Search

Editorial accompanying the special section of papers published in Quality of Life Research with the title "Methodologies and Considerations for Meaningful Change".

Objective: Patient-reported transition ratings are supposed to reflect the change between a previous baseline health state and a present follow-up state, but may reflect the present state to a greater extent. This so-called “present state bias” (PSB) potentially threatens the validity of transition ratings. Several criteria have been proposed to assess PSB. We examined how well these criteria perform and to which extent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for categorical data provides an accurate assessment of the degree of PSB. Study Design and Setting: We simulated multiple samples with baseline and follow-up item responses to a hypothetical questionnaire, and transition ratings. The samples varied with respect to various distributional characteristics and the degree of PSB. The performance of criteria proposed in the literature, and a new CFA-based criterion, were evaluated by the proportion of explained variance in PSB. In addition, four real datasets were analyzed. Results: The known criteria explained 36–74% of the variance in PSB. A new CFA-based criterion, namely the ratio of the factor loadings of the transition ratings plus one, explained 81–98% of the variance in PSB across the samples. Conclusion: Present state bias in transition ratings can be estimated accurately using CFA.

Objectives There is growing interest in condition-specific preference measures, including the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D). This research assessed the implications of using utility indices on the basis of the EQ-5D-3L, a mapping of EQ-5D-3L to the EQ-5D-5L, and the QLU-C10D, and compared their psychometric properties. Methods Data were taken from 8 phase 3 randomized controlled trials of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab for the treatment of solid tumors. Utilities for progression-related states were calculated using the UK and English value sets and incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from established UK cost-effectiveness models. The psychometric properties of the utility indices were assessed using pooled trial data. Results Compared with the EQ-5D-3L index, the mapped EQ-5D-5L index yielded an average of 6% more and the QLU-C10D index an average of 2% fewer incremental QALYs for nivolumab versus comparators. All indices could differentiate between groups defined by performance status, cancer stage, or self-reported health status at baseline and detect meaningful changes in performance status, tumor response, health status, and quality of life over approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Conclusions The lower QALY yield of the QLU-C10D was balanced by evidence of greater validity and responsiveness. Benefits gained from using the QLU-C10D may be apparent when treatments affect targeted symptoms and functional aspects, including sleep, bowel function, appetite, nausea, and fatigue. The observed differences in QALYs may not be sufficiently large to affect health technology assessment decisions.

Objective: To evaluate psychometric performance of the NCCN-FACT Ovarian Cancer Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18) in advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: Cross-sectional, observational data from patients receiving treatment for ovarian cancer. Other measures included European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core (EORTC QLQ-C30) and associated ovarian cancer module (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment. Internal consistency reliability, construct validity and anchor-based clinically important differences were assessed. Results: 897 patients were analyzed. Reliability was acceptable for all NFOSI-18 scores; construct validity was supported. Twelve anchors sufficiently correlated with NFOSI-18 scores and suggested clinically important differences: NFOSI-18 total score (5–7), disease-related symptoms – physical (3–4), disease-related symptoms – emotional (1), treatment side effects (2) and functional well-being (1–2). Conclusions: Results provide evidence of reliability and validity of NFOSI-18 scores. Generated CIDs will help improve interpretation of between-group treatment differences in clinical trials.

PurposeThresholds for meaningful within-individual change (MWIC) are useful for interpreting patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). Transition ratings (TR) have been recommended as anchors to establish MWIC. Traditional statistical methods for analyzing MWIC such as mean change analysis, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and predictive modeling ignore problems of floor/ceiling effects and measurement error in the PROM scores and the TR item. We present a novel approach to MWIC estimation for multi-item scales using longitudinal item response theory (LIRT).MethodsA Graded Response LIRT model for baseline and follow-up PROM data was expanded to include a TR item measuring latent change. The LIRT threshold parameter for the TR established the MWIC threshold on the latent metric, from which the observed PROM score MWIC threshold was estimated. We compared the LIRT approach and traditional methods using an example data set with baseline and three follow-up assessments differing by magnitude of score improvement, variance of score improvement, and baseline-follow-up score correlation.ResultsThe LIRT model provided good fit to the data. LIRT estimates of observed PROM MWIC varied between 3 and 4 points score improvement. In contrast, results from traditional methods varied from 2 to 10 points—strongly associated with proportion of self-rated improvement. Best agreement between methods was seen when approximately 50% rated their health as improved.ConclusionResults from traditional analyses of anchor-based MWIC are impacted by study conditions. LIRT constitutes a promising and more robust analytic approach to identifying thresholds for MWIC. Purpose: Thresholds for meaningful within-individual change (MWIC) are useful for interpreting patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). Transition ratings (TR) have been recommended as anchors to establish MWIC. Traditional statistical methods for analyzing MWIC such as mean change analysis, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and predictive modeling ignore problems of floor/ceiling effects and measurement error in the PROM scores and the TR item. We present a novel approach to MWIC estimation for multi-item scales using longitudinal item response theory (LIRT). Methods: A Graded Response LIRT model for baseline and follow-up PROM data was expanded to include a TR item measuring latent change. The LIRT threshold parameter for the TR established the MWIC threshold on the latent metric, from which the observed PROM score MWIC threshold was estimated. We compared the LIRT approach and traditional methods using an example data set with baseline and three follow-up assessments differing by magnitude of score improvement, variance of score improvement, and baseline-follow-up score correlation. Results: The LIRT model provided good fit to the data. LIRT estimates of observed PROM MWIC varied between 3 and 4 points score improvement. In contrast, results from traditional methods varied from 2 to 10 points—strongly associated with proportion of self-rated improvement. Best agreement between methods was seen when approximately 50% rated their health as improved. Conclusion: Results from traditional analyses of anchor-based MWIC are impacted by study conditions. LIRT constitutes a promising and more robust analytic approach to identifying thresholds for MWIC.

Introduction : Transition ratings (TRs) are single item measures which ask patients to report on their health change. They allow for a simple assessment of improvement or deterioration and are frequently used as an “anchor” to determine interpretation thresholds on an patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Despite their widespread use, a routinely applicable method to assess their reliability is lacking. This paper introduces a method to estimate the reliability of TRs based on confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for categorical data. Method : We modelled longitudinal PROM data as independent factors representing Time 1 and Time 2 in a CFA model. PROM items taken at Time 1 (T1) loaded on the first factor, while the same items taken at Time 2 (T2) loaded on the second. The TR item loaded onto both T1 and T2 factors. Three models with various constraints on the loadings and thresholds were examined. The communality (R2) statistic was used as a measure of the TR reliability. The approach was evaluated using simulated data and exemplified in four empirical datasets. Results : The simplest CFA model without constraints on the item loadings and thresholds performed equivalently to models with constraints on loadings and thresholds over time. Further constraints on the TR item loadings to be equal and opposite over time caused biased TR reliability estimates if the T1 and T2 loadings differed in magnitude. In the four empirical datasets, reliability of TRs ranged from 0.27 to 0.48. In three examples the TR had numerically stronger loading on T2 than on T1. Discussion and conclusions : Results support the use of the proposed method in understanding the reliability of TRs. Empirical study results reflect the typical range of reliability that has previously been reported for single items. Methodological considerations to improve TR reliability are presented, and developments of this method, are posited.

The notion of what constitutes meaningful differences or changes in patient-reported outcome scores is represented by meaningful change thresholds (MCTs). Applying multiple methods to estimate MCTs inevitably results in a range of estimates; however, a single estimate or small range is sought in practice to enable consistent interpretation of scores. While current recommendations for triangulation are appropriate in principle, the vital step of moving from all estimates to a value or small range lacks clarity and is subjective in nature. This article aims to review current triangulation approaches and provide more robust recommendations than what is currently available. Current approaches to perform triangulation are described and discussed. Anchor-based estimates are focussed upon due to their recognition as the most valid and developed approach. Recommendations for triangulation are provided. A correlation-weighted average of MCT estimates is recommended to triangulate multiple MCT estimates derived from a single study into a single value, where increased weighting is given to stronger anchor measures. The choice of method to triangulate estimates from several published studies is highly dependent on the availability of information within the publications. MCTs designed for between-group differences, within-group changes, and within-individual changes should be considered separately. The recommendations within this article provide a reliable and transparent approach to triangulation when a single value is sought, based on meta-analytic approaches. This approach is preferable to a simple mean of estimates where all are weighted equally, or through ‘eyeballing’ plotted estimates which is unreliable. We encourage researchers to adopt these methods, but to remain aware of the limitations within each method and further nuances in study design that result in heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses with a range of plausible values are encouraged; however, the recommendations provide a suitable starting value for inferences. Unresolved issues in triangulation, requiring further exploration, are highlighted.

Objectives Thresholds for the minimally important difference (MID) or responder definition (RD) in health‐related quality‐of‐life (HRQoL) scores are required to interpret the impact of an intervention or change in the trajectory of the condition which is meaningful to patients. This study aimed to establish MID and RD for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Multiple Myeloma questionnaire (EORTC QLQ‐MY20). Methods A novel mixed‐methods approach was applied by utilizing both existing clinical trial data and prospective patient interviews. Anchor‐based, distribution‐based, and qualitative‐based estimates of meaningful change were triangulated to form recommended RDs for each scale of the EORTC QLQ‐MY20. Anchor‐based MIDs were summarized using weighted correlation. Results Recommended MIDs were as follows: Disease Symptoms (DS 10 points), Side Effects of Treatment (SE 10 points), Body Image (BI 13 points), and Future Perspective (FP 9 points). Recommended RDs were as follows: DS (16 improvement; 11 worsening), SE (6 improvement; 9 worsening), BI (33 improvement; 33 worsening), and FP (11 improvement; 11 worsening). Conclusions The study generated estimates of the MID and RD for each scale of the EORTC QLQ‐MY20. Published estimates will enable investigators and clinicians to adopt these as standard for interpretation and for hypothesis testing. Consequently, analyses from trials of different interventions can be more comparable.

We compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with once-weekly carfilzomib 70 mg/m2 (Kd70 mg/m2) vs. twice-weekly carfilzomib 27 mg/m2 (Kd27 mg/m2) plus dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Patient-reported convenience/satisfaction collected at Cycle 2, Day 1 was compared between groups using logistic regression. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), MM-module (QLQ-MY20), and EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires were administered at baseline, then every other cycle. PROs were compared between groups using mixed models for repeated measures. Times from randomization to first deterioration (TTD) in scores were analyzed using Cox regression. PRO analyses included 469 patients. Once-weekly Kd70 mg/m2 patients reported greater convenience (odds ratio [OR], 4.98; p

**Background:** Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and its treatments are associated with significant symptoms, side effects and impact on patients functioning. The Hepatitis C Symptom and Impact Questionnaire version 4 (HCV-SIQv4) was developed according to FDA Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) Guidance, for evaluating chronic HCV infection and its treatment. **Objectives:** This study evaluated the psychometric properties and clinically important change (CIC) thresholds of the measure. **Methods:** PRO data were pooled from three Phase IIb and III trials evaluating interferon-free simeprevircontaining regimens for treatment of chronic HCV infection. Scale range adequacy, reliability, validity, responsiveness and CIC thresholds were assessed incorporating knowledge of the appropriate measurement model. **Results:** Data from 437 patients were analyzed. Stage of liver disease was associated with symptom severity and functioning at baseline. Reliability was acceptable (test-retest ICC ≥0.7) for most scores except the Gastrointestinal and Integumentary domains. Convergent validity was observed between HCV-SIQv4 scores and concurrent measures of conceptual similarity. Greater symptom severity and worse impact scores were associated with liver cirrhosis, depression, severe fatigue and health limitations. Patients who achieved SVR12 had better outcomes than those failing to. HCV-SIQv4 symptom and domain scores were responsive to changes in health state (effect sizes ≥0.5). Exploratory thresholds for change in scores indicating a clinically important improvement and worsening were HCV-SIQv4 Overall Body System Score (BSS), 8 and 8; Constitutional BSS, 10 and 10; Gastrointestinal BSS, 5 and 5; Psychiatric BSS, 8 and 8; Neurocognitive BSS, 8 and 8; and Integumentary BSS, 5 and 5. **Conclusions:** The HCV-SIQv4 offers reliable, responsive assessments within HCV clinical development. CIC thresholds are now available to aid score interpretation.

Background The Endometriosis Symptom Diary (ESD) and Endometriosis Impact Scale (EIS) are patient-reported outcome measures developed to evaluate efficacy in clinical trials and clinical practice. The ESD is a daily electronic diary assessing symptom severity; the EIS is a weekly electronic diary assessing symptom impact. This study explored the importance of symptoms (ESD items) and impacts (EIS domains), perspectives on scoring algorithms, and clinically important difference (CID) thresholds to inform clinical trial score interpretation. Methods Endometriosis patients in Germany (n = 8) and the US (n = 17), and expert clinicians (n = 4) in Germany, the US, Spain, and Finland participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews comprising structured tasks. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. Results Quality and severity of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain varied considerably among patients; some experienced pelvic pain daily, others during menstrual bleeding (dysmenorrhea) only. Patients and clinicians ranked “worst pelvic pain” as the most meaningful pain concept assessed by the ESD, followed by constant and short-term pelvic pain. Preferences for summarizing daily pain scores over the 28-day menstrual cycle depended on individuals’ experience of pain: patients experiencing pain daily preferred scores summarizing data for all 28 days; patients primarily experiencing pain during selected days, and their treating clinicians preferred scores based on the most severe pain days. Initial CID exploration for the “worst pelvic pain” 0–10 numerical rating scale (0–10 NRS) revealed that, for most patients, a 2- or 3-point reduction was considered meaningful, depending on baseline severity. Patients and clinicians ranked “emotional well-being” and “limitations in physical activities” as the most important EIS domains. Conclusions This study informs the use of the ESD and EIS as clinically relevant measures of endometriosis symptoms and their impact. Findings from the ESD highlight the importance of individual-patient assessment of pain experience and identify “worst pelvic pain” as the most meaningful symptom assessed. Aggregating scores over the 28-day menstrual cycle may inform meaningful endpoints for clinical trials. Diverse EIS concepts (e.g. impact on emotional well-being and physical activities) are meaningful to patients and clinicians, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the impact on both to comprehensively assess treatment efficacy and decisions. Trial registration Not applicable. Qualitative, non-interventional study; registration not required.

BackgroundDefining the transition from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) can be challenging and delayed. A digital tool (MSProDiscuss) was developed to facilitate physician-patient discussion in evaluating early, subtle signs of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease progression representing this transition.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine cut-off values and corresponding sensitivity and specificity for predefined scoring algorithms, with or without including Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, to differentiate between RRMS and SPMS patients and to evaluate psychometric properties.MethodsExperienced neurologists completed the tool for patients with confirmed RRMS or SPMS and those suspected to be transitioning to SPMS. In addition to age and EDSS score, each patient’s current disease status (disease activity, symptoms, and its impacts on daily life) was collected while completing the draft tool. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined optimal cut-off values (sensitivity and specificity) for the classification of RRMS and SPMS.ResultsTwenty neurologists completed the draft tool for 198 patients. Mean scores for patients with RRMS (n=89), transitioning to SPMS (n=47), and SPMS (n=62) were 38.1 (SD 12.5), 55.2 (SD 11.1), and 69.6 (SD 12.0), respectively (PConclusionsThe MSProDiscuss tool differentiated RRMS patients from SPMS patients with high sensitivity and specificity. In clinical practice, it may be a useful tool to evaluate early, subtle signs of MS disease progression indicating the evolution of RRMS to SPMS. MSProDiscuss will help assess the current level of progression in an individual patient and facilitate a more informed physician-patient discussion.

Background Infertility has a negative impact on quality of life (QoL) and well-being of affected individuals and couples. A variety of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to assess infertility-related QoL are available; however, there is a concern regarding potential issues with their development methodology, validation and use. This review aimed to i) identify PRO measures used in infertility interventional studies ii) assess validation evidence to identify a reliable, valid PRO measure to assess changes in QoL or treatment satisfaction in clinical studies with female patients following treatment with novel therapies iii) identify potential gaps in evidence for validity. Methods A structured literature search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (accessed in September 2015) was conducted using pre-defined search terms. The identified publications were reviewed applying eligibility criteria to select interventional female infertility studies using PROs. Infertility-specific PRO measures assessing QoL, treatment satisfaction or psychiatric health, and included in studies by ≥2 research groups were selected and critically reviewed in light of scientific and regulatory guidance (e.g. FDA PRO Guidance for Industry) for evidence of content validity, psychometric strength, and patient acceptability. Results The literature search and hand-searching yielded 122 publications; 78 unique PRO measures assessing QoL, treatment satisfaction or psychiatric health were identified. Five PRO measures met the selection criteria for detailed review: Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL); Fertility Problem Inventory (FPI); Fertility Problem Stress (FPS); Infertility Questionnaire (IFQ); Illness Cognitions Questionnaire adapted for Infertility (ICQ-I). None of the PRO measures met all validation criteria. The FertiQoL was the most widely used infertility-specific PRO measure to assess QoL in interventional studies, with reasonable evidence for adequate content validity, psychometric strength, and linguistic validation. However, gaps in evidence remain including test-retest reliability and thresholds for interpreting clinically important changes. While the FPI demonstrated reasonable evidence for content and psychometric validity, its utility as an outcome measure is limited by a lack of recall period. Conclusion The FertiQoL and the FPI are potentially useful measures of infertility-related QoL in interventional studies. Further research is recommended to address gaps in evidence and confirm both PRO measures as reliable assessments of patient outcomes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0666-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121) is a B-cell maturation antigen-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy under investigation in the KarMMa trial as a treatment for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who are triple-class exposed to immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies. In the phase 2 KarMMa trial, ide-cel demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile in this patient population (Munshi NC, et al. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:8503). Ide-cel also demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in the key health-related quality of life (HRQoL) symptoms associated with MM (Delforge M, et al. HemaSphere 2020;4:EP1000). Translating HRQoL data to health state utility values (HSUVs)/HRQoL weights is key to understanding the HRQoL impact of a treatment in relation to that of a healthy general population and is an important consideration in clinical decision making and health technology assessments. HSUVs are scored between 0 and 1, where 0 is death and 1 is perfect health. In the general population, individuals of a similar age range to patients with MM have HSUV scores of 0.83 in the USA, 0.80 in the UK, and 0.84 in Canada (Guertin JR, et al. CMAJ 2018;190:E155-161; Janssen MF, et al. Eur J Health Econ 2019;20:205-216). This analysis aimed to determine HSUVs for patients treated in the KarMMa study according to their progression status. Methods: HRQoL assessment in the KarMMa study (NCT03361748) included the European Quality of Life-5 dimensions 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) health state classifier performed at specified time points: prior to receiving lymphodepleting chemotherapy (baseline), day of infusion (Day 1), Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15, inclusive of disease progression/relapse or complete remission. Using US, UK, and Canadian weights, HSUVs were estimated for the KarMMa trial at an aggregate level. A longitudinal mixed-effects model was used with health state as a fixed effect, and a random intercept term. Three models were run using different health states. Model 1 considered 3 health states: baseline, pre-progression, and post-progression. In Model 2, the pre-progression health state was split into 2 time periods: Day 1 to the end of Month 1, and Month 2 onward. In Model 3, 2 pre-progression health states were defined based on the quality of response to treatment, thus capturing the difference in HRQoL for patients achieving at least a very good partial response (≥ VGPR) or patients who did not achieve a VGPR (< VGPR). Results: The HSUVs derived from the 3 different models using US, UK, and Canadian tariffs are summarized (Table). In all 3 models, patients in the pre-progression state experienced an increase in HRQoL from baseline. In Model 1, the increment ranged from +0.05 to +0.08. On progression, patients experienced a decrement (−0.01 to −0.03), but their HSUV remained above the baseline value by +0.04 to +0.05, indicating that ide-cel treatment was associated with an improvement in HRQoL, with some of the benefit remaining even upon disease progression. When HSUV in the pre-progression state was analyzed in Model 2 at Month 1 and then Month 2 onward, patients also experienced an increase in their HRQoL from baseline. While this increase was small in Month 1 (+0.02 to +0.04), the subsequent increase from baseline (i.e. from Month 2 onward) was more pronounced (+0.07 to +0.10) reflecting the benefits of a one-off administration of ide-cel and the associated treatment-free interval. A further analysis of the pre-progression HSUV by the quality of response in Model 3 showed that patients who achieved ≥ VGPR had a greater improvement in HRQoL (+0.08 to +0.11) than patients who achieved < VGPR. Both response levels were associated with an improvement in HRQoL compared with baseline, with HRQoL for patients achieving ≥ VGPR approaching that of the general population (Figure). Conclusions: Results of this analysis indicate that ide-cel provides clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL for patients with triple-class-exposed RRMM. The benefit is particularly marked in patients who achieve ≥ VGPR, in whom HRQoL approaches that of the general population. Disclosures Delforge: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Shah:BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding; GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy. Rodriguez-Otero:Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen, BMS: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; BMS, Janssen, Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen, BMS, AbbVie, Sanofi, GSK, Oncopeptides, Kite, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hari:Amgen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Braverman:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Trigg:Adelphi Values: Current Employment. Patel:BMS: Current Employment. Huang:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Hege:Arcus Biosciences: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Mersana Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses, Patents & Royalties: Numerous, Research Funding. Dhanasiri:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Purpose Pancreatic cancer and its treatments impact patients’ symptoms, functioning, and quality of life. Content-valid patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are required to assess outcomes in clinical trials. This study aimed to: (a) conceptualise the patient experience of pancreatic cancer; (b) identify relevant PRO instruments; (c) review the content validity of mapped instruments to guide PRO measurement in clinical trials. Methods Qualitative literature and interviews with clinicians and patients were analysed thematically to develop a conceptual model of patient experience. PRO instruments were reviewed against the conceptual model to identify gaps in measurement. Cognitive debriefing explored PRO conceptual relevance and patients’ understanding. Results Patients in the USA (N = 24, aged 35–84) and six clinicians (from US and Europe) were interviewed. Pre-diagnosis, pain was the most frequently reported symptom (N = 21). Treatments included surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. Surgery was associated with acute pain and gastrointestinal symptoms. Chemotherapy/chemoradiation side effects were cyclical and included fatigue/tiredness (N = 21), appetite loss (N = 15), bowel problems (N = 15), and nausea/vomiting (N = 15). Patients’ functioning and well-being were impaired. The literature review identified 49 PRO measures; the EORTC QLQ-C30/PAN26 were used most frequently and mapped with interview concepts. Patients found the EORTC QLQ-C30/PAN26 to be understandable and relevant; neuropathic side effects were suggested additions. Conclusions This is the first study to develop a conceptual model of patients’ experience of metastatic/recurrent pancreatic cancer and explore the content validity of the EORTC QLQ-C30/PAN26 following therapeutic advances. The EORTC QLQ-C30/PAN26 appears conceptually relevant; additional items to assess neuropathic side effects are recommended. A recall period should be stated throughout to standardise responses. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-019-02233-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

9057 Background: In the registrational phase 2 CodeBreaK 100 trial, sotorasib demonstrated a response rate of 37.1% with median duration of 10.0 months, a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months, and a tolerable safety profile in patients with pretreated KRAS p.G12C mutated NSCLC. Patients received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy. Here, we report PRO measures of health-related quality of life (QoL), physical functioning, and key lung cancer symptoms from this trial. Methods: Eligible patients had KRAS p.G12C mutated advanced NSCLC and received prior standard therapies. Sotorasib was given at an oral daily dose of 960 mg with 21-day treatment cycles until disease progression. Disease-related symptoms and health-related QoL were evaluated as exploratory endpoints on day 1 of each cycle from baseline to discontinuation, using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and its lung cancer module, EORTC QLQ-LC13. The single item, 5-point scale GP5, of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General version was used to evaluate the impact of side effects. Predefined analyses included change from baseline using descriptive statistics and mixed model for repeated measures for global health status/QoL, physical functioning, and key lung cancer symptoms of cough, dyspnea and chest pain. Results: Of 126 patients enrolled, compliance rates for each of the questionnaires were high throughout the study ( > 70%). Data up to cycle 11 (where n > 20) are presented. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL and physical functioning were maintained over time (least-square mean changes ranged from -3.5 to 0.2 and 0.1 to 3.9, respectively). EORTC QLQ-C30 symptoms of fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, and constipation were stable or improved. Similarly, key lung cancer-related symptoms, as measured by EORTC QLQ-LC13, remained stable or improved from baseline, with the greatest least-square mean change of -11.2 (95% Cl: -16.2, -6.1) for cough, -4.9 (95% Cl: -10.3, 0.4) for chest pain, and -3.4 (95% Cl: -7.8, 1.0) for dyspnea. Most patients reported on the GP5 that they were “not at all” (54.2%-79.2%) or “a little bit” (8.3%-33.3%) bothered by side effects from sotorasib, with 0%-7.4% reporting being bothered as “quite a bit” and 0% as “very much”. Conclusions: In patients from the single-arm phase 2 trial of sotorasib, PRO measures suggested maintenance or improvement of global health status/QoL, physical functioning, and the severity of key lung cancer-related symptoms, including cough, dyspnea, and chest pain. Self-reported side effect bother was minimal. These data, together with the encouraging efficacy and safety profiles, strongly support the use of sotorasib in this population. Clinical trial information: NCT03600883.

Study 311 (E2007-G000-311; NCT02849626) was a Phase 3, multicenter, open-label single-arm study of adjunctive perampanel oral suspension in pediatric patients (aged 4 to12 years) with partial-onset seizures (POS) (with/without secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures [SGTCS]) or primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was an exploratory endpoint initially analyzed through simple descriptive summaries. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to provide a more thorough assessment of HRQoL.This analysis focused on EQ-5D-Y data collected at Baseline, Week 23, and Week 52. Individual dimensions, visual analog scale (VAS) and summed misery index (MI) were evaluated at all visits and compared by seizure type (POS versus SGTCS versus PGTCS), age (4 to7 versus 7 to12), and use of concomitant enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) (yes versus no). Paretian Classification of Health Change (PCHC) analysis summarized the proportion of patients who showed improvement or deterioration in HRQoL. Waterfall plots assessed changes in EQ-5D-Y scores by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and by reduction in seizure frequency. Health state utility values associated with differing seizure frequency states were estimated using a linear mixed model.One hundred and fifteen patients completed EQ-5D-Y at relevant study visits (Seizure type: POS n = 84 [of which 21 had SGTCS], PGTCS n = 31; Age: 4 to7 years n = 30, 7 to12 years n = 85; Concomitant EIAEDs: Yes n = 35, No n = 80). Completion rates out of those expected to complete EQ-5D-Y were high at both timepoints (84.4% at Week 23 and 97.2% at Week 52). Overall, VAS/MI remained stable over time (did not exceed minimal important difference); this was similar according to seizure type, age, and EIAED usage. In patients with 'no problems' on any EQ-5D-Y dimension at Baseline, nearly all retained their full health at Week 23 (94.7%), and all retained it at Week 52 (100.0%). PCHC analysis showed fewer patients with POS experienced deterioration in EQ-5D-Y than patients with PGTCS at Week 23 (24.1% versus 42.1%). Not experiencing a TEAE, or remaining seizure-free, was associated with improvements in VAS score at Week 23 compared to those experiencing TEAEs or seizures, respectively. Health state utility values (HSUVs) were estimated as follows: seizure free (LS Mean 0.914 [95% CIs 0.587, 1.240]), ≥1 seizure per year (0.620 [0.506, 0.734]), ≥1 seizure per month (0.596 [0.338, 0.855]), ≥1 seizure per week (0.284 [-0.014, 0.582]).An in-depth analysis of EQ-5D-Y data allowed for a more nuanced exploration of HRQoL than previous descriptive summaries. Our findings provide evidence that perampanel as adjunctive therapy did not result in deterioration of patient HRQoL. The association between TEAEs or remaining seizure-free and HRQoL warrants further exploration. Increasing seizure frequency was associated with decreasing HSUVs; these can inform cost-effectiveness modeling of perampanel and other therapies aiming to reduce seizure frequency in pediatric patients.

We compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with once-weekly carfilzomib 70 mg/m

Background The Food and Drug Administration patient-reported outcome (PRO) guidance provides standards for PRO development, but these standards bring scientific and logistical challenges which can result in a lengthy and expensive instrument development process. Thus, more pragmatic methods are needed alongside traditional approaches. Methods Partnering with the National Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) Society, we compared three methods for eliciting patient experiences: 1) concept elicitation (CE) interviews with 12 individuals with AS, 2) “group concept mapping” (GCM) with 16 individuals with AS, 3) a social media review (SMR) of AS online chatrooms. Three conceptual models were developed and compared to explore data breadth/depth, as well as the practicalities and patient-centeredness. Results Overlap in concepts was observed between conceptual models; 35% of symptoms were identified by all methods. The SMR approach identified the most concepts (n = 23), followed by CE interviews (n = 18), and GCM (n = 15). Eight symptoms were uniquely identified using GCM and SMR. Eliciting in-depth data was challenging for SMR as detail was not always provided. Insight into the relationships between symptoms was obtained as a “concept map” in GCM, via effective probing within interviews, and through the subject’s descriptions in SMR. Practical investment varied; CE interviews were the most resource intensive, whereas SMR was the least. Individuals in GCM and CE interviews reported high engagement. Conclusions Primary CE interviews achieved the greatest depth in conceptual understanding of patient experience; however, novel methods (GCM, SMR) provide complementary approaches for identifying measurement concepts. Each method has strengths and weaknesses and should be selected based on specific research objectives. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s41687-017-0013-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Nocturia, waking to urinate two or more times during the night, is a chronic condition associated with significant patient burden due to sleep disruption. This study aimed to explore the lived experiences of patients with nocturia in terms of the disruption to their lives during the night and day. Methods Adult patients in the US diagnosed with nocturia were recruited for face-to-face qualitative interviews. Thematic analysis of patients’ narratives, taking a phenomenological interpretative approach, summarised their experiences throughout the night and day, including any apparent contrasts between patients. Results Twenty patients (10 male, 10 female) aged between 39 and 80 years, averaging three night-time voids, were interviewed. Analysis revealed that nocturia has a substantial impact on sleep quality and quantity, with the frequency of night-time voids a key driver of this. In addition to night-time phenomena, patients faced various difficulties the next day, including day-time tiredness, lack of energy and concerns related to emotional wellbeing, social functioning and cognitive functioning. All of these limited patients’ capacity to work, perform daily activities or fulfil role responsibilities. Patients’ lifestyles influenced experience, where younger patients in employment more readily emphasised the day-time physical and psychosocial burdens. Patients employed coping behaviours in an attempt to lessen the severity of nocturia and its impact, which were both physician-led and self-taught. Conclusions While the symptom of nocturia only occurs during the night, the impact is longer lasting, affecting functioning and wellbeing throughout the following day. Patients’ circumstances can affect the extent of their burden; recognising this can improve effective delivery of patient-centred care. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0241-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction In addition to efficacy and safety, novel regimens for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) should be assessed in terms of disease-related symptoms, the adverse events patient's experience, and their effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures capture these experiences from the patient's perspective. However, an interpretative challenge of PROs is understanding the magnitude of change that can be considered clinically meaningful. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, supplemented with the multiple myeloma-specific module (QLQ-MY20), are commonly used PRO measures in MM trials. However, the minimally important difference (MID) in QLQ-MY20 scores, between groups or for an individual who may be categorized as a responder, has not been established. Previously, estimates based on the statistical variability of scores, or a universal 10-point threshold, have been applied to approximate an MID or responder definition (RD). This study aims to provide empirical estimates of the MID and RD for the QLQ-MY20 in an adult newly diagnosed (ND) and relapsed/refractory (RR) MM population using clinical trial data and qualitative patient interviews. Methods Data were pooled from three completed Phase III clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of carfilzomib-containing regimens in patients with RRMM (ASPIRE [NCT01080391], ENDEAVOR [NCT01568866]) or NDMM (CLARION [NCT01818752]). A recommended MID or RD should come from triangulating estimates from several different techniques. MIDs were estimated quantitatively by evaluating the mean PRO score changes in patients grouped as 'improved', 'stable' or 'deteriorated' according to external anchors. The anchors were selected based on variables common to the source datasets expected to reflect changes in PRO scores, and assessed for suitability through correlations. Those included were based on a PRO measuring chemotherapy-induced neuropathy (FACT/GOG-Ntx), ECOG performance status, and matched CTCAE toxicity events. RDs for deteriorations and improvements in health were estimated using the same anchor measures through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, supported by 'distribution-based' estimates incorporating the statistical variability of scores. Qualitative telephone interviews were conducted to obtain patient insights from patients with MM regarding what constitutes meaningful change, to further support RD estimates and triangulate quantitative findings. This directly utilizes patient input to define an important treatment benefit and translate HRQOL change scores into tangible and clinically relevant impacts of the treatment on a patient. Interview participants were independent to the clinical trial samples and recruited via patient associations and clinical sites in the US and UK. Ethical approval was obtained for the study. Results The pooled sample from the clinical trials comprised 2,147 patients for analysis; 14 additional patients (to date) were interviewed. MID and RD estimates varied as a result of the different methods, anchors and time points used to derive them. Based on the clinical trial sample, the range of MID and RD estimates for the QLQ-MY20 subscales were calculated and are presented in Table 1. The qualitative interview findings to date suggest that patients consistently understood the subscale concepts, relevance and response options for each domain of the QLQ-MY20. Patients discussed the concept of meaningful change at the domain level and provided reliable meaningful change estimates. The quantitative and qualitative findings will be triangulated to derive weighted estimates recommended for use in future studies. A single global estimate may not be appropriate for all subscales, in which case a range may be recommended. Conclusions Updated data based on full triangulation of the qualitative and quantitative evidence will be presented at the annual meeting. Findings from the current study will inform the development of new recommended interpretation guidelines for QLQ-MY20. These values will facilitate power analysis when designing studies and enable consistent interpretation of treatment effect on patients' HRQOL by regulators, payers and clinicians. Disclosures Yucel: Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Trigg:Adelphi Values: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy. Sully:Adelphi Values Ltd: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy. Harper:Adelphi Values: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy. Bonner:Amgen: Consultancy; Adelphi Values: Employment. Shah:Nkarta: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; University of California San Francisco: Employment; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Bluebird: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Nekktar: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Panjabi:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cocks:Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Endomag Ltd.: Consultancy; Adelphi Values: Employment.