Combining Survival and Toxicity Effect Sizes from Clinical Trials: NCCTG 89-20-52 (Alliance)

Background: How can a clinician and patient incorporate survival and toxicity information into a single expression of comparative treatment benefit? Sloan et al. recently extended the ½ standard deviation concept for judging the clinical importance of findings from clinical trials to survival and tumor response endpoints. A new method using this approach to combine survival and toxicity effect sizes from clinical trials into a quality-adjusted effect size is presented.Methods: The quality-adjusted survival effect size (QASES) is calculated as survival effect size (ESS) minus the calibrated toxicity effect sizes (EST) (QASES=ESS-EST). This combined effect size can be weighted to adjust for the relative emphasis placed by the patient on survival and toxicity effects.Results: As an example, consider clinical trial NCCTG 89-20-52 which randomized patients to once-daily thoracic radiotherapy (ODTRT) versus twice-daily treatment of thoracic radiotherapy (TDRT) for the treatment of lung cancer. The ODTRT vs. TDRT arms had median survival time of 22 vs. 20 months (p=0.49) and toxicity rate of 39% vs. 54%, (p<0.05). The QASES of 0.18 standard deviations translates to a quality-adjusted survival difference of 5.7 months advantage for the ODRT arm over the TDRT treatment arm (22(16.3) months), p<0.05). Similar results are presented for the four possible case combinations of significant/non-significant survival and toxicity benefits using completed clinical trials.Conclusions: We used a novel approach to re-analyze clinical trial data to produce a single estimate for each treatment that combines survival and toxicity data. The QASES approach is an intuitive and mathematically simple yet robust approach

Using ePrognosis to estimate 2-year all-cause mortality in older women with breast cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 49907 and 369901 (Alliance A151503)

Tools to estimate survival, such as ePrognosis (http://eprognosis.ucsf.edu/carey2.php), were developed for general, not cancer, populations. In older patients with breast cancer, accurate overall survival estimates would facilitate discussions about adjuvant therapies

Epidemiology and survival of the five stages of chronic kidney disease in a systolic heart failure population

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/102653/1/ejhfhfq077.pd

The comparative effectiveness of decision aids in diverse populations with early stage prostate cancer: a study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Alliance A191402CD

Abstract Background Treatments for localized prostate cancer present challenging tradeoffs in the face of uncertain treatment benefits. These options are best weighed in a process of shared decision-making with the patient’s healthcare team. Minority men experience disparities in prostate cancer outcomes, possibly due in part to a lack of optimal communication during treatment selection. Decision aids facilitate shared decision-making, improve knowledge of treatment options, may increase satisfaction with treatment choice, and likely facilitate long-term quality of life. Methods/design This study will compare the effect of two evidence-based decision aids on patient knowledge and on quality of life measured one year after treatment, oversampling minority men. One decision aid will be administered prior to specialist consultation, preparing patients for a treatment discussion. The other decision aid will be administered within the consultation to facilitate transparent, preference-sensitive, and evidence-informed deliberations. The study will utilize a four-arm, block-randomized design to test whether each decision aid alone (Arms 1 and 2) or in combination (Arm 3) can improve patient knowledge and quality of life compared to usual care (Arm 4). The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute’s Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), will be deployed within select institutions that have demonstrated capacity to recruit minority populations into urologic oncology trials. Discussion Upon completion of the trial, we will have 1) tested the effectiveness of two evidence-based decision aids in enhancing patients’ knowledge of options for prostate cancer therapy and 2) estimated whether decision aids may improve patient quality of life one year after initial treatment choice. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03103321 . The trial registration date (on ClinicalTrials.gov) was April 6, 2017

The role of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flare and cumulative burden of RA severity in the risk of cardiovascular disease

Objective To examine the role of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flare, remission and RA severity burden in cardiovascular disease (CVD)

Combining Survival and Toxicity Effect Sizes from Clinical Trials: NCCTG 89-20-52 (Alliance)

Background: How can a clinician and patient incorporate survival and toxicity information into a single expression of comparative treatment benefit? Sloan et al. recently extended the ½ standard deviation concept for judging the clinical importance of findings from clinical trials to survival and tumor response endpoints. A new method using this approach to combine survival and toxicity effect sizes from clinical trials into a quality-adjusted effect size is presented. Methods: The quality-adjusted survival effect size (QASES) is calculated as survival effect size (ESS) minus the calibrated toxicity effect sizes (EST) (QASES=ESS-EST). This combined effect size can be weighted to adjust for the relative emphasis placed by the patient on survival and toxicity effects. Results: As an example, consider clinical trial NCCTG 89-20-52 which randomized patients to once-daily thoracic radiotherapy (ODTRT) versus twice-daily treatment of thoracic radiotherapy (TDRT) for the treatment of lung cancer. The ODTRT vs. TDRT arms had median survival time of 22 vs. 20 months (p=0.49) and toxicity rate of 39% vs. 54%, (p<0.05). The QASES of 0.18 standard deviations translates to a quality-adjusted survival difference of 5.7 months advantage for the ODRT arm over the TDRT treatment arm (22(16.3) months), p<0.05). Similar results are presented for the four possible case combinations of significant/non-significant survival and toxicity benefits using completed clinical trials. Conclusions: We used a novel approach to re-analyze clinical trial data to produce a single estimate for each treatment that combines survival and toxicity data. The QASES approach is an intuitive and mathematically simple yet robust approach

Using Garden Cafés to engage community stakeholders in health research.

Science Cafés, informal venues to promote bidirectional dialog, inquiry and learning about science between community members, scientists, healthcare and service providers, hold promise as an innovative tool for healthcare researchers and community members to improve health outcomes, especially among populations with health disparities. However, the process of optimizing science cafés is under-studied. We describe the pilot evaluation of a series of Science Cafés, called Garden Cafés (n = 9), conducted from September 2015 through April 2016 in Olmsted County, MN and Duval County, FL to connect Mayo Clinic researchers and local service providers with the community. Selection of discussion topics was guided by a county health needs assessment, which identified community priorities. Before leaving the events, community participants completed a brief anonymous survey assessing sociodemographics and their knowledge of research benefits, readiness to participate as a partner in health research, and health and science literacy confidence. Of the 112 attendees who responded, 51% were female and 51% were Black. Respondents reported that participating in the event significantly improved (all at p<0.001) their understanding on all three measures. Preliminary findings suggest that Garden Cafés are an effective forum to increase community understanding and disposition to collaborate in health research, especially in members from diverse backgrounds

The comparative effectiveness of decision aids in diverse populations with early stage prostate cancer: a study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Alliance A191402CD

Abstract Background Treatments for localized prostate cancer present challenging tradeoffs in the face of uncertain treatment benefits. These options are best weighed in a process of shared decision-making with the patient’s healthcare team. Minority men experience disparities in prostate cancer outcomes, possibly due in part to a lack of optimal communication during treatment selection. Decision aids facilitate shared decision-making, improve knowledge of treatment options, may increase satisfaction with treatment choice, and likely facilitate long-term quality of life. Methods/design This study will compare the effect of two evidence-based decision aids on patient knowledge and on quality of life measured one year after treatment, oversampling minority men. One decision aid will be administered prior to specialist consultation, preparing patients for a treatment discussion. The other decision aid will be administered within the consultation to facilitate transparent, preference-sensitive, and evidence-informed deliberations. The study will utilize a four-arm, block-randomized design to test whether each decision aid alone (Arms 1 and 2) or in combination (Arm 3) can improve patient knowledge and quality of life compared to usual care (Arm 4). The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute’s Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), will be deployed within select institutions that have demonstrated capacity to recruit minority populations into urologic oncology trials. Discussion Upon completion of the trial, we will have 1) tested the effectiveness of two evidence-based decision aids in enhancing patients’ knowledge of options for prostate cancer therapy and 2) estimated whether decision aids may improve patient quality of life one year after initial treatment choice. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03103321. The trial registration date (on ClinicalTrials.gov) was April 6, 2017