Search

Objective: We report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the ROSEWOOD trial (NCT03332017), which demonstrated superior efficacy and a manageable safety profile with zanubrutinib plus obinutuzumab (ZO) versus obinutuzumab (O) in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL). Methods: PROs were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires at baseline and subsequently every 12 weeks. All QLQ-C30 domains and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS) scores were analyzed descriptively. At the key clinical timepoints (weeks 12 and 24), a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis was used to evaluate the key PRO endpoints, including global health status, physical and role functioning, and symptoms of fatigue, pain, diarrhea, and nausea/vomiting. Clinically meaningful change was defined as a ≥ 5-point mean difference from baseline and between the ZO and O arms. Results: Patients were randomized to ZO (n = 145) or O (n = 72). By week 48, descriptive analysis results indicated that patients in the ZO arm demonstrated improved outcomes in role functioning and fatigue and nausea/vomiting symptoms, compared with those in the O arm. Both groups experienced improvements in pain symptoms. EQ-5D-5L VAS scores showed no observable differences between treatment arms through week 48. MMRM analysis revealed that the global health status/quality of life of patients treated with ZO improved, as did fatigue, at week 12. At week 24, patients in the ZO arm experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in role functioning, pain, and fatigue. Conclusions: In patients with R/R FL, ZO was associated with improved PROs compared with O. These findings suggest that zanubrutinib contributed clinically meaningful benefits to patient HRQoL when added to obinutuzumab. Trial registration: The ROSEWOOD trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (BGB-3111-212; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03332017). PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Follicular lymphoma (or FL) is a common blood cancer where abnormal white blood cells form lumps in organs and glands in the body that normally help fight infection (lymph nodes). Zanubrutinib selectively blocks Bruton tyrosine kinase, which can prevent cancer cells growing and lead to their death. Obinutuzumab binds to a protein called CD20 on cancer cells, facilitating their removal using the body's natural defense system. Previous results from the ROSEWOOD trial showed that zanubrutinib plus obinutuzumab had improved cancer-fighting effects versus obinutuzumab alone, with manageable side effects in patients whose cancer returned after treatment or when treatment had failed. This study examined how these two cancer treatments impacted the patients' wellbeing and day-to-day functioning as reported directly by them (patient-reported outcomes). Researchers found that by week 48 of the trial, patients who received zanubrutinib plus obinutuzumab found it easier to manage daily activities (role functioning) and had fewer symptoms of feeling exhausted all the time (fatigue) and nausea/vomiting versus those who received obinutuzumab alone. Further analysis showed that the patients who received zanubrutinib plus obinutuzumab had noticeable improvements from the start of treatment in role functioning, pain, and fatigue versus patients receiving obinutuzumab alone at week 24 of the trial. In conclusion, this study showed that zanubrutinib plus obinutuzumab was associated with improved patient-reported outcomes versus obinutuzumab alone in patients with relapsed or refractory FL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim ASPEN is a randomized, open-label, Phase III study comparing zanubrutinib and ibrutinib in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Materials & methods: Patient-reported outcomes were exploratory end points assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores. Results: Overall, 201 patients (102 zanubrutinib; 99 ibrutinib) were enrolled. Clinically meaningful differences were observed in diarrhea and nausea/vomiting in both the intent-to-treat population and in patients attaining very good partial response (VGPR) in earlier cycles of treatment, as well as in long-term physical functioning and fatigue in patients achieving VGPR. Conclusion: Treatment with zanubrutinib was associated with greater improvements in health-related quality of life compared with ibrutinib in patients with WM and MYD88 mutations. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT03053440 (ClinicalTrials.gov) Plain Language Summary Patient quality of life is important What is this article about? This article talks about a study called the ASPEN trial, which compares two medicines used for treating a rare blood cancer that doctors call Waldenström macroglobulinemia. The medicines are called zanubrutinib (ZAN) and ibrutinib (IBR). They work in the same way, by blocking a protein called Bruton tyrosine kinase. When patients take medicines for an illness, it is important to learn about their physical, social, emotional and mental well-being (quality of life). In this study, we asked patients to fill out questionnaires about their well-being before starting the study treatment for their blood cancer, and again a few times while taking the medication, to see if there were any changes. What were the results of the study? There were two groups of patients. One group took ZAN and the other took IBR. The patients could not choose which medicine they were going to take. Results from both groups of patients were compared. Patients taking ZAN did not feel worse or better about their diarrhea and sickness, but those taking IBR said these symptoms had become worse. Both medicines improved how patients were feeling. However, improvement in tiredness and physical ability was larger in patients taking ZAN than those on IBR, especially for the patients whose cancer was getting better. What do the results mean? For patients with a rare blood cancer in this study, those taking ZAN had a better quality of life than those taking IBR. Tweetable Abstract In a head-to-head comparison in the Phase III ASPEN study, patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia treated with zanubrutinib had better quality of life than patients treated with ibrutinib. Article highlights Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare B-cell lymphoma marked by an excess of monoclonal immunoglobulin-M. Patients with WM experience symptoms including fatigue, muscle weakness, neuropathy and anemia, significantly affecting their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, particularly ibrutinib, have shown efficacy in treating WM; however, they are associated with adverse events that can lead to early treatment discontinuation, negatively affecting HRQoL. Zanubrutinib, a next-generation BTK inhibitor, was designed with improved selectivity for BTK to minimize off-target effects and toxicities and thereby potentially improve HRQoL. Materials & methods ASPEN is a randomized, open-label, Phase III study comparing zanubrutinib and ibrutinib in patients with relapsed/refractory or treatment-naive WM. In this study, HRQoL was measured with two validated patient-reported instruments: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30 and the EQ-5D-5L. Results Clinically meaningful improvements in diarrhea and nausea/vomiting symptoms were observed in patients receiving zanubrutinib compared with ibrutinib. Patients with a very good partial response to zanubrutinib had significantly increased HRQoL, particularly in physical functioning and fatigue symptoms. Both treatment arms had consistently improved EQ-5D-5L scores through Cycle 13. Discussion This is the first head-to-head study comparing HRQoL in patients with WM treated with different BTK inhibitors. The results reported here are consistent with the primary results of the ASPEN study reported by Tam et al. [10]. Conclusions In addition to the better efficacy observed with zanubrutinib vs. ibrutinib, zanubrutinib provides a higher quality of life to patients with WM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study evaluated health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in the RATIONALE‐309 (NCT03924986) intent‐to‐treat (ITT) population and in a subgroup of patients with liver metastases. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to tislelizumab + chemotherapy or placebo + chemotherapy. As the secondary endpoint, HRQoL was evaluated using seven selected scores from the EORTC QLQ‐C30 and QLQ Head and Neck Cancer module (QLQ‐H&N35). Results: Of 263 randomized patients in the ITT population (tislelizumab + chemotherapy n = 131, placebo + chemotherapy n = 132), 43% had liver metastases (tislelizumab + chemotherapy n = 56; placebo + chemotherapy n = 57). No differences in change in selected scores on the QLQ‐C30 from baseline to cycle 4 or cycle 8 were observed for the ITT or liver metastases subgroup. No differences in selected QLQ‐H&N35 scores were observed between the arms from baseline to cycle 4. In the ITT population and the liver metastases subgroup, a greater reduction from baseline to cycle 8 was observed in the tislelizumab + chemotherapy arm than the placebo + chemotherapy arm in QLQ‐H&N35 pain score. At cycle 8 in the liver metastases subgroup, the tislelizumab + chemotherapy arm experienced greater improvement in the QLQ‐H&N35 senses problems score than the placebo + chemotherapy arm. Differences in time to deterioration between arms were not observed. Conclusions: The current findings, along with improved survival and favorable safety, suggests that tislelizumab + chemotherapy represents a potential first‐line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: RATIONALE-301 (NCT03412773) was a global, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab with sorafenib as first-line (1L) treatment in adult patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in overall survival (OS). This analysis compared health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes between the arms. Methods: Systemic therapy-naive adults with HCC were randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab (n = 342) or sorafenib (n = 332). HRQOL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-HCC18, and EQ-5D-5L. At cycles 4 and 6, a mixed model for repeated measures was performed using key-prespecified patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints of the QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-HCC18. Time to deterioration was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method using the PRO endpoints. Results: At cycles 4 and 6, patients in the tislelizumab arm had better HRQOL outcomes than the patients in the sorafenib arm per mean-change difference in GHS/QOL, QLQ-C30 physical functioning and fatigue, and QLQ-HCC18 symptom index; however, no differences for pain were observed. Patients in the tislelizumab arm had lower risk of deterioration in GHS/QOL (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49–0.94), QLQ-C30 physical functioning (HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.32–0.63) and fatigue (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.36–0.61), QLQ-HCC18 symptom index (HR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.34–0.81), and HCC-specific fatigue (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45–0.79). For pain, both arms had similar risk of deterioration (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.56–1.09). At cycles 4 and 6, patients in the tislelizumab arm maintained in EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale, whereas scores decreased for the patients in the sorafenib arm. Conclusion: Patients with 1L HCC treated with tislelizumab had favorable HRQOL outcomes compared with patients treated with sorafenib, particularly in fatigue and physical functioning. These results, along with favorable safety profile, better response rate, and OS noninferiority, support tislelizumab as a potential 1L treatment option for unresectable HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-hoc analysis examined health-related quality of life and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) symptoms in the Asian subgroup of patients in RATIONALE-302 (NCT03430843). Patients were randomized 1:1 to either tislelizumab or investigator-chosen chemotherapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan). Health-related quality of life was measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-OES18. Least-squares mean score changes from baseline to weeks 12 and 18 in health-related quality-of-life scores were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measurements. Reported nominal p-values are for descriptive purposes only. Of the 512 patients, this analysis was conducted in 392 Asian patients (tislelizumab, n = 192; investigator-chosen chemotherapy, n = 200). The tislelizumab arm had stable global health status/quality of life, but fatigue scores worsened in both arms. The change from baseline was similar for physical functioning in both arms at weeks 12 and 18. Eating and dysphagia scores remained stable in the tislelizumab arm. Reflux improved at week 12 in the tislelizumab arm and worsened in the investigator-chosen chemotherapy arm. Overall, the health-related quality of life and ESCC-related symptoms of patients receiving tislelizumab in the Asian subgroup remained stable or improved, while patients receiving investigator-chosen chemotherapy experienced worsening. These results in Asian patients corroborate the findings in the intent-to-treat population, suggesting tislelizumab is a potential new second-line treatment option for patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC. The RATIONALE-302 study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03430843. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To obtain routine clinical practice data on cabazitaxel usage patterns for patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and to describe physician‐assessed cabazitaxel effectiveness, health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and safety. Patients and Methods: CAPRISTANA was an international, observational cohort study examining cabazitaxel use for the treatment of patients with mCRPC. Effectiveness was assessed by overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF) and disease control rate. HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Prostate questionnaire (FACT‐P) and the three‐level European Quality of Life questionnaire (EQ‐5D‐3L). Safety was assessed by adverse event (AE) reporting. Results: A total of 189 patients were treated across 54 centres between April 2012 and June 2016. At baseline, 58.7% had ≥1 comorbidity, 93.7% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, and 60.1% had a Gleason score at diagnosis of ≥8. Patients received a median of 6 cabazitaxel cycles; 84.7% received cabazitaxel as second‐line therapy. The median OS, PFS and TTF were 13.2, 5.6 and 4.4 months, respectively. Cabazitaxel led to disease control in 52.9% of patients. HRQoL was maintained (40.3%) or improved (32.2%) in 72.5% of patients based on total FACT‐P scores. Interestingly, 53.6% of patients reported pain improvement and a further 21.2% maintained pain control based on FACT‐P prostate cancer‐specific pain scores. The most common treatment‐related grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (7.9%) and anaemia (2.1%). Conclusion: Patients in CAPRISTANA treated with cabazitaxel had similar disease outcomes and safety profiles compared with large phase III clinical trials. Most patients had maintained or improved HRQoL scores; >70% of patients had maintained or improved pain control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Differences in healthcare utilization and costs were examined in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients experiencing first-, second- and third-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. Three CML cohorts were identified from the Truven Health MarketScan® database: No-Switch Cohort (NSc) = did not switch from first-line; One-Switch Cohort (OSc) = switched from first- to second-line only; Two-Switch Cohort (TSc) = switched to second- and then third-line. A total of 3510 patients were identified (mean = 54%; age = 55.8 years). NSc comprised 81% of the sample, OSc comprised 15% and 4% were in the TSc. First-line utilization/costs were significantly higher in the OSc/TSc compared to the NSc. Second-line hospital/outpatient visits and costs were higher in TSc compared to OSc. TSc experienced a significant cost increase from first- to second-line ($4226.46), twice that of OSc ($2488.03). TKI switching is associated with a substantial increase in healthcare utilization and costs, particularly for patients who switch twice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]