The Establishment of the GENEQOL Consortium to Investigate the Genetic Disposition of Patient-Reported Quality-of-Life Outcomes

To our knowledge, no comprehensive, interdisciplinary initiatives have been taken to examine the role of genetic variants on patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. The overall objective of this paper is to describe the establishment of an international and interdisciplinary consortium, the GENEQOL Consortium, which intends to investigate the genetic disposition of patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. We have identified five primary patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes as initial targets: negative psychological affect, positive psychological affect, self-rated physical health, pain, and fatigue. The first tangible objective of the GENEQOL Consortium is to develop a list of potential biological pathways, genes and genetic variants involved in these quality-of-life outcomes, by reviewing current genetic knowledge. The second objective is to design a research agenda to investigate and validate those genes and genetic variants of patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes, by creating large datasets. During its first meeting, the Consortium has discussed draft summary documents addressing these questions for each patient-reported quality-of-life outcome. A summary of the primary pathways and robust findings of the genetic variants involved is presented here. The research agenda outlines possible research objectives and approaches to examine these and new quality-of-life domains. Intriguing questions arising from this endeavor are discussed. Insight into the genetic versus environmental components of patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes will ultimately allow us to explore new pathways for improving patient care. If we can identify patients who are susceptible to poor quality of life, we will be able to better target specific clinical interventions to enhance their quality of life and treatment outcomes.quality of life, self-rated health, pain, fatigue, genetic disposition, Patient-Reported Quality-of-Life Outcomes

OncoLog Volume 45, Number 03, March 2000

Dental Oncologists Prepare Patients with Head and Neck Cancer for Radiation Therapy DiaLog: Nurses Bring Personal Touch to Clinical Research, by Charles S. Cleeland, PhD, Professor, Pain Research Group, Division of Anesthesiology and Critical Care House Call: Coping with Chemotherapy Radiofrequency Ablation Surpasses Cryoablation as the Treatment of Choice for Localized, Unresectable Liver Malignancieshttps://openworks.mdanderson.org/oncolog/1083/thumbnail.jp

Prognostic Value of Patient-Reported Symptom Interference in Patients with Late-stage Lung Cancer

Purpose Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been found to be significant predictors of clinical outcomes such as overall survival (OS), but the effect of demographic and clinical factors on the prognostic ability of PROs is less understood. Several PROs derived from the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) and M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) were investigated for association with OS, with adjustments for other factors, including performance status. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on data from 90 patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. Several baseline PROs were added to a base Cox proportional hazards model to examine the marginal significance and improvement in model fit attributable to the PRO: mean MDASI symptom interference level; mean MDASI symptom severity level for five selected symptoms; SF-12 physical and mental component summaries; and the SF-12 general health item. Bootstrap resampling was used to assess the robustness of the findings. Results The MDASI mean interference level had a significant effect on OS (p = 0.007) when the model was not adjusted for interactions with other prognostic factors. Further exploration suggested the significance was due to an interaction with performance status (p = 0.001). The MDASI mean symptom severity level and the SF-12 physical component summary, mental component summary, and general health item did not have a significant effect on OS. Conclusions Symptom interference adds prognostic information for OS in advanced lung cancer patients with poor performance status, even when demographic and clinical prognostic factors are accounted for

Pain and analgesic use associated with skeletal-related events in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases

PURPOSE: Bone metastases secondary to solid tumors increase the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs), including the occurrence of pathological fracture (PF), radiation to bone (RB), surgery to bone (SB), and spinal cord compression (SCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of SREs on patients' pain, analgesic use, and pain interference with daily functioning. METHODS: Data were combined from patients with solid tumors and bone metastases who received denosumab or zoledronic acid across three identically designed phase 3 trials (N = 5543). Pain severity (worst pain) and pain interference were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory at baseline and each monthly visit. Analgesic use was quantified using the Analgesic Quantification Algorithm. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with moderate/severe pain and strong opioid use generally increased in the 6 months preceding an SRE and remained elevated, while they remained relatively consistent over time in patients without an SRE. Regression analysis indicated that all SRE types were significantly associated with an increased risk of progression to moderate/severe pain and strong opioid use. PF, RB, and SCC were associated with significantly greater risk of pain interference overall. Results were similar for pain interference with emotional well-being. All SRE types were associated with significantly greater risk of pain interference with physical function. CONCLUSIONS: SREs are associated with increased pain and analgesic use in patients with bone metastases. Treatments that prevent SREs may decrease pain and the need for opioid analgesics and reduce the impact of pain on daily functioning

Pain and analgesic use associated with skeletal-related events in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases

PURPOSE: Bone metastases secondary to solid tumors increase the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs), including the occurrence of pathological fracture (PF), radiation to bone (RB), surgery to bone (SB), and spinal cord compression (SCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of SREs on patients' pain, analgesic use, and pain interference with daily functioning. METHODS: Data were combined from patients with solid tumors and bone metastases who received denosumab or zoledronic acid across three identically designed phase 3 trials (N = 5543). Pain severity (worst pain) and pain interference were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory at baseline and each monthly visit. Analgesic use was quantified using the Analgesic Quantification Algorithm. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with moderate/severe pain and strong opioid use generally increased in the 6 months preceding an SRE and remained elevated, while they remained relatively consistent over time in patients without an SRE. Regression analysis indicated that all SRE types were significantly associated with an increased risk of progression to moderate/severe pain and strong opioid use. PF, RB, and SCC were associated with significantly greater risk of pain interference overall. Results were similar for pain interference with emotional well-being. All SRE types were associated with significantly greater risk of pain interference with physical function. CONCLUSIONS: SREs are associated with increased pain and analgesic use in patients with bone metastases. Treatments that prevent SREs may decrease pain and the need for opioid analgesics and reduce the impact of pain on daily functioning

Pain outcomes in patients with bone metastases from advanced cancer: assessment and management with bone-targeting agents

Bone metastases in advanced cancer frequently cause painful complications that impair patient physical activity and negatively affect quality of life. Pain is often underreported and poorly managed in these patients. The most commonly used pain assessment instruments are visual analogue scales, a single-item measure, and the Brief Pain Inventory Questionnaire-Short Form. The World Health Organization analgesic ladder and the Analgesic Quantification Algorithm are used to evaluate analgesic use. Bone-targeting agents, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, prevent skeletal complications (i.e., radiation to bone, pathologic fractures, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression) and can also improve pain outcomes in patients with metastatic bone disease. We have reviewed pain outcomes and analgesic use and reported pain data from an integrated analysis of randomized controlled studies of denosumab versus the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid (ZA) in patients with bone metastases from advanced solid tumors. Intravenous bisphosphonates improved pain outcomes in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. Compared with ZA, denosumab further prevented pain worsening and delayed the need for treatment with strong opioids. In patients with no or mild pain at baseline, denosumab reduced the risk of increasing pain severity and delayed pain worsening along with the time to increased pain interference compared with ZA, suggesting that use of denosumab (with appropriate calcium and vitamin D supplementation) before patients develop bone pain may improve outcomes. These data also support the use of validated pain assessments to optimize treatment and reduce the burden of pain associated with metastatic bone disease

Evaluation of different recall periods for the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Aims—The U.S. National Cancer Institute recently developed the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g., nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-week, 2-week, 3-week, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods—English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four U.S. cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-week, 2-week, 3-week, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g., maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs. 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results—127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size), was −0.20 (−0.20) for 1-week recall; −0.36 (−0.31) for 2-week recall; −0.45 (−0.39) for 3-week recall; and −0.47 (−0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54–0.82); 2-week recall: 0.74 (range: 0.58–0.83); 3-week recall: 0.72 (range: 0.61–0.84); and 4-week recall: 0.72 (range: 0.64–0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusions—1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss

The Added Value of Analyzing Pooled Health-Related Quality of Life Data: A Review of the EORTC PROBE Initiative

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Patient-Reported Outcomes and Behavioural Evidence (PROBE) initiative was established to investigate critical topics to better understand health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of cancer patients and to educate clinicians, policy makers, and healthcare providers. METHODS: The aim of this paper is to review the major research outcomes of the pooled analysis of HRQOL data along with the clinical data. We identified 30 pooled EORTC randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 18 NCIC-Clinical Trials Group RCTs, and two German Ovarian Cancer Study Group RCTs, all using the EORTC QLQ-C30. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Evidence was found that HRQOL data can offer prognostic information beyond clinical measures and improve prognostic accuracy in cancer RCTs (by 5.9%-8.3%). Moreover, models that considered both patient- and clinician-reported scores gained more prognostic overall survival accuracy for fatigue (P < .001), vomiting (P = .01), nausea (P < .001), and constipation (P = .01). Greater understanding of the association between symptom and/or functioning scales was developed by identifying physical, psychological, and gastrointestinal clusters. Additionally, minimally important differences in interpreting HRQOL changes for improvement and deterioration were found to vary across different patient populations and disease stages. Finally, HRQOL scores are statistically significantly affected by deviations from the intended time point at which the questionnaire is completed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of existing pooled data shows that it is possible to learn about general aspects of cancer HRQOL and methodology. Our work shows that setting up international pooled datasets holds great promise for understanding patients' unmet psychosocial needs and calls for additional empirical investigation to improve clinical care and understand cancer through retrospective HRQOL analyses

An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D.

PURPOSE: To investigate the systematic differences in the self-reporting and valuation of overall health and, in particular, pain/discomfort between three countries (England/UK, Japan, and Spain) on the EQ-5D. METHODS: Existing datasets were used to explore differences in responses on the EQ-5D descriptive system between Japan (3L and 5L), the UK (3L), England (5L), and Spain (5L), particularly on the dimension of pain/discomfort. The role of different EQ dimensions in determining self-reported overall health scores for the EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) was investigated using ordinary least squares regression. Time trade-off (TTO) results from Japanese and UK respondents for the EQ-5D-3L as well as Japanese and English respondents for the EQ-5D-5L were compared using t tests. RESULTS: For the EQ-5D-3L, a higher percentage of respondents in Japan than in the UK reported 'no pain/discomfort' (81.6 vs 67.0%, respectively); for the EQ-5D-5L, the proportions were 79.2% in Spain, 73.2% in Japan, and 63-64% in England, after adjusting for age differences in samples. The 'pain/discomfort' dimension had the largest impact on respondents' self-reported EQ-VAS only for EQ-5D-3L in Japan. Using the EQ-5D-3L, Japanese respondents were considerably less willing to trade off time to avoid pain/discomfort than the UK respondents; for example, moving from health state, 11121 (some problems with pain/discomfort) to 11131 (extreme pain/discomfort) represented a decrement of 0.65 on the observed TTO value in the UK compared with 0.15 in Japan. Using the EQ-5D-5L, Japanese respondents were also less willing to trade off time to avoid pain/discomfort than respondents in England; however, the difference in values was much smaller than that observed using EQ-5D-3L data. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of between-country differences in the self-reporting and valuation of health, including pain/discomfort, when using EQ-5D in general population samples. The results suggest a need for caution when comparing or aggregating EQ-5D self-reported data in multi-country studies.Astellas Europe B

Performance Measures Based on How Adults With Cancer Feel and Function: Stakeholder Recommendations and Feasibility Testing in Six Cancer Centers

PURPOSE Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess how patients feel and function have potential for evaluating quality of care. Stakeholder recommendations for PRO-based performance measures (PMs) were elicited, and feasibility testing was conducted at six cancer centers. METHODS Interviews were conducted with 124 stakeholders to determine priority symptoms and risk adjustment variables for PRO-PMs and perceived acceptability. Stakeholders included patients and advocates, caregivers, clinicians, administrators, and thought leaders. Feasibility testing was conducted in six cancer centers. Patients completed PROMs at home 5-15 days into a chemotherapy cycle. Feasibility was operationalized as $75$ 75% patient acceptability. RESULTS Stakeholder priority PRO-PMs for systemic therapy were GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting), depression/anxiety, pain, insomnia, fatigue, dyspnea, physical function, and neuropathy. Recommended risk adjusters included demographics, insurance type, cancer type, comorbidities, emetic risk, and difficulty paying bills. In feasibility testing, 653 patients enrolled (approximately 110 per site), and 607 (93%) completed PROMs, which indicated high feasibility for home collection. The majority of patients (470 of 607; 77%) completed PROMs without a reminder call, and 137 (23%) of 607 completed them after a reminder call. Most patients (72%) completed PROMs through web, 17% paper, or 2% interactive voice response (automated call that verbally asked patient questions). For acceptability, . 95% of patients found PROM items to be easy to understand and complete. CONCLUSION Clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders agree that PMs that are based on how patients feel and function would be an important addition to quality measurement. This study also shows that PRO-PMs can be feasibly captured at home during systemic therapy and are acceptable to patients. PRO-PMs may add value to the portfolio of PMs as oncology transitions from fee-for-service payment models to performance-based care that emphasizes outcome measures