Search

Background: Despite the interest from the scientific community and regulatory agencies, limited data are available on the association between health-related quality-of-life (QoL) results, outcome of efficacy and drug approvals., Materials and Methods: We updated the previously published meta-research study of phase III clinical trials in patients with solid tumours treated with systemic treatments, published from 2012 to 2021 in 11 selected journals. For the present analysis, we focused on studies conducted in the advanced setting. The primary outcome was the association of global QoL results with study primary endpoints (EP1), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), while a secondary outcome was the frequency of positive global QoL results among treatments approved by regulatory agencies [European Medicines Agency (EMA)/Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]. A descriptive analysis was carried out and the association between QoL results and characteristics of studies and of publications was tested., Results: Five hundred and ninety-two eligible publications were identified from 2012 to 2021. The primary endpoint was OS in 298 clinical trials (50.3%) and PFS in 304 clinical trials (51.4%). A positive result in EP1 analysis was reported in 124 trials (41.6%) with OS as EP1 and in 182 trials (59.5%) with PFS as EP1. Among studies with positive OS and PFS, global QoL results were positive in 39 (31.5%) and 45 studies (24.7%), respectively. FDA and EMA approvals were available for 143 (24.2%) and 142 studies (24%), respectively. Among these, global QoL results were positive in 55 (38.5%) and 56 studies (39.4%), respectively. QoL results were available for most drugs approved by regulatory agencies, but the proportion of approvals with positive global QoL results was not significantly increased from 2012-2016 to 2017-2021., Conclusions: Despite QoL data being available for most cancer treatments recently approved by regulatory agencies, QoL improvement has been demonstrated in a minority of studies with positive results in the primary endpoint., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials are very common in oncology; nevertheless, the methodological approach has not been systematically evaluated. The present analysis was conducted with the aim of describing the prevalence and methodological characteristics of the subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials in patients with advanced cancer., Methods: A systematic literature search using PubMed was carried out to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials conducted in adult patients affected by locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours, published between 2017 and 2020., Results: Overall, 253 publications were identified. Subgroup analyses were reported in 217 (86%) publications. A statistically significant association of presence of subgroup analysis with study sponsor was observed: subgroup analyses were reported in 157 (94%) for-profit trials compared with 60 (70%) non-profit trials (P < 0.001). Description of the methodology of subgroup analysis was completely lacking in 82 trials (38%), only cited without methodological details in 100 trials (46%) and fully described in 35 trials (16%). Forest plot of subgroup analyses for the primary endpoint was available in 195 publications (77%). Among publications with reported forest plots, the median number of subgroups for primary endpoint was 19 (range 6-78). Out of the 217 publications with subgroup analyses, authors discuss the heterogeneity of treatment effect among different subgroups in 173 publications (80%), although a formal test for interaction for subgroup analysis of primary endpoint was reported for at least one variable only in 60 publications (28%). Correction for multiplicity was explicitly carried out only in nine trials (4%)., Conclusions: The very high prevalence of subgroup analyses in published papers, together with their methodological weaknesses, makes advisable an adequate education about their correct presentation and correct reading. More attention about proper planning and conduction of subgroup analysis should be paid not only by readers, but also by authors, journal editors and reviewers., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships that may be considered as potential competing interests: MDM reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Janssen, Eisai, Astellas, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Tesaro-GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. FP reports grants and personal fees from Bayer, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Incyte, MSD, Janssen Cilag, personal fees from Daichii Sankyo, Clovis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, Ipsen, Seagen, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Tesaro, Pfizer, Exelixis, Aileron, outside the submitted work. MLR had a role as a consultant for Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca and MSD outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: Trial designs using multiple primary endpoints (MPEs) are increasing in phase III cancer trials. Our objectives were to describe the incidence of MPEs in recently published phase III trials testing systemic treatments in patients with advanced cancer; the main characteristics of trials adopting MPEs; the presence of mature results for all endpoints in the primary publication; consistency between results of each endpoint and authors' conclusions., Methods: Articles of randomised phase III trials conducted in patients with advanced cancer, published between 2017 and 2020, were retrieved from PubMed. The main outcome was the proportion of trials with MPEs. In principle, according to regulatory agencies, we considered two distinct cases: (i) MPEs correspond to 'multiple chances' for the success of experimental treatment, needing adjustment for multiplicity, and (ii) a positive result depends on the success in all MPEs ('co-primary' endpoints)., Results: Out of 235 eligible trials, 27 trials (12%) adopted MPE, mostly overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The proportion of trials with MPEs increased over time, from 6% in 2017 to 20% in 2020 (p = 0.025). MPEs were adopted in 16% of for-profit trials versus 4% of non-profit trials (p = 0.006). The proportion of trials adopting MPEs was particularly high with immunotherapy (53%, p < 0.00001). Out of 27 trials with MPEs, 10 (37%) adopted an explicit definition of 'co-primary' endpoints, but only 1/10 declared the positivity of both endpoints critical for interpretation. Most trials (23, 85%) planned correction for multiplicity. Of 21 publications with positive conclusions, only 12 had a statistically significant positive result in both primary endpoints. In four cases (15%), positive conclusions were based on PFS results alone., Conclusions: Adoption of MPEs in randomised trials in oncology is quite common. Only a minority of trials respect recommendations by regulatory agencies about the adoption of MPEs, definition of 'co-primary' endpoints and correction for multiplicity., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships that may be considered as potential competing interests: Maria Lucia Reale had a role as a consultant for Eli-Lilly, outside the submitted work. Francesco Perrone reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, personal fees from Sandoz, grants and personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from Celgene, grants and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Janssen Cilag, grants from Roche, grants from Pfizer, outside the submitted work.Massimo Di Maio received honoraria and had roles as consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Eisai, Janssen, Astellas; received institutional research grant by Tesaro – GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Medical records are a relevant source for real-world evidence. We introduced patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice, demonstrating a significant quality-of-life improvement, compared to usual visit. In this secondary analysis, we describe the agreement between patients' and physicians' reports of 5 symptoms. Our hypothesis was that adoption of PROs questionnaire could significantly improve the agreement., Methods: Eligible patients were receiving active anti-cancer treatment. Patients in the control group underwent usual visits (group A), while patients of group B, before each visit, filled a PROs paper questionnaire, to provide information about symptoms and toxicities. No specific instructions were provided to physicians to integrate such information in medical records. Agreement between patient and physician evaluations was assessed by Cohen's κ, calculating under-reporting as proportion of toxicities reported by patients but not recorded by physicians., Results: 211 patients (412 visits) have been analyzed. For all symptoms, Cohen's κ was better for group B: emesis (0.25 group A vs. 0.36 group B), diarrhea (0.16 vs. 0.57), constipation (0.07 vs. 0.28), pain (0.22 vs. 0.42), fatigue (0.03 vs. 0.08). For all symptoms, although under-reporting was relevant in both groups, it was lower for group B: emesis (75.49% vs. 60.0%, p=0.031), diarrhea (82.89% vs. 50.0%, p<0.001), constipation (92.11% vs. 69.57%, p<0.001), pain (59.57% vs. 42.31%, p=0.01), fatigue (82.11% vs. 64.10%, p<0.001)., Conclusion: Adoption of paper PROs allowed a significant reduction in under-reporting of symptoms, but agreement remained suboptimal. Direct integration of electronic PROs could minimize the issue of under-reporting of medical records, increasing their accuracy.

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the gold standard to describe subjective symptoms. Nurses can be successfully involved in collecting symptom information, because of their direct relationship with the patient. In order to improve clinical management of outpatients receiving active anti-cancer treatment, we introduced in routine clinical practice an assessment of patient-reported symptoms and toxicities, starting from January 2018. Our hypothesis was that this could help to better control symptoms, improving patients' quality of life (QoL)., Methods: Eligible patients were receiving an active anti-cancer treatment, as outpatients. Patients included in the control group (treated in 2017) underwent "usual" visits (group A), while patients treated in 2018, before each visit received a questionnaire by a dedicated nurse, in order to provide information about symptoms and toxicities (group B). Primary objective was the comparison of QoL changes, measured by EORTC QLQ-C30., Results: A total of 211 patients have been analyzed (119 group A; 92 group B). After 1 month, mean change from baseline of global QoL was - 1.68 in group A and + 2.54 in group B (p = 0.004, effect size 0.20). Group B showed significantly better mean changes for fatigue, pain, and appetite loss. Proportion of patients obtaining a clinically significant improvement in global QoL score was higher in group B (32.6%) compared to group A (19.3%, p = 0.04). Patients' satisfaction with questionnaire was high., Conclusion: Introduction of PROs in clinical practice, thanks to an active role of nurses, was feasible, produced high patients' satisfaction and a significant QoL improvement, compared to the traditional modality of visit.

Quality of life (QoL) is a relevant end point and a topic of growing interest by both scientific community and regulatory authorities. Our aim was to review QoL prevalence as an end point in cancer phase III trials published in major journals and to evaluate QoL reporting deficiencies in terms of under-reporting and delay of publication. All issues published between 2012 and 2016 by 11 major journals were hand-searched for primary publications of phase III trials in adult patients with solid tumors. Information about end points was derived from paper and study protocol, when available. Secondary QoL publications were searched in PubMed. In total, 446 publications were eligible. In 210 (47.1%), QoL was not included among end points. QoL was not an end point in 40.1% of trials in the advanced/metastatic setting, 39.7% of profit trials and 53.6% of non-profit trials. Out of 231 primary publications of trials with QoL as secondary or exploratory end point, QoL results were available in 143 (61.9%). QoL results were absent in 37.6% of publications in the advanced/metastatic setting, in 37.1% of profit trials and 39.3% of non-profit trials. Proportion of trials not including QoL as end point or with missing QoL results was relevant in all tumor types and for all treatment types. Overall, 70 secondary QoL publications were found: for trials without QoL results in the primary publication, probability of secondary publication was 12.5%, 30.9% and 40.3% at 1, 2 and 3 years, respectively. Proportion of trials not reporting QoL results was similar in trials with positive results (36.5%) and with negative results (39.4%), but the probability of secondary publication was higher in positive trials. QoL is not included among end points in a relevant proportion of recently published phase III trials in solid tumors. In addition, QoL results are subject to significant under-reporting and delay in publication.