Search

BackgroundWhile therapeutic bronchoscopy has been used to treat malignant central (CAO) airway obstruction for >25 years, there are no studies quantifying the impact of therapeutic bronchoscopy on long-term quality-adjusted survival.MethodsWe conducted a prospective observational study of consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic bronchoscopy for CAO. Patients had follow-up at 1 week and monthly thereafter until death. Outcomes included technical success (ie, relief of anatomic obstruction), dyspnoea, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and quality-adjusted survival.ResultsTherapeutic bronchoscopy was performed on 102 patients with malignant CAO. Partial or complete technical success was achieved in 90% of patients. At 7 days postbronchoscopy, dyspnoea improved (mean ∆Borg-day-7=−1.8, 95% CI −2.2 to −1.3, pConclusionsTherapeutic bronchoscopy improves HRQOL as compared with baseline, resulting in approximately a 5.8% improvement in HRQOL per day of life. The risk-benefit profile in these carefully selected patients was very favourable.Trial registration numberResults; NCT03326570.

Background: Acalabrutinib (Acala) is a next-generation, highly selective, covalent BTK inhibitor (BTKi) approved for the treatment of CLL. The phase 3 ASCEND study demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with Acala vs investigator's choice of chemoimmunotherapy (bendamustine + rituximab [BR]) or pi3K inhibitor (idelalisib) + rituximab (IR) in R/R CLL patients (pts) (Ghia et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020). In ELEVATE-RR, Acala demonstrated non-inferior PFS vs a first-generation BTKi (ibrutinib [Ibr]) in R/R CLL pts with high-risk genomics (Byrd et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021). Acala was well tolerated in both trials. Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms and Toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis balances risks (toxicity) and benefits (prolonged survival without symptoms of disease progression or adverse events [AEs]) of oncology treatments. We conducted a Q-TWiST analysis using data from these trials to assess risk-benefit of Acala vs comparators among R/R CLL pts. Methods: Patient survival time with 16 months (ASCEND) and 41 months (ELEVATE-RR) of median follow-up data were partitioned into 3 states: time with toxicity before disease progression (TOX); time without progression or toxicity (TWiST); and time from disease progression until death or end of follow-up (relapse [REL]). Toxicity was defined as grade 3/4 AEs and, for the comparison vs Ibr, an additional definition of toxicity included AEs of any grade with frequency ≥10% (AE ≥10%). Sensitivity analyses with toxicity defined as grade 2-4 AEs will be presented. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for TOX, PFS, and overall survival (OS). For the TOX curve, event time for each pt was calculated by summing days with AEs (per toxicity definition) before disease progression, with no pt censored. Restricted means were calculated for the longest PFS time among treatment arms. Restricted mean TWiST duration was estimated using the difference between restricted means of PFS and TOX. Restricted mean REL duration was estimated using the difference between restricted means of OS and PFS. Q-TWiST was calculated by summing weighted restricted mean durations of TOX, TWiST, and REL. Utility of 1.0 for TWiST and 0.5 for TOX and REL (Gelber et al. Am Statistician. 1995) were applied. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using utility measures from trial data. Two-sided p Results: Among Acala vs IR/BR-treated pts, significantly longer duration of TWiST (mean diff, 3.58 months [95% CI, 2.42, 4.74]) and shorter duration of REL (mean diff, −2.51 months [95% CI, −3.50, −1.60]) and TOX (mean diff, −0.73 months [95% CI, −1.24, −0.24]) were found, indicating Acala vs IR/BR-treated pts had longer time without disease progression and toxicity and shorter time with toxicity. Q-TWiST was significantly different (1.96 months [95% CI, 1.13, 2.81]) between Acala (17.48 months) and IR/BR (15.52 months). In the Acala and Ibr comparison, differences in durations of TWiST and TOX varied based on the toxicity definition while the difference in REL durations remained consistent (mean diff, 0.37 months [95% CI, −1.82, 2.60]; p=0.33]). With the toxicity definition of AE ≥10%, Q-TWiST was significantly different (2.56 months [95% CI, 0.19, 4.83]) for Acala (33.02 months) vs Ibr (30.46 months). When toxicity was defined as grade 3/4 AEs, Q-TWiST had higher estimates for Acala but the difference was not statistically significant (1.28 months [95% CI, −1.34, 3.80]). In the sensitivity analysis, Q-TWiST gains were not statistically significant, most likely because the study was not designed to collect EQ-5D data post-treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: Q-TWiST analyses integrate efficacy, safety, and quality of life into a more appropriate measure useful for detailed benefit-risk assessment of cancer treatment. This analysis demonstrated that Acala treatment is significantly superior to IR/BR treatment. Quality-adjusted survival gains of Acala over Ibr varied by toxicity definition, but was numerically higher for Acala. Overall, Acala demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile vs different comparators in R/R CLL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Seymour: Mei Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaitonde: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Research Funding. Emeribe: AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Cai: Celgene Corporation: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Google: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mato: Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy.

INTRODUCTION The impact of treatment on both the quality and the quantity of life, i.e. the ‘net clinical benefit’, should be considered to facilitate shared decision making. Two methods that combine survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data: Quality Adjusted Effect Sizes (QASES) and Joint Modelling (JM) were applied to gain insight in the net clinical benefit. METHODS The net clinical benefit in one RCT (EORTC 26951 comparing radiotherapy (RT) + PCV chemotherapy versus RT alone) was calculated as a proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in survival and HRQoL between treatment arms were calculated. JM allows simultaneous modeling of a longitudinal outcome (HRQoL), and a time-to event outcome (survival). HRQoL scales/items that were selected for primary analysis in the main study were also selected for this analysis: fatigue, global health, social functioning, communication deficit, seizures, physical functioning, and nausea/vomiting. RESULTS 288/386 patients completed baseline HRQoL forms and were included in the analysis. Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with combined treatment (42.3 vs. 30.6 months). The percentage of patients who experienced a clinically relevant deterioration (≥10 points) in nausea/vomiting, fatigue, social functioning and global health up to one year after treatment compared to baseline was larger in the RT+PCV arm. QASES corresponded to a reduction in the median OS difference from 9.7 months up till 5.5 months, given equal weights to OS and HRQoL. JM analyses resulted in a theoretical loss of treatment effect in OS of 2–6% when adjusting for HRQoL. CONCLUSION Both methods showed that adjusting for the impact of treatment on a relevant HRQoL parameter reduced the survival benefit in the experimental treatment arm compared to standard treatment arm. Applying these methods may facilitate communicating the impact of treatment to patients in clinical practice.

Breast cancer treatment recommendations will often require an appraisal of likely benefits in relation to likely side effects on survival and quality of life end points, and possibly also an evaluation of the size of the anticipated net clinical benefit against financial costs. Quality-adjusted survival (QAS) analysis methods provide a formal approach for deriving an estimate of net clinical benefit to facilitate this appraisal process. QAS analysis methods have been applied in trials with breast cancer patients of adjuvant therapies as well as treatments for advanced/metastatic disease. QAS analyses based solely on trial data may fail to capture plausible longer-term benefits; thus, methods to explore the possible outcomes of treatment beyond the limits of trial data have been developed. These modeling approaches can help researchers gain insights and identify future research priorities, but do not replace the need for long-term evidence from randomized trials.

Purpose: To incorporate quality-of-life considerations in assessing high dose therapy (HDT) for patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM). Patients and methods: A quality-adjusted survival analysis, using the quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) method, was applied to two randomized clinical trials conducted in patients with MM which compared randomized assignment to HDT vs. conventional chemotherapy (CCT) alone (MAG91) or followed by HDT (MAG90). Treatment benefit in terms of mean Q-TWiST was assessed through threshold utility analyses, i.e., sensitivity analyses of the choice of the utility coefficients over all possible values of utility weights. Results: In both trials, results slightly favored the first-line HDT group over the first-line CCT group, with an average gain in TWiST of about 5.5 months over the 58 month-median follow-up period (27.8 vs. 22.3 months, respectively) in the MAG90 trial and 5.8 months over the 56 month-median follow-up period (19.1 vs. 13.3 months, respectively) in the MAG91 trial. The utility threshold analyses revealed that the first-line HDT group had a statistically increased mean quality-of-life adjusted time compared to the other group for a broad range of utility coefficient values. Conclusion: The development of such understandable and intuitive measures of expressing the relative benefit of complex treatment strategies is expected to be used in clinical decision making in the near future.

SUMMARY Quality adjusted survival analysis is a new approach to therapy evaluation in clinical trials. It has received much attention recently because of its ability to take patients' quality of life into consideration. In this paper, we present a method that enables us to calculate the survival distribution of quality adjusted lifetime. Using martingale theory for counting processes, we can show that our estimator is asymptotically consistent, normally distributed, and its asymptotic variance estimate can be obtained analytically. Simulation experiments are conducted to compare our estimator with the true underlying distribution for two cases that are of practical importance.

Purpose: To quantify the quality of life of malignant glioma patients treated on a randomized Phase I/II trial of twice-daily radiation therapy (RT) and carmustine, using a modified quality adjusted survival (QAS) model, and to compare the QAS among assigned treatment arms. Materials and Methods: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) accrued 786 malignant glioma patients to a Phase I/II randomized dose escalation trial of twice-daily RT with carmustine from 1983 to 1989. Patients were randomized to one of four arms of hyperfractionated RT in 1.2 Gy twice daily (BID) fractions (64.8 Gy, 72.0 Gy, 76.8 Gy, or 81.6 Gy) or to either of two accelerated hyperfractionated RT arms in 1.6 Gy BID fractions (48.0 or 54.4 Gy). Although preliminary toxicity and survival data have been published, little information is available regarding the quality of these patients' lives during and following such therapy. QAS is a refinement of the methodology for assessing survival quality among breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. The QAS method allows for inclusion of both improvement and decline in neurologic functional status. Patients were scored by the presence or absence of 15 neurologic signs and symptoms at on-study and at every follow-up. Within each category were gradations of severity, with the quality survival time (Q-TIME) adjusted according to any changes in these neurologic findings. The summation of all changes in signs and symptoms were weighted by 1/15th and incorporated into the QAS model as QAS=Q-TIME-TOX-RRX. TOX was the time spent with treatment-related toxicities, and RRX was the time spent in recovery from subsequent therapy. Results: Of 747 evaluable patients, the average QAS time was 18.5 months. The average QAS for the hyperfractionated arms of 64.8 Gy, 72.0 Gy, 76.8 Gy, and 81.6 Gy were 15.6, 20.8, 10.0, and 13.7 months, respectively. For the accelerated hyperfractionated RT arms of 48.0 and 54.4 Gy, the average QAS times were 13.1 and 13.4 months. The QAS time of the 72.0 Gy arm was significantly longer than that of all other groups, except the 64.8 Gy arm. As expected, the QAS times were strongly discriminated by both age and Karnofsky Performance Scores (KPS) (p