BackgroundIn 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... Show moreBackgroundIn 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).ObjectivesHealth-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.MethodsHRQoL 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.ResultsBaseline 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. Show less
Musoro, J.Z.; Coens, C.; Sprangers, M.A.G.; Brandberg, Y.; Groenvold, M.; Flechtner, H.H.; ... ; EORTC Melanoma Breast Head Neck Ge 2023
IntroductionEarly 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... Show moreIntroductionEarly 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.MethodsData 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.ResultsAnchor-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.ConclusionsOur 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. Show less
Machingura, A.; Taye, M.; Musoro, J.; Ringash, J.; Pe, M.; Coens, C.; ... ; Head Neck Canc Genito Urinary Canc 2022
Introduction: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) measures 15 health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scales relevant to... Show moreIntroduction: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) measures 15 health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scales relevant to the disease and treatment of patients with cancer. A study by Martinelli (2011) demonstrated that these scales could be grouped into three main clusters: physical, psychological and gastrointestinal. This study aims to validate Martinelli's findings in an independent dataset and evaluate whether these clusters are consistent across cancer types and patient characteristics. Methods: Pre-defined criteria for successful validation were three main clusters should emerge with a minimum R-squared value of 0.51 using pooled baseline-data. A cluster analysis was performed on the 15 QLQ-C30 HRQoL-scales in the overall dataset, as well as by cancer type and selected patient characteristics to examine the robustness of the results. Results: The dataset consisted of 20,066 patients pooled across 17 cancer types. Overall, three main clusters were identified (R-2 = 0.61); physical-cluster included role-functioning, physical functioning, social-functioning, fatigue, pain, and global-health status; psychological-cluster included emotional-functioning, cognitive-functioning, and insomnia; gastro-intestinal-cluster included nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. The results were consistent across different levels of disease severity, socio-demographic and clinical characteristics with minor variations by cancer type. Global-health status was found to be strongly linked to the scales included in the physical-functioning-related cluster. Conclusion: This study successfully validated prior findings by Martinelli (2011): the QLQC30 scales are interrelated and can be grouped into three main clusters. Knowing how these multidimensional HRQoL scales are related to each other can help clinicians and patients with cancer in managing symptom burden, guide policymakers in defining social-support plans and inform selection of HRQoL scales in future clinical trials. (C)2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Draaisma, K.; Tesileanu, C.M.S.; Heer, I. de; Klein, M.; Smits, M.; Reijneveld, J.C.; ... ; French, P.J. 2022
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,... Show morePurpose: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. Show less
Coomans, M.; Dirven, L.; Aaronson, N.; Baumert, B.G.; Bent, M. van den; Bottomley, A.; ... ; EORTC Brain Tumor Grp 2022
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... Show moreBackground: 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. Show less
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... Show moreBackground. 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. Show less
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... Show moreBackground. 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 EORT 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 HROoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their wales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients. Show less
Clement, P.M.J.; Dirven, L.; Eoli, M.; Sepulveda-Sanchez, J.M.; Walenkamp, A.M.E.; Frenel, J.S.; ... ; Bent, M.J. van den 2021
Background: In the EORTC 1410/ INTELLANCE 2 randomised, phase II study (NCT02343406), with the antibody-edrug conjugate depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M, ABT-414) in patients with recurrent EGFR... Show moreBackground: In the EORTC 1410/ INTELLANCE 2 randomised, phase II study (NCT02343406), with the antibody-edrug 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 Z 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 EGFRamplified recurrent glioblastoma, except for more visual disorders, an expected side- effect of the study drug. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
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... Show moreBackground. 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. Show less
Coens, C.; Pe, M.; Dueck, A.C.; Sloan, J.; Basch, E.; Calvert, M.; ... ; Setting Int Stand Analyzing Patien 2020
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... Show morePatient-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. Show less
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... Show moreClinical 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. Show less
Bottomley, A.; Reijneveld, J.C.; Koller, M.; Flechtner, H.; Tomaszewski, K.A.; Greimel, E.; ... ; 5th EORTC Quality Life Canc 2019
