. Intraclass correlation coefficients were good for each of respective domains (i.e., 0.80, 0.85, and 0.82). There were no significant differences in PGIC between the treatment (n = 56) and active surveillance (n = 44) groups (F(1,98) = 2.03, p = 0.16)., Conclusions: The A-HRSI is able to reliably assess participant-reported symptoms and impacts of anal HSIL across a 7-10 days of timeframe. Future work will involve the establishment of construct and discriminant validity prior to inclusion in the full ANCHOR trial.

Purpose: The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) is a library of question items that enables patient reporting of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials. This study contributes content validity evidence of the PRO-CTCAE by incorporating cancer patient input of the relevance and comprehensiveness of the item library., Methods: Cognitive interviews were conducted among patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at multiple sites to evaluate comprehension, memory retrieval, judgment, and response mapping related to AE terms (e.g., nausea), attribute terms (regarding frequency, severity, or interference), response options, and recall period. Three interview rounds were conducted with ≥20 patients completing each item per round. Items were modified and retested if ≥3 patients exhibited cognitive difficulties or if experienced by ≤25% patients., Results: One hundred and twenty-seven patients participated (35% ≤high school, 28% non-white, and 59% female). Most AE terms (63/80) generated no cognitive difficulties. The remaining 17 were modified without further difficulties by Round 3. Terms were comprehended regardless of education level. Attribute terms and response options required no modifications. Patient adherence to recall period (7 days) was improved when the reference period was incorporated., Conclusions: This study provides evidence confirming comprehension of the US English language versions of items in the PRO-CTCAE library for measuring symptomatic AEs from the patient perspective within the context of cancer treatment. Several minor changes were made to the items to improve item clarity, comprehension, and ease of response judgment. This study helps to establish the content validity of PRO-CTCAE items for patient reporting of AEs during cancer treatment.

Purpose: Adverse symptom event reporting is vital as part of clinical trials and drug labeling to ensure patient safety and inform risk-benefit decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of adverse event reporting of different clinicians for the same patient for the same visit., Methods: A retrospective reliability analysis was completed for a sample of 393 cancer patients (42.8% men; age 26-91, M = 62.39) from lung (n = 134), prostate (n = 113), and Ob/Gyn (n = 146) clinics. These patients were each seen by two clinicians who independently rated seven Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) symptoms. Twenty-three percent of patients were enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials., Results: The average time between rater evaluations was 68 min. Intraclass correlation coefficients were moderate for constipation (0.50), diarrhea (0.58), dyspnea (0.69), fatigue (0.50), nausea (0.52), neuropathy (0.71), and vomiting (0.46). These values demonstrated stability over follow-up visits. Two-point differences, which would likely affect treatment decisions, were most frequently seen among symptomatic patients for constipation (18%), vomiting (15%), and nausea (8%)., Conclusion: Agreement between different clinicians when reporting adverse symptom events is moderate at best. Modification of approaches to adverse symptom reporting, such as patient self-reporting, should be considered.