Appetite and dietary intake endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 2 of the cachexia endpoints series

There is no consensus on the optimal endpoint(s) in cancer cachexia trials. Endpoint variation is an obstacle when comparing interventions and their clinical value. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate endpoints used to assess appetite and dietary intake in cancer cachexia clinical trials. A search for studies published from 1 January 1990 until 2 June 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies examined cancer cachexia treatment versus a comparator in adults with assessments of appetite and/or dietary intake as study endpoints, a sample size ≥40 and an intervention lasting ≥14 days. Reporting was in line with PRISMA guidance, and a protocol was published in PROSPERO (2022 CRD42022276710). This review is part of a series of systematic reviews examining cachexia endpoints. Of the 5975 articles identified, 116 were eligible for the wider review series and 80 specifically examined endpoints of appetite (65 studies) and/or dietary intake (21 studies). Six trials assessed both appetite and dietary intake. Appetite was the primary outcome in 15 trials and dietary intake in 7 trials. Median sample size was 101 patients (range 40–628). Forty-nine studies included multiple primary tumour sites, while 31 studies involved single primary tumour sites (15 gastrointestinal, 7 lung, 7 head and neck and 2 female reproductive organs). The most frequently reported appetite endpoints were visual analogue scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) (40%). The appetite item from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ) C30/C15 PAL (38%) and the appetite question from North Central Cancer Treatment Group anorexia questionnaire (17%) were also frequently applied. Of the studies that assessed dietary intake, 13 (62%) used food records (prospective registrations) and 10 (48%) used retrospective methods (24-h recall or dietary history). For VAS/NRS, a mean change of 1.3 corresponded to Hedge's g of 0.5 and can be considered a moderate change. For food records, a mean change of 231 kcal/day or 11 g of protein/day corresponded to a moderate change. Choice of endpoint in cachexia trials will depend on factors pertinent to the trial to be conducted. Nevertheless, from trials assessed and available literature, NRS or EORTC QLQ C30/C15 PAL seems suitable for appetite assessments. Appetite and dietary intake endpoints are rarely used as primary outcomes in cancer cachexia. Dietary intake assessments were used mainly to monitor compliance and are not validated in cachexia populations. Given the importance to cachexia studies, dietary intake endpoints must be validated before they are used as endpoints in clinical trials

Quality of life endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: systematic review 3 of the cachexia endpoints series

The use of patient‐reported outcomes (PROMs) of quality of life (QOL) is common in cachexia trials. Patients' self‐report on health, functioning, wellbeing, and perceptions of care, represent important measures of efficacy. This review describes the frequency, variety, and reporting of QOL endpoints used in cancer cachexia clinical trials. Electronic literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane (1990–2023). Seven thousand four hundred thirty‐five papers were retained for evaluation. Eligibility criteria included QOL as a study endpoint using validated measures, controlled design, adults (>18 years), ≥40 participants randomized, and intervention exceeding 2 weeks. The Covidence software was used for review procedures and data extractions. Four independent authors screened all records for consensus. Papers were screened by titles and abstracts, prior to full‐text reading. PRISMA guidance for systematic reviews was followed. The protocol was prospectively registered via PROSPERO (CRD42022276710). Fifty papers focused on QOL. Twenty‐four (48%) were double‐blind randomized controlled trials. Sample sizes varied considerably (n = 42 to 469). Thirty‐nine trials (78%) included multiple cancer types. Twenty‐seven trials (54%) featured multimodal interventions with various drugs and dietary supplements, 11 (22%) used nutritional interventions alone and 12 (24%) used a single pharmacological intervention only. The median duration of the interventions was 12 weeks (4–96). The most frequent QOL measure was the EORTC QLQ‐C30 (60%), followed by different FACIT questionnaires (34%). QOL was a primary, secondary, or exploratory endpoint in 15, 31 and 4 trials respectively, being the single primary in six. Statistically significant results on one or more QOL items favouring the intervention group were found in 18 trials. Eleven of these used a complete multidimensional measure. Adjustments for multiple testing when using multicomponent QOL measures were not reported. Nine trials (18%) defined a statistically or clinically significant difference for QOL, five with QOL as a primary outcome, and four with QOL as a secondary outcome. Correlation statistics with other study outcomes were rarely performed. PROMs including QOL are important endpoints in cachexia trials. We recommend using well‐validated QOL measures, including cachexia‐specific items such as weight history, appetite loss, and nutritional intake. Appropriate statistical methods with definitions of clinical significance, adjustment for multiple testing and few co‐primary endpoints are encouraged, as is an understanding of how interventions may relate to changes in QOL endpoints. A strategic and scientific‐based approach to PROM research in cachexia trials is warranted, to improve the research base in this field and avoid the use of QOL as supplementary measures

Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma

The development of new inhibitory and immunological agents and combination therapies significantly improved response rates and survival of patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) in the last decade, but the disease is still considered to be incurable by current standards and the prognosis is dismal especially in high-risk groups and in relapsed and/or refractory patients. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) may enable long-term survival and even cure for individual patients via an immune-mediated graft-versus-myeloma (GvM) effect, but remains controversial due to relevant transplant-related risks, particularly immunosuppression and graft-versus-host disease, and a substantial non-relapse mortality. The decreased risk of disease progression may outweigh this treatment-related toxicity for young, fit patients in high-risk constellations with otherwise often poor long-term prognosis. Here, allo-SCT should be considered within clinical trials in first-line as part of a tandem approach to separate myeloablation achieved by high-dose chemotherapy with autologous SCT, and following allo-SCT with a reduced-intensity conditioning to minimize treatment-related organ toxicities but allow GvM effect. Our review aims to better define the role of allo-SCT in myeloma treatment particularly in the context of new immunomodulatory approaches

Odds of Having a Regular Physician and Perceptions of Care: Ethnic Patterns for Women Ages 25–45

Background and Objectives: This study’s purpose was to simultaneously investigate demographic, socioeconomic status, health status, and access-to-care factors to see if they could explain racial/ethnic differences in the odds of reproductive-aged women having a regular physician and perceptions of those women about their care. Methods: Data come from a nationally representative sample of 4,520 women ages 25–45. We used logistic regression models to ascertain the odds of having a regular doctor and feeling cared for among black, Hispanic, and Asian women as compared to non-Hispanic white women. Models contained controls for factors found significant in prior research and interaction terms. Results: Hispanic women have significantly lower odds of having a regular doctor than white non-Hispanic women, a gap primarily explained by differences in language and insurance status. Asian and Hispanic women have significantly lower odds of reporting feeling cared for by their doctor, and black women have higher odds of reporting feeling cared for by their doctor than white women. Significant interaction terms of race/ethnicity by economic level, residence, and health status show that the associations between race/ethnicity and having a regular doctor, and feeling cared for by that doctor, depend on other characteristics. Conclusions: The odds that women of reproductive age will have a regular doctor and report feeling cared for by that doctor differ by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic characteristics. Black women have higher odds, and Spanish-speaking women have lower odds of having a regular doctor than white women, and Hispanic and Asian women have lower odds of feeling cared for