Search

Background: Current toxicity evaluation is primarily focused on high-grade adverse events (AEs) reported by clinicians. However, the cumulative effect of multiple lower-grade AEs may also impact patients' quality of life (QoL). Further, patient-reported toxicity may be more representative of patients' treatment experiences. This study aimed to determine whether cumulative toxicity comprising all-grade AEs is more associated with QoL than cumulative toxicity comprising high-grade AEs only, and whether patient-reported cumulative toxicity is more associated with QoL than clinician-reported cumulative toxicity. Methods: Patients with metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer participating in the phase III GETUG-AFU 15 trial completed questionnaires on AEs (at 3 and 6 months) and QoL (at baseline and 3 and 6 months). Clinicians reported AEs during clinical visits. Cumulative toxicity scores were calculated for clinicians and patients in 3 ways: total number of high-grade AEs, total number of all-grade AEs, and total number of all AEs multiplied by their grade (severity score). Relationships between cumulative toxicity scores and QoL were studied using longitudinal regression analyses; unstandardized (B) and standardized regression coefficients (β) are reported. Results: Of 385 patients, 184 with complete QoL and toxicity data were included. Clinician-reported all-grade AEs (B, -2.2; 95% CI, -3.3 to -1.1; P <.01) and severity score (B, -1.4; 95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7; P <.01) were associated with deteriorated physical QoL, whereas the total number of high-grade AEs was not. All patient-reported scores were significantly ( P <.01 for all) associated with deteriorated physical and global QoL. Standardized regression coefficients indicated that patient-reported toxicity scores were more associated with QoL outcomes than clinician-reported scores, with the strongest association found for the all-grade AEs and severity cumulative toxicity scores. Conclusions: Patient- and clinician-based cumulative toxicity scores comprising all-grade AEs better reflect impact on patient QoL than toxicity scores comprising high-grade AEs only. To assess the effect of toxicity on QoL, patient-reported cumulative toxicity scores are preferred., (Copyright © 2018 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.)

Background: New palliative systemic treatment regimens in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have significantly improved overall survival and prognosis. These treatment regimens are often accompanied by increased toxicity, which may impair patients' quality of life (QOL). We systematically reviewed whether severe toxicity affects global QOL in patients with mCRC receiving palliative systemic treatment in recent published randomized controlled trials (RCTs)., Materials and Methods: Phase III RCTs evaluating palliative systemic treatments in patients with mCRC and published between 2004 and 2016 were considered. Studies were evaluated on the basis of global QOL scores, toxicity during treatment (assessed by scoring relevant adverse events) and primary outcomes (POs)., Results: A total of 30 studies were identified in which 19863 patients were included. In 25 out of these 30 trials (83%), no difference in global QOL between treatment arms was observed. In contrast, 22 out of 30 trials (73%) showed increased toxicity during treatment in the experimental arm as compared with the control arm. In 19 out of 22 trials with higher toxicity (86%) global QOL outcomes remained unaffected or improved. In ten out of eleven studies with a better PO, no improvement in global QOL was seen., Conclusion: Global QOL of patients with mCRC included in phase III RCTs evaluating palliative systemic treatment did not differ across treatment arms despite consistently higher toxicity during treatment of the experimental compared with the standard treatment arms. Based on these findings we conclude that the use of global QOL for comparing treatment arms in RCTs for patients with mCRC does not provide information of clinical relevance. Further consideration of how to better assess the net effect of new agents on patients' QOL is urgently needed., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)