Stability of boundaries between response options of response scales: Does 'very happy' remain equally happy over the years?

__Abstract__ The differences between response scales in number and wording of response options make it hard to compare data from survey research and to perform research syntheses. A recent method that we have developed to tackle this problem is rooted in the idea that the transition points on a bounded continuum, on which verbal response options from a primary scale transit from one point to another, for instance from ‘happy’ to ‘very happy’, remain unchanged over time. The idea behind this is that although people may change their perception of, for example, their own happiness intensity over time, they are assumed not to change the degree of appreciation they attribute to the terms used to label response options. This is an important assumption for research syntheses that requires that everything remains unchanged, except for the change of interest. It means that if our method is applied to measurements at distinct points in time, differences in estimates of the mean and standard deviation can be attributed solely to changes in the frequency distributions on the primary scale. In this paper we apply the method to happiness and show that it is reasonable to assume that the transition points between the response options are stable over time

Phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in patients with advanced solid tumours

Background: Brivanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling. We performed a phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in 7 tumour types (soft-tissue sarcomas [STS], ovarian cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC], gastric/esophageal cancer and transitional cell carcinoma [TCC]). Patients and methods: During a 12-week open-label lead-in period, patients received brivanib 800 mg daily and were evaluated for FGF2 status by immunohistochemistry. Patients with stable disease at week 12 were randomised to brivanib or placebo. A study steering committee evaluated week 12 response to determine if enrolment in a tumour type would continue. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) for brivanib versus placebo in patients with FGF2-positive tumours. Results: A total of 595 patients were treated, and stable disease was observed at the week 12 randomisation point in all tumour types. Closure decisions were made for breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, NSCLC, gastric cancer and TCC. Criteria for expansion were met for STS and ovarian cancer. In 53 randomised patients with STS and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 2.8 months for brivanib and 1.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.58, p = 0.08). For all randomised patients with sarcomas, the median PFS was 2.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4–4.0) for those treated with brivanib compared with 1.4 months (95% CI: 1.3–1.6) for placebo (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.38–1.07; p = 0.09). In the 36 randomised patients with ovarian cancer and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 4.0 (95% CI: 2.6–4.2) months for brivanib and 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2–2.7) for placebo (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.26–1.22). For all randomised patients with ovarian cancer, the median PFS in those randomised to brivanib was 4.0 months (95% CI: 2.6–4.2) and was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2–2.7) in those randomised to placebo (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.25–1.17; p = 0.11). Conclusion: Brivanib demonstrated activity in STS and ovarian cancer with an acceptable safety profile. FGF2 expression, as defined in the protocol, is not a predictive biomarker of the efficacy of brivanib