Validation of a Predictive Model for Survival in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Secondary Analysis of RTOG 9714.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to validate a simple predictive model for survival of patients with advanced cancer.MethodsPrevious studies with training and validation datasets developed a model predicting survival of patients referred for palliative radiotherapy using three readily available factors: primary cancer site, site of metastases and Karnofsky performance score (KPS). This predictive model was used in the current study, where each factor was assigned a value proportional to its prognostic weight and the sum of the weighted scores for each patient was survival prediction score (SPS). Patients were also classified according to their number of risk factors (NRF). Three risk groups were established. The Radiation Therapy and Oncology Group (RTOG) 9714 data was used to provide an additional external validation set comprised of patients treated among multiple institutions with appropriate statistical tests.ResultsThe RTOG external validation set comprised of 908 patients treated at 66 different radiation facilities from 1998 to 2002. The SPS method classified all patients into the low-risk group. Based on the NRF, two distinct risk groups with significantly different survival estimates were identified. The ability to predict survival was similar to that of the training and previous validation datasets for both the SPS and NRF methods.ConclusionsThe three variable NRF model is preferred because of its relative simplicity

Construct validity of the PROMIS® sexual function and satisfaction measures in patients with cancer

Background With data from a diverse sample of patients either in treatment for cancer or post-treatment for cancer, we examine inter-domain and cross-domain correlations among the core domains of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sexual Function and Satisfaction measures (PROMIS® SexFS) and the corresponding domains from conceptually-similar measures of sexual function, the International Index of Erectile Function and the Female Sexual Function Index. Findings Men (N=389) and women (N=430) were recruited from a tumor registry, oncology clinics, and an internet panel. The PROMIS SexFS, International Index of Erectile Function, and Female Sexual Function Index were used to collect participants’ self-reported sexual function. The domains shared among the measures include desire/interest in sexual activity, lubrication and vaginal discomfort/pain (women), erectile function (men), orgasm, and satisfaction. We examined correlations among different domains within the same instrument (discriminant validity) and correlations among similar domains measured by different instruments (convergent validity). Correlations demonstrating discriminant validity ranged from 0.38 to 0.73 for men and 0.48 to 0.74 for women, while correlations demonstrating convergent validity ranged from 0.62 to 0.83 for men and 0.71 to 0.92 for women. As expected, correlations demonstrating convergent validity were higher than correlations demonstrating discriminant validity, with one exception (orgasm for men). Conclusions Construct validity was supported by convergent and discriminant validity in a diverse sample of patients with cancer. For patients with cancer who may or may not have sexual dysfunction, the PROMIS SexFS measures provide a comprehensive assessment of key domains of sexual function and satisfaction

Sexual Satisfaction and the Importance of Sexual Health to Quality of Life Throughout the Life Course of U.S. Adults

Discussions about sexual health are uncommon in clinical encounters, despite the sexual dysfunction associated with many common health conditions. Understanding of the importance of sexual health and sexual satisfaction among US adults is limited

Recommended Patient-Reported Core Set of Symptoms to Measure in Head and Neck Cancer Treatment Trials

We identified a standard core set of patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) domains to be assessed in head and neck (H&N) cancer clinical trials. The core symptom and HRQOL domain scores were used to guide recommendations by a working group of experts as part of a National Cancer Institute Symptom Management and HRQOL Clinical Trials Planning Meeting. A PubMed search was conducted using the search terms of “health-related quality of life” and “head & neck cancer,” limited to publications from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2010. Fifty-four articles were used to guide the choice of recommendations. Twenty-nine symptoms and nine domains were identified, from which 12 H&N-specific core symptoms and HRQOL domains were recommended: swallowing, oral pain, skin changes, dry mouth, dental health, opening mouth/trismus, taste, excess/thick mucous/saliva, shoulder disability/motion, voice/hoarseness, social domain, and functional domain. This core set of 12 H&N-specific, patient-reported symptoms and HRQOL domains should be assessed in future H&N cancer clinical trials

A literature synthesis of symptom prevalence and severity in persons receiving active cancer treatment

Patients with cancer experience acute and chronic symptoms caused by their underlying disease or by the treatment. While numerous studies have examined the impact of various treatments on symptoms experienced by cancer patients, there are inconsistencies regarding the symptoms measured and reported in treatment trials. This article presents a systematic review of the research literature of the prevalence and severity of symptoms in patients undergoing cancer treatment

Recommended Patient-Reported Core Set of Symptoms to Measure in Prostate Cancer Treatment Trials

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life Steering Committee convened four working groups to recommend core sets of patient-reported outcomes to be routinely incorporated in clinical trials. The Prostate Cancer Working Group included physicians, researchers, and a patient advocate. The group’s process included 1) a systematic literature review to determine the prevalence and severity of symptoms, 2) a multistakeholder meeting sponsored by the NCI to review the evidence and build consensus, and 3) a postmeeting expert panel synthesis of findings to finalize recommendations. Five domains were recommended for localized prostate cancer: urinary incontinence, urinary obstruction and irritation, bowel-related symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and hormonal symptoms. Four domains were recommended for advanced prostate cancer: pain, fatigue, mental well-being, and physical well-being. Additional domains for consideration include decisional regret, satisfaction with care, and anxiety related to prostate cancer. These recommendations have been endorsed by the NCI for implementation

Feasibility of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events via the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PROCTCAE) in a Chemoradiotherapy Cooperative Group Multicenter Clinical Trial

Purpose—To assess the feasibility of measuring symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in a multicenter clinical trial using the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Methods and Materials—Patients enrolled in Trial XXXX (XXXX) were asked to self-report 53 PRO-CTCAE items representing 30 symptomatic AEs at 6 time points (baseline; weekly x4 during treatment; 12-weeks post-treatment). Reporting was conducted via wireless tablet computers in clinic waiting areas. Compliance was defined as the proportion of visits when an expected PRO-CTCAE assessment was completed. Results—Among 226 study sites participating in Trial XXXX, 100% completed 35-minute PROCTCAE training for clinical research associates (CRAs); 80 sites enrolled patients of which 34 (43%) required tablet computers to be provided. All 152 patients in Trial XXXX agreed to selfreport using the PRO-CTCAE (median age 66; 47% female; 84% white). Median time for CRAs to learn the system was 60 minutes (range 30–240), and median time for CRAs to teach a patient to self-report was 10 minutes (range 2–60). Compliance was high, particularly during active treatment when patients self-reported at 86% of expected time points, although compliance was lower post-treatment (72%). Common reasons for non-compliance were institutional errors such as forgetting to provide computers to participants; patients missing clinic visits; internet connectivity; and patients feeling “too sick”. Conclusions—Most patients enrolled in a multicenter chemoradiotherapy trial were willing and able to self-report symptomatic adverse events at visits using tablet computers. Minimal effort was required by local site staff to support this system. The observed causes of missing data may be obviated by allowing patients to self-report electronically between-visits, and by employing central compliance monitoring. These approaches are being incorporated into ongoing studies

Recommended Patient-Reported Core Set of Symptoms and Quality-of-Life Domains to Measure in Ovarian Cancer Treatment Trials

There is no consensus as to what symptoms or quality-of-life (QOL) domains should be measured as patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in ovarian cancer clinical trials. A panel of experts convened by the National Cancer Institute reviewed studies published between January 2000 and August 2011. The results were included in and combined with an expert consensus-building process to identify the most salient PROs for ovarian cancer clinical trials. We identified a set of PROs specific to ovarian cancer: abdominal pain, bloating, cramping, fear of recurrence/disease progression, indigestion, sexual dysfunction, vomiting, weight gain, and weight loss. Additional PROs identified in parallel with a group charged with identifying the most important PROs across cancer types were anorexia, cognitive problems, constipation, diarrhea, dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, and insomnia. Physical and emotional domains were considered to be the most salient domains of QOL. Findings of the review and consensus process provide good support for use of these ovarian cancer–specific PROs in ovarian cancer clinical trials

Development of the NIH PROMIS® Sexual Function and Satisfaction Measures in Patients with Cancer

We describe the development and validation of the PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction (PROMIS SexFS) measures version 1.0 for cancer populations

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is developing a patient-reported version of its Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, called the "PRO-CTCAE." The PRO-CTCAE consists of a library of patient-reported items which can be administered in clinical trials to directly capture the patient experience of adverse events during cancer treatment, as well as a software platform for administering these items via computer or telephone. In order to better understand the impressions of stakeholders involved in cancer clinical research about the potential value of the PRO-CTCAE approach to capturing adverse event information in clinical research, as well as their perspectives about barriers and strategies for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in NCI-sponsored cancer trials, a survey was conducted. A survey including structured and open-ended questions was developed to elicit perceptions about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for adverse event reporting, and to explore logistical considerations for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in cancer trials. The survey was distributed electronically and by paper to a convenience sample of leadership and committee members in the NCI's cooperative group network, including principal investigators, clinical investigators, research nurses, data managers, patient advocates, and representatives of the NCI and Food and Drug Administration. Between October, 2008 through February, 2009, 727 surveys were collected. Most respondents (93%) agreed that patient reporting of adverse symptoms would be useful for improving understanding of the patient experience with treatment in cancer trials, and 88%, 80%, and 76%, respectively, endorsed that administration of PRO-CTCAE items in clinical trials would improve the completeness, accuracy, and efficiency of symptom data collection. More than three fourths believed that patient reports would be useful for informing treatment dose modifications and towards FDA regulatory evaluation of drugs. Eighty-eight percent felt that patients in clinical trials would be willing to self-report adverse symptoms at clinic visits via computer, and 68% felt patients would self-report weekly from home via the internet or an automated telephone system. Lack of computers and limited space and personnel were seen as potential barriers to in-clinic self-reporting, but these were judged to be surmountable with adequate funding. The PRO-CTCAE items and software are viewed by a majority of survey respondents as a means to improve adverse event data quality and comprehensiveness, enhance clinical decision-making, and foster patient-clinician communication. Research is ongoing to assess the measurement properties and feasibility of implementing this measure in cancer clinical trials