Search

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.)

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.)

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.)

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).)

Background: Minimally important differences (MIDs) allow interpretation of the clinical relevance of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results. This study aimed to estimate MIDs for all European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) scales for interpreting group-level results in brain tumor patients., Methods: Clinical and HRQOL data from three glioma trials were used. Clinical anchors were selected for each EORTC QLQ-C30 scale, based on correlation (>0.30) and clinical plausibility of association. Changes in both HRQOL and the anchors were calculated, and for each scale and time period, patients were categorized into one of the three clinical change groups: deteriorated by one anchor category, no change, or improved by one anchor category. Mean change method and linear regression were applied to estimate MIDs for interpreting within-group change and between-group differences in change over time, respectively. Distribution-based methods were applied to generate supportive evidence., Results: A total of 1687 patients were enrolled in the three trials. The retained anchors were performance status and eight Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales. MIDs for interpreting within-group change ranged from 4 to 12 points for improvement and -4 to -14 points for deterioration. MIDs for between-group difference in change ranged from 4 to 9 for improvement and -4 to -16 for deterioration. Most anchor-based MIDs were closest to the 0.3 SD distribution-based estimates (range: 3-10)., Conclusions: MIDs for the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales generally ranged between 4 and 11 points for both within-group mean change and between-group mean difference in change. These results can be used to interpret QLQ-C30 results from glioma trials., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology.)

Background: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 trial in patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma demonstrated improved recurrence-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo (hazard ratio 0·57 [98·4% CI 0·43-0·74]; p<0·0001). This study reports the results from the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) exploratory endpoint., Methods: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 123 academic centres and community hospitals across 23 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated histologically confirmed stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a central interactive voice-response system on the basis of a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographic region to receive intravenously 200 mg pembrolizumab or placebo. Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for 1 year, or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, with global health/quality of life (GHQ) over 2 years measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 as the primary analysis. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37, and long-term follow-up is ongoing., Findings: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Median follow-up was 15·1 months (IQR 12·8-16·9) at the time of this analysis. HRQOL compliance was greater than 90% at baseline, greater than 70% during the first year, and greater than 60% thereafter for both groups. Because of low absolute compliance numbers at later follow-up, the analysis was truncated to week 84. Baseline GHQ scores were similar between groups (77·55 [SD 18·20] in the pembrolizumab group and 76·54 [17·81] in the placebo group) and remained stable over time. The difference in average GHQ score between the two groups over the 2 years was -2·2 points (95% CI -4·3 to -0·2). The difference in average score during treatment was -1·1 points (95% CI -3·2 to 0·9) and the difference in average score after treatment was -2·2 points (-4·8 to 0·4). These differences are within the 5-point clinical relevance threshold for the QLQ-C30 and are therefore clinically non-significant., Interpretation: Pembrolizumab does not result in a clinically significant decrease in HRQOL compared with placebo when given as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma. These results support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab in this setting., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AMME reports non-financial support from BMS and Merck & Co during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Biocad, BioInvent, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), CatalYm, GSK, IO Biotech, ISA pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, Sellas, SkylineDx, Novartis, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. AMH reports personal fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD); and personal fees from Novartis and BMS, outside the submitted work. AJMvdE reports grants and personal fees from BMS; grants from Roche and Idera; and personal fees from MSD, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. AM reports personal fees from Lilly Pharma, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Merck, BMS, and Sanofi-Aventis Group, outside the submitted work AMDG reports advisor or consultant roles from BMS, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and MSD, outside the submitted work. ACJvA reports grants and personal fees from Amgen and Merck-Pfizer; and personal fees from BMS, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, and 4SC, outside the submitted work. CUB reports grants and personal fees from BMS and Novartis; personal fees from Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, and GenMAb; grants from NanoString and Third Rock Ventures; stock ownership of Unity Cars; and is a cofounder of Immagene, outside the submitted work. CR participated in advisory boards for Roche, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi, Biothera, and Ultimovacs. DS reports personal fees consulting or advisory role, honorarium, speakers bureau, travel, accommodations, and expenses from MSD during the conduct of the study; personal fees and non-financial support from Roche/Genentech, Merck Serono, and Merck; grants, personal fees, non-financial support, consulting or advisory role, honoraria, speakers bureau, travel, accommodations, expenses, and research funding from Novartis and Amgen; grants, personal fees, consulting or advisory role, honoraria, speakers bureau, travel, accommodations, expenses, and research funding from BMS; and personal fees from Immunocore, Incyte, 4SC, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Array BioPharma, Pfizer, Philogen, Regeneron, Nektar, and Sandoz, outside the submitted work. GVL reports personal fees from Aduro Biotech, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Highlight Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis Pharma, QBiotics, Rhegeneron Pharmaceuticals, and SkylineDX, outside the submitted work. NI and CK report personal fees from Merck & Co during the conduct of the study. J-JG reports personal fees from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi; and personal fees from Merck and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. JL reports grants and personal fees from BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Immunocore, Achilles therapeutics, and Nektar; personal fees from Eisai, GSK, Kymab, Secarna, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Imugene, Incyte, iOnctura, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Vitaccess, and Covance; and grants from Aveo and Pharmacyclics, outside the submitted work. LH-A reports personal fees from Merck during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from BMS, Merck, Amgen, Roche, Regeneron, Novartis, Immunocore, Merck-EMD, Corvus, Polynoma, and Genentech, outside the submitted work. MM reports grants from BMS, MSD, and Roche; and advisory board from Pierre Fabre, BMS, and MSD, outside the submitted work. MSC reports personal fees from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi; and personal fees from Merck Serono, Nektar, Eisia, and Ideaya, outside the submitted work. PAA reports grants and personal fees from BMS, Roche-Genentech, and Array; personal fees, advisory or consultant role, and travel support from MSD; personal fees from Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, Genmab, NewLink Genetics, Medimmune, AstraZeneca, Syndax, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. PCL reports personal fees and advisory, speaker, and trials roles for BMS, Novartis, Amgen, GSK, and Chugai; and personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work. PR reports personal fees from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Blueprint Medicines, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. RG reports documentation fees to institution from MSD during the conduct of the study; personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, Roche Pharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi Regeneron; fees from MSD, Almirall Hermal, SUN Pharma, and 4SC; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Amgen and Novartis; grants and personal fees from Pfizer; and grants from Johnson & Johnson, outside the submitted work. RJ reports grants, fees paid to institution for the conduct of studies in melanoma, and grant for Investigator Initiated Trial in metastatic melanoma from BMS during the conduct of the study; grants, per patients fees paid to the institution for the conduct of the study, and grant for Investigator Initiated Trial in metastatic melanoma from Merck; fees paid to the institution for the conduct of studies in melanoma from Roche/Genentech, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Novartis; and grants from Iovance, outside the submitted work; and has acted as a presenter or as a consultant in advisory boards for both BMS and Merck but has not received any monetary compensation for those roles. SD acts as principal investigator in clinical trials promoted by BMS and MSD and has received institutional research grants from BMS and MSD. SP reports grants from Leo Pharma, Almirall, Castle Bioscience, AMLO Bioscience, and Melagenics; personal fees from Amirall, Leo Pharma, Isdin, Sanofi, La Roche Posay, Regeneron, and Pfizer; speaker bureau from La Roche Posay, Roche, Pierre Fabre, BMS, Bioderma, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. SSa reports personal fees from BMS and MSD outside the submitted work. SSu, MK, CC, and AK report grants from MSD during the conduct of the study. VGA reports personal fees and non-financial support from BMS; personal fees from Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Nektar; and travel support from Onco-sec, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To provide reference values for the European Organisation for Treatment and Research of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients and 5-year HL survivors. The QLQ-C30 is the most widely used cancer-specific questionnaire to assess Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL)., Methods: The EORTC database was searched to identify HL RCTs in which patients' and survivors' HRQoL was assessed by the QLQ-C30. HRQoL mean scores were calculated and stratified by age and gender. Minimal important differences were used to assess the clinical relevance of the findings. Data from one RCT with HRQoL scores available at baseline (n = 343) and four RCTs with HRQoL scores available at follow-up (n = 1665) were analyzed., Results: Patients reported worse HRQoL scores than survivors across most functioning scales and symptoms' scales. These scores varied as a function of gender but not age. Survivors' HRQoL reports were comparable to the ones of the general population., Conclusions: These values provide an assessment framework for the comparison and interpretation of QLQ-C30 scores in advanced-stage HL. Our findings suggest that although HL patients' HRQoL scores are worse than the general population, HRQoL scores may normalize over long-term survival., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In the EORTC 1410/INTELLANCE 2 randomised, phase II study (NCT02343406), with the antibody-drug conjugate depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M, ABT-414) in patients with recurrent EGFR-amplified glioblastoma, the primary end-point (overall survival) was not met, and the drug had ocular dose-limiting toxicity. This study reports results from the prespecified health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and neurological deterioration-free survival (NDFS) exploratory analysis., Patients and Methods: Patients (n = 260) were randomised 1:1:1 to receive either Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg or 1.0 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks with oral temozolomide (TMZ) 150 mg/m 2 , Depatux-M alone, or TMZ or oral lomustine (CCNU) 110 mg/m 2 (TMZ/CCNU). HRQoL outcomes were recorded using the EORTC core Quality of Life QLQ-C30, and brain cancer-specific QLQ-BN20 questionnaires. Questionnaires were completed at baseline, weeks 8 and 16, and month 6, and changes from baseline to each time point were calculated. NDFS was defined as time to first deterioration in World Health Organisation performance status., Results: Compliance with HRQoL was 88.1% at baseline and decreased to 37.9% at month 6. Differences from baseline between Depatux-M arms and TMZ/CCNU in global health/QoL status throughout treatment did not reach clinical relevance (≥10 points). Self-reported visual disorders deteriorated to a clinically relevant extent with Depatux-M arms versus TMZ/CCNU at all timepoints (mean differences range: 24.6-35.1 points). Changes from baseline for other HRQoL scales and NDFS were generally similar between treatment arms., Conclusions: Depatux-M had no impact on HRQoL and NDFS in patients with EGFR-amplified recurrent glioblastoma, except for more visual disorders, an expected side-effect of the study drug., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02343406., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Linda Dirven, Sarah Nuyens, Maarten Spruyt, Thierry Gorlia, Corneel Coens and Jaap C. Reijneveld have nothing to disclose. Paul M. J. Clement received study budget funds from AstraZeneca; was an advisory board member for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Leo Pharma, Merck Serono, MSD and Vifor Pharma. Marica Eoli received consulting fees from AbbVie. Juan M. Sepulveda-Sanchez reports personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie; a grant from Pfizer as principal investigator; personal fees and non-financial support from Celgene; non-financial support from Ipsen; and personal fees from Astellas. Annemiek M. E. Walenkamp received research grants from IPSEN and Novartis; was an advisory board member for IPSEN, Karyopharm, Novartis and Polyphor; and received study budget funds from AbbVie, BMS, Genzyme, Karyopharm Therapeutics and Roche. Jean Sebastien Frenel has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. Enrico Franceschi was an advisory board member for Celgene and Karyopharm. Michael Weller has received research grants from AbbVie, Adastra, Merck, Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck (EMD) and Novocure; and honoraria for lectures or advisory board participation or consulting from AbbVie, Basilea, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Celgene, Medac, Merck, Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck (EMD), Nerviano Medical Sciences, Novartis, Orbus, Philogen, Roche and Tocagen. Olivier Chinot reports personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from immatics, non-financial support from BMS, non-financial support from Servier, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, outside the submitted work. Filip Y. F. L. De Vos received research grants from Novartis. Nicholas Whenham has received consulting fees from Bayer and Janssen. Paul Sanghera was an advisory board member for AbbVie and Roche. Jim Looman, Madan G. Kundu and Jan Peter de Geus are AbbVie employees and may own stock. Vassilis Golfinopoulos received research funding from AbbVie during the conduct of the study. Martin J. van den Bent received consulting fees from AbbVie, Agios, Bayer, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Carthera, Genenta, Karyopharm and Nerviano., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date., Methods: A systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis., Results: A total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215)., Conclusion: Many different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aim: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) assesses the health-related quality of life of patients in cancer trials. There are currently no minimally important difference (MID) guidelines for the EORTC QLQ-C30 for colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aims to estimate MIDs for the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales in patients with advanced CRC treated with chemotherapy and enrolled in clinical trials., Method: The data were obtained from three published EORTC trials that treated CRC patients using chemotherapy. Potential anchors were selected from clinical variables based on their correlation with EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change and between-group change were estimated via the mean change method and linear regression, respectively, and summarized using weighted correlation. Distribution-based MIDs were also examined., Results: Anchor-based MIDs were determined for deterioration in 8 of the 14 EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and in 9 scales for improvement, and varied by scale, direction of change and anchor. MIDs for improvement (deterioration) ranged from 6 to 18 (-11 to -5) points for within-group change and 5 to 15 (-10 to -4) for between-group change. Summarized MIDs (in absolute values) per scale mostly ranged from 5 to 10 points., Conclusions: These findings have clinical relevance for the interpretation of treatment efficacy and the design of clinical trials by informing sample size requirements., (© 2020 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Introduction: Minimal important differences (MIDs) are useful for interpreting changes or differences in health-related quality of life scores in terms of clinical importance. There are currently no MID guidelines for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) specific to ovarian cancer. This study aims to estimate MIDs for interpreting group-level change of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in ovarian cancer., Methods: Data were derived from four EORTC published trials. Clinical anchors for each EORTC QLQ-C30 scale were selected using correlation strength and clinical plausibility. MIDs for within-group change and between-group differences in change over time were estimated via mean change method and linear regression respectively. For each EORTC QLQ-C30 scale, MID estimates from multiple anchors were summarized via weighted-correlation. Distribution-based MIDs were also examined as supportive evidence., Results: Anchor-based MIDs were determined for deterioration in 7 of the 14 EORTC QLQ-C30 scales assessed, and in 11 scales for improvement. Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change ranged from 4 to 19 (improvement) and - 9 to -4 (deterioration). Between-group MIDs ranged from 3 to 13 (improvement) and - 11 to -4 (deterioration). Generally, absolute anchor-based MIDs for most scales ranged from 4 to 10 points., Conclusions: Our findings will aid interpretation of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in ovarian cancer and inform sample size calculations in future ovarian cancer trials with endpoints that are based on EORTC QLQ-C30 scales., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to estimate minimally important difference (MID) for interpreting group-level change over time for European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in head and neck cancer., Methods: Data were derived retrospectively from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors were selected using correlation strength and clinical plausibility of the given anchor/QLQ-C30 scale pair. MIDs for within-group and between-group change were estimated via the mean change method and linear regression, respectively. Distribution-based MIDs were also examined. MIDs for two of the scales, dyspnea and nausea/vomiting, are more uncertain considering their low correlations with the anchors., Results: Anchor-based MIDs could be determined for deterioration in 7 of the 14 QLQ-C30 scales assessed, and in 3 scales for improvement. MIDs varied by scale, direction of change, and anchor. Absolute MID values ranged from 5 to 15 points for within-group change and 4 to 12 for between-group change. Most MIDs were within 4 to 10 points., Conclusions: Our findings, if confirmed, will aid interpreting changes in selected QLQ-C30 scale scores over time and inform sample size calculations in future clinical trials in head and neck cancer., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Two methods combining survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in glioma trials to calculate the "net clinical benefit" were evaluated: Quality-adjusted effect sizes (QASES) and joint modeling (JM)., Methods: The net clinical benefit in two trials was calculated as proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) and HRQoL between the experimental arm and standard treatment arm were calculated, while the relative emphasis placed on survival/HRQoL varied. JM allows simultaneous modeling of HRQoL and OS/PFS., Results: In the EORTC 26951 trial, combined radiochemotherapy significantly prolonged OS (difference 11.7 months), but also resulted in more patients experiencing clinically relevant worsening (≥10 points) in appetite loss and nausea/vomiting shortly after treatment. Using QASES, the survival benefit of additional procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) decreased from 42.3 months to 29.5 and 28.2 months when accounting for appetite loss and nausea/vomiting, respectively. JM analyses resulted in a loss of the beneficial effect of additional PCV between 13% and 24% when adjusting for different HRQoL parameters. The EORTC 22033 trial showed no significant PFS difference between radiotherapy or temozolomide alone (46 vs 39 months), nor clinically relevant differences in HRQoL. JM analyses also showed no significant association between PFS and HRQoL scales/items, whereas QASES showed that temozolomide alone was more favorable when considering symptom burden (47-49 instead of 39 months)., Conclusions: Both methods resulted in different outcomes, but adjusting for the impact of treatment on HRQoL resulted in theoretically reduced survival benefits., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.)

Background: Uterine sarcomas are a group of rare tumors that include different subtypes. Patients with histopathological high-grade diseases are at high-risk of recurrence or progression, and have a poor prognosis. We aim to explore the most appropriate management in patients with uterine high-grade sarcomas., Primary Objective: To assess the efficacy of maintenance treatment with cabozantinib in patients with high-grade uterine sarcomas who achieved clinical benefit after standard chemotherapy., Study Hypothesis: Maintenance treatment with cabozantinib after standard chemotherapy given as an adjuvant treatment after curative surgery, or in locally advanced or metastatic disease, increases progression-free survival compared with placebo TRIAL DESIGN: This is a randomized double blinded phase II trial., Major Inclusion/exclusion Criteria: The study is enrolling adult patients with high-grade undifferentiated uterine sarcomas, high-grade endometrial stromal sarcomas, high-grade leiomyosarcoma, and high-grade adenosarcoma, FIGO (Federation International gynecologue Obstétricien) stage II/III to IV in stable disease or who achieved complete or partial response with doxorubicin ± ifosfamide, who are assigned 1:1 to 60 mg daily cabozantinib (experimental arm) or placebo (control arm), as maintenance therapy. Exclusion criteria include low-grade sarcoma., Primary Endpoint: Progression-free survival at 4 months., Sample Size: The study plans to enroll 90 patients to allow the randomization of 54 patients to detect an improvement in 4-month progression-free survival from 50% to 80% with 15% significance level and 85% power. Estimated dates for accrual completion: recruitment for the trial started in February 2015, and has currently enrolled 83 patients, of whom 35 patients have been randomized. The end of recruitment is anticipated for December 2020., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01979393., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Different analytical methods may lead to different conclusions about the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to examine 3 different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL and to study whether these methods result in different conclusions., Methods: HRQoL data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined (CODAGLIO project). Change in HRQoL scores, measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and BN20 questionnaires, was analyzed in 3 ways: (1) at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms, (2) at the patient level per scale/item, calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved, or remained stable per scale/item, and (3) at the individual patient level, combining all scales/items., Results: Baseline and first follow-up HRQoL data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level, only the item "hair loss" showed a significant and clinically relevant change (ie, ≥10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items were statistically significant only (all P  < .001; range in change score, 0.1-6.2). Although a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range, 27%-84%) on the patient level per scale/item, many patients deteriorated (range, 6%-43%) or improved (range, 8%-32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level, the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, whereas only 1% remained stable on all scales., Conclusions: Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct conclusions of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for informing clinical decision making., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.)

Background: Depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M) is a tumor-specific antibody-drug conjugate consisting of an antibody (ABT-806) directed against activated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and the toxin monomethylauristatin-F. We investigated Depatux-M in combination with temozolomide or as a single agent in a randomized controlled phase II trial in recurrent EGFR amplified glioblastoma., Methods: Eligible were patients with centrally confirmed EGFR amplified glioblastoma at first recurrence after chemo-irradiation with temozolomide. Patients were randomized to either Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg every 2 weeks intravenously, or this treatment combined with temozolomide 150-200 mg/m2 day 1-5 every 4 weeks, or either lomustine or temozolomide. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival., Results: Two hundred sixty patients were randomized. In the primary efficacy analysis with 199 events (median follow-up 15.0 mo), the hazard ratio (HR) for the combination arm compared with the control arm was 0.71 (95% CI = 0.50, 1.02; P = 0.062). The efficacy of Depatux-M monotherapy was comparable to that of the control arm (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.73, 1.48; P = 0.83). The most frequent toxicity in Depatux-M treated patients was a reversible corneal epitheliopathy, occurring as grades 3-4 adverse events in 25-30% of patients. In the long-term follow-up analysis with median follow-up of 28.7 months, the HR for the comparison of the combination arm versus the control arm was 0.66 (95% CI = 0.48, 0.93)., Conclusion: This trial suggests a possible role for the use of Depatux-M in combination with temozolomide in EGFR amplified recurrent glioblastoma, especially in patients relapsing well after the end of first-line adjuvant temozolomide treatment. (NCT02343406)., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology.)

Clinical trials of treatments for high-grade gliomas have traditionally relied on measures of response or time-dependent metrics; however, these endpoints have limitations because they do not characterise the functional or symptomatic effect of the condition on the person. Including clinical outcome assessments, such as patient- reported outcomes (PROs), to determine net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy is needed because of the substantial burden of symptoms and impaired functioning in this patient population. The US National Cancer Institute convened a meeting to review previous recommendations and existing PRO measures of symptoms and function that can be applied to current trials and clinical practice for high-grade gliomas. Measures were assessed for relevance, relationship to disease and therapy, sensitivity to change, psychometric properties, response format, patient acceptability, and use of self-report. The group also relied on patient input including the results of an online survey, a literature review on available clinical outcomes, expert opinion, and alignment with work done by other organisations. A core set of priority constructs was proposed that allows more comprehensive evaluation of therapies and comparison of outcomes among studies, and enhances efforts to improve the measurement of these core clinical outcomes. The proposed set of constructs was then presented to the Society for Neuro-Oncology Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group and feedback was solicited., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Considering the worldwide incidence of breast cancer (BC) and the importance of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment, there is a growing need to have accurate and up-to-date reference values (RVs). RVs are useful for the design of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and as benchmarks for comparison of cancer RCTs and health care interventions. This study aimed to provide RVs for the QLQ-C30 in early BC (EBC) and metastatic BC (MBC). General patterns of main results from the EORTC dataset (main dataset) were compared with the PDS dataset (comparison dataset) to see whether they would be consistent across pre-defined covariates., Methods: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) (main dataset) and Project Data Sphere (PDS) (comparison dataset) were searched to identify BC RCTs where baseline HRQoL (before treatment) was assessed with the QLQ-C30. RVs were calculated and stratified by disease stage, age, and when available, performance status (PS), comorbidity and region. RVs were reported using descriptive statistics., Results: Data from three EORTC (n = 4115) and three PDS RCTs (n = 1406) were included in the analysis. While EBC patients presented better HRQoL with high baseline functioning scores and low prevalence of symptoms, MBC patients reported worse HRQoL with lower functioning scores and more prevalence of symptoms. In MBC, poor PS and presence of comorbidities reflected worse baseline HRQoL. No consistent differences were found for age and countries., Conclusion: These up-to-date RVs for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in BC show differences in HRQoL scores between stages, PS, and comorbidities. These findings, supported by an independent dataset, will help the clinical interpretation of scores for BCpatients., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A previous review published in 2008 highlighted the prognostic significance of baseline patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as independent predictors of the overall survival of patients with cancer in clinical studies. In response to the methodological limitations of studies included in the previous review, recommendations were subsequently published in the same year to promote a higher level of methodological rigour in studies of prognostic factors. Our systematic review aimed to provide an update on progress with the implementation of these recommendations and to assess whether the methodological quality of prognostic factor analyses has changed over time. Of the 44 studies published between 2006 and 2018 that were included in our review, more standardisation and rigour of the methods used for prognostic factor analysis was found compared with the previous review. 41 (93%) of the trials reported at least one PRO domain as independently prognostic. The most common significant prognostic factors reported were physical functioning (17 [39%] studies) and global health or quality of life (15 [34%] studies). These findings highlight the value of PROs as prognostic or stratification factors in research across most types of cancer., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Symptom management in glioma patients remains challenging, as patients suffer from various concurrently occurring symptoms. This study aimed to identify symptom clusters and examine the association between these symptom clusters and patients' functioning., Methods: Data of the CODAGLIO project was used, including individual patient data from previously published international randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in glioma patients. Symptom prevalence and level of functioning were assessed with European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 self-report questionnaires. Associations between symptoms were examined with Spearman correlation coefficients and partial correlation networks. Hierarchical cluster analyses were performed to identify symptom clusters. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to determine independent associations between the symptom clusters and functioning, adjusted for possible confounders., Results: Included in the analysis were 4307 newly diagnosed glioma patients from 11 RCTs who completed the EORTC questionnaires before randomization. Many patients (44%) suffered from 5-10 symptoms simultaneously. Four symptom clusters were identified: a motor cluster, a fatigue cluster, a pain cluster, and a gastrointestinal/seizures/bladder control cluster. Having symptoms in the motor cluster was associated with decreased (≥10 points difference) physical, role, and social functioning (betas ranged from -11.3 to -15.9, all P < 0.001), independent of other factors. Similarly, having symptoms in the fatigue cluster was found to negatively influence role functioning (beta of -12.3, P < 0.001), independent of other factors., Conclusions: Two symptom clusters, the fatigue and motor cluster, were frequently affected in glioma patients and were found to independently have a negative association with certain aspects of patients' functioning as measured with a self-report questionnaire., (© The Author(s) 2019. 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.)

Objective: Prognostic value of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data may be important to inform patients in clinical practice and to guide clinical decision-making. Our study investigated the added prognostic value of HRQoL for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in a large heterogeneous sample of glioma patients, besides known prognostic factors., Methods: We included individual baseline data from previously published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in glioma patients in which HRQoL was assessed through the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 questionnaires. Multivariable Cox regression models (stratified for newly diagnosed versus recurrent disease) were constructed, first with clinical variables (age, sex, tumour type, performance status, allocated treatment and extent of resection) only and subsequently with HRQoL variables added, separately for OS and PFS. The added prognostic value of HRQoL was calculated using C-indices., Results: Baseline HRQoL and clinical data from 15 RCTs were included, comprising 5217 patients. In the model including both clinical and HRQoL variables, better cognitive and role functioning and less motor dysfunction were independently associated with longer OS, whereas better role and cognitive functioning, less nausea and vomiting and more appetite loss were independently associated with prolonged PFS. However, C-indices indicated only a small prognostic improvement of the models for OS and PFS when adding HRQoL to the clinical prognostic variables (+1.1% for OS and +.7% for PFS)., Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that several baseline HRQoL variables are independently prognostic for OS and PFS, yet the added value of HRQoL to the known clinical prognostic variables was small., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed 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 advanced breast cancer., Methods: Data were derived from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors (eg, performance status [PS]) were selected using correlation strength and clinical plausibility of their association with a particular QLQ-C30 scale. Three change status groups were formed: deteriorated by one anchor category, improved by one anchor category, and no change. Patients with greater anchor changes were excluded. The mean change method was used to estimate MIDs for within-group change, and linear regression was used to estimate MIDs for between-group differences in change over time. For a given QLQ-C30 scale, MID estimates from multiple anchors were triangulated to a single value via a correlation-based weighted average., Results: MIDs varied by QLQ-C30 scale, direction (improvement vs deterioration), and anchor. MIDs for within-group change ranged from 5 to 14 points (improvement) and -14 to -4 points (deterioration), and MIDs for between-group change over time ranged from 4 to 11 points and from -18 to -4 points. Correlation-weighted MIDs for most QLQ-C30 scales ranged from 4 to 10 points in absolute values., Conclusions: Our findings aid interpretation of changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores over time, both within and between groups, and for performing more accurate sample size calculations for clinical trials in advanced breast cancer., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: It is currently unknown whether increasing radiation therapy (RT) volume has a negative impact on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with low-grade glioma in the short term. The aim was to examine whether the size of the target volume is independently associated with HRQoL., Methods and Materials: We included patients who were treated with radiation therapy in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 22033-26033 study and who completed baseline HRQoL assessment. HRQoL was measured at baseline and every 3 months thereafter until progression, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life and brain cancer module questionnaires (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20). We investigated whether there were associations between radiation volumes and (changes in) 4 preselected HRQoL scales (global health status, cognitive and social functioning, and fatigue). Also, we determined if radiation volumes were independently associated with a change in HRQoL over time., Results: We included 195 of 240 patients (81.3%) randomized to radiation therapy in this analysis. The brain volume receiving radiation therapy was not associated with (changes in) HRQoL during the first 24 months after radiation therapy. Over time, radiation volumes were also not independently associated with HRQoL. Notably, the occurrence of tumor progression was found to be associated with worse functioning and more fatigue., Conclusions: The brain target volume receiving focal radiation therapy in fractions of 1.8 Gy to a total of 50.4 Gy did not appear to be independently associated with HRQoL in high-risk patients with low-grade glioma in the short term, as opposed to tumor progression. However, the impact of radiation volumes on long-term HRQoL, as well as neurocognitive functioning, remains to be investigated., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Individual patient data from two randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with upfront debulking surgery in advanced tubo-ovarian cancer were analysed to examine long-term outcomes for patients and to identify any preferable therapeutic approaches for subgroup populations., Methods: We did a per-protocol pooled analysis of individual patient data from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 55971 trial (NCT00003636) and the Medical Research Council Chemotherapy Or Upfront Surgery (CHORUS) trial (ISRCTN74802813). In the EORTC trial, eligible women had biopsy-proven International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC or IV invasive epithelial tubo-ovarian carcinoma. In the CHORUS trial, inclusion criteria were similar to those of the EORTC trial, and women with apparent FIGO stage IIIA and IIIB disease were also eligible. The main aim of the pooled analysis was to show non-inferiority in overall survival with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with upfront debulking surgery, using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Tests for heterogeneity were based on Cochran's Q heterogeneity statistic., Findings: Data for 1220 women were included in the pooled analysis, 670 from the EORTC trial and 550 from the CHORUS trial. 612 women were randomly allocated to receive upfront debulking surgery and 608 to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 7·6 years (IQR 6·0-9·6; EORTC, 9·2 years [IQR 7·3-10·4]; CHORUS, 5·9 years [IQR 4·3-7·4]). Median age was 63 years (IQR 56-71) and median size of the largest metastatic tumour at diagnosis was 8 cm (IQR 4·8-13·0). 55 (5%) women had FIGO stage II-IIIB disease, 831 (68%) had stage IIIC disease, and 230 (19%) had stage IV disease, with staging data missing for 104 (9%) women. In the entire population, no difference in median overall survival was noted between patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and upfront debulking surgery (27·6 months [IQR 14·1-51·3] and 26·9 months [12·7-50·1], respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·86-1·09; p=0·586). Median overall survival for EORTC and CHORUS patients was significantly different at 30·2 months (IQR 15·7-53·7) and 23·6 months (10·5-46·9), respectively (HR 1·20, 95% CI 1·06-1·36; p=0·004), but was not heterogeneous (Cochran's Q, p=0·17). Women with stage IV disease had significantly better outcomes with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with upfront debulking surgery (median overall survival 24·3 months [IQR 14·1-47·6] and 21·2 months [10·0-36·4], respectively; HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·58-1·00; p=0·048; median progression-free survival 10·6 months [7·9-15·0] and 9·7 months [5·2-13·2], respectively; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·59-1·00; p=0·049)., Interpretation: Long-term follow-up data substantiate previous results showing that neoadjuvant chemotherapy and upfront debulking surgery result in similar overall survival in advanced tubo-ovarian cancer, with better survival in women with stage IV disease with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This pooled analysis, with long-term follow-up, shows that neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a valuable treatment option for patients with stage IIIC-IV tubo-ovarian cancer, particularly in patients with a high tumour burden at presentation or poor performance status., Funding: National Cancer Institute and Vlaamse Liga tegen kanker (Flemish League against Cancer)., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs., Methods and Results: Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including "missing data,""health-related quality of life," and "patient-reported outcome." Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data., Conclusion: The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

Introduction: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly recognised as an important end-point in cancer clinical trials. The concept of minimally important difference (MID) enables interpreting differences and changes in HRQOL scores in terms of clinical meaningfulness. We aimed to estimate MIDs for interpreting group-level change of European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with malignant melanoma., Methods: Data were pooled from three published melanoma phase III trials. Anchors relying on clinician's ratings, e.g. performance status, were selected using correlation strength and clinical plausibility of associating the anchor/EORTC QLQ-C30 scale pair. HRQOL change was evaluated between time periods that were common to all trials: start of treatment to end of treatment and end of treatment to end of follow-up. Three change status groups were formed: deteriorated by one anchor category, improved by one anchor category and no change. Patients with greater anchor change were excluded. The mean change method and linear regression were used to estimate MIDs for change in HRQOL scores within the group and between the groups of patients, respectively., Results: MIDs varied according to QLQ-C30 scale, direction (improvement versus deterioration), anchor and period. MIDs for within-group change ranged from 4 to 18 points (improvement) and -16 to -4 points (deterioration), and MIDs for between-group change ranged from 3 to 16 points and from -16 to -3 points. MIDs for most of QLQ-C30 scales ranged from 5 to 10 points in absolute values., Conclusions: These results are useful for interpreting changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores over time and for performing more accurate sample size calculations in adjuvant melanoma settings., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, are important endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there is little consensus about the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of these data. We did a systematic review to assess the variability, quality, and standards of PRO data analyses in advanced breast cancer RCTs. We searched PubMed for English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2017. Eligible articles were those that reported PRO results from RCTs of adult patients with advanced breast cancer receiving anti-cancer treatments with reported sample sizes of at least 50 patients-66 RCTs met the selection criteria. Only eight (12%) RCTs reported a specific PRO research hypothesis. Heterogeneity in the statistical methods used to assess PRO data was observed, with a mixture of longitudinal and cross-sectional techniques. Not all articles addressed the problem of multiple testing. Fewer than half of RCTs (28 [42%]) reported the clinical significance of their findings. 48 (73%) did not report how missing data were handled. Our systematic review shows a need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs. Lack of standardisation makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions and compare findings across trials. The Setting International Standards in the Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data Consortium was set up to address this need and develop recommendations on the analysis of PRO data in RCTs., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bevacizumab is frequently used in the treatment of recurrent WHO grade II and III glioma, but without supporting evidence from randomised trials. Therefore, we assessed the use of bevacizumab in patients with first recurrence of grade II or III glioma who did not have 1p/19q co-deletion., Methods: The TAVAREC trial was a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial done at 32 centres across Europe in patients with locally diagnosed grade II or III glioma without 1p/19q co-deletion, with a first and contrast-enhancing recurrence after initial radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both. Previous chemotherapy must have been stopped at least 6 months before enrolment and radiotherapy must have been stopped at least 3 months before enrolment. Random group assignment was done electronically through the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer web-based system, stratified by a minimisation procedure using institution, initial histology (WHO grade II vs III), WHO performance status (0 or 1 vs 2), and previous treatment (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or both). Patients were assigned to receive either temozolomide (150-200 mg/m 2 , orally) monotherapy on days 1-5 every 4 weeks for a maximum of 12 cycles, or the same temozolomide regimen in combination with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, intravenously) every 2 weeks until progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 12 months in the per-protocol population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who started their allocated treatment. The study is registered at EudraCT (2009-017422-39) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01164189), and is complete., Findings: Between Feb 8, 2011, and July 31, 2015, 155 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either monotherapy (n=77) or combination therapy (n=78). Overall survival in the per-protocol population at 12 months was achieved by 44 (61% [80% CI 53-69]) of 72 patients in the temozolomide group and 38 (55% [47-69]) of 69 in the combination group. The most frequent toxicity was haematological: 17 (23%) of 75 patients in the monotherapy group and 25 (33%) of 76 in the combination group developed grade 3 or 4 haematological toxicity. Other than haematological toxicities, the most common adverse events were nervous system disorders (59 [79%] of 75 patients in the monotherapy group vs 65 [86%] of 76 in the combination group), fatigue (53 [70%] vs 61 [80%]), and nausea (39 [52%] vs 43 [56%]). Infections were more frequently reported in the combination group (29 [38%] of 76 patients) than in the monotherapy group (17 [23%] of 75). One treatment-related death was reported in the combination group (infection after intratumoral haemorrhage during a treatment-related grade 4 thrombocytopenia)., Interpretation: We found no evidence of improved overall survival with bevacizumab and temozolomide combination treatment versus temozolomide monotherapy. The findings from this study provide no support for further phase 3 studies on the role of bevacizumab in this disease., Funding: Roche Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aims of this study were to externally validate an established association between baseline health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores and survival and to assess the added prognostic value of HRQOL with respect to demographic and clinical indicators., Methods: Pooled data were analyzed from 17 randomized controlled trials opened by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group between 1991 and 2004; they included survival and baseline HRQOL data from 3606 patients with 8 different cancer sites. The models included sex, age (≤60 vs >60 years), World Health Organization performance status (0 or 1 vs 2-4), distant metastases (no vs yes), and 15 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) scales. Analyses were conducted with multivariate Cox proportional hazards models and were stratified by cancer site. Harrell's discrimination C-index was used to calculate the predictive accuracy of the model when HRQOL parameters were added to clinical and demographic variables. The added value of adding HRQOL scales to clinical and demographic variables was illustrated with Kaplan-Meier curves., Results: In the stratified, multivariate model, HRQOL parameters-global health status (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.00; P < . 0001), dyspnea (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06; P < . 0002), and appetite loss (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08; P < . 0001)-were independent prognostic factors in addition to the demographic and clinical variables (all P values < .05). Adding these HRQOL variables to the clinical variables resulted in an added relative prognostic value for survival of 5%., Conclusions: These results confirm previous findings showing that baseline HRQOL scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 provide prognostic information in addition to information from clinical measures. However, the impact of specific domains may differ across studies. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

The US Food and Drug Administration and the Critical Path Institute's Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium convened a cosponsored workshop on the use of PRO measures to inform the assessment of safety and tolerability in cancer clinical trials. A broad array of international stakeholders involved in oncology drug development and PRO measurement science provided perspectives on the role of PRO measures to provide complementary clinical data on the symptomatic side effects of anticancer agents. Speakers and panelists explored the utility of information derived from existing and emerging PRO measures, focusing on the PRO version of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Panelists and speakers discussed potential ways to improve the collection, analysis, and presentation of PRO data describing symptomatic adverse events to support drug development and better inform regulatory and treatment decisions. Workshop participants concluded the day with a discussion of possible approaches to the patient-reported assessment of an investigational drug's overall side effect burden as a potential clinical trial end point. The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its commitment to collaborate with international drug development stakeholders to identify rigorous methods to incorporate the patient perspective into the development of cancer therapeutics., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The revised version of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system (2014) for epithelial ovarian cancer includes a number of changes. One of these is the division of stage IV into 2 subgroups. Data on the prognostic and predictive significance of this classification are scarce. The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus primary debulking surgery (PDS) in relation to the subclassification of FIGO stage IV is also unknown., Methods: We used data of the EORTC 55971 trial, in which 670 patients with previous stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to PDS or NACT; 160 patients had previous stage IV. Information on previous FIGO staging and presence of pleural effusion with positive cytology were used to classify tumors as either stage IVA or IVB. We tested the association between stage IVA/IVB and survival to evaluate the prognostic value and interactions between stage, treatment, and survival to evaluate the predictive performance., Results: Among the 160 participants with previous stage IV disease, 103 (64%) were categorized as stage IVA and 57 (36%) as stage IVB tumors. Median overall survival was 24 months in FIGO stage IVA and 31 months in stage IVB patients (P = 0.044). Stage IVB patients treated with NACT had 9 months longer median overall survival compared with IVB patients undergoing PDS (P = 0.025), whereas in IVA patients, no significant difference was observed (24 vs 26 months, P = 0.48)., Conclusions: The reclassification of FIGO stage IV into stage IVA or IVB was not prognostic as expected. Compared with stage IVA patients, stage IVB patients have a better overall survival and may benefit more from NACT.

Introduction: As patient assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in cancer clinical trials has increased over the years, so has the need to attach meaningful interpretations to differences in HRQOL scores between groups and changes within groups. Determining what represents a minimally important difference (MID) in HRQOL scores is useful to clinicians, patients and researchers, and can be used as a benchmark for assessing the success of a healthcare intervention. Our objective is to provide an evidence-based protocol to determine MIDs for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). We will mainly focus on MID estimation for group-level comparisons. Responder thresholds for individual-level change will also be estimated., Methods and Analysis: Data will be derived from published phase II and III EORTC trials that used the QLQ-C30 instrument, covering several cancer sites. We will use individual patient data to estimate MIDs for different cancer sites separately. Focus is on anchor-based methods. Anchors will be selected per disease site from available data. A disease-oriented and methodological panel will provide independent guidance on anchor selection. We aim to construct multiple clinical anchors per QLQ-C30 scale and also to compare with several anchor-based methods. The effects of covariates, for example, gender, age, disease stage and so on, will also be investigated. We will examine how our estimated MIDs compare with previously published guidelines, hence further contributing to robust MID guidelines for the EORTC QLQ-C30., Ethics and Dissemination: All patient data originate from completed clinical trials with mandatory written informed consent, approved by local ethical committees. Our findings will be presented at scientific conferences, disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and also compiled in a MID 'blue book' which will be made available online on the EORTC Quality of Life Group website as a free guideline document., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)