Pain in castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone metastases: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bone metastases are a common painful and debilitating consequence of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CPRC). Bone pain may predict patients' prognosis and there is a need to further explore CRPC patients' experiences of bone pain in the overall context of disease pathology. Due to the subjective nature of pain, assessments of pain severity, onset and progression are reliant on patient assessment. Patient reported outcome (PRO) measures, therefore, are commonly used as key endpoints for evaluating the efficacy of CRPC treatments. Evidence of the content validity of leading PRO measures of pain severity used in CRPC clinical trials is, however, limited.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To document patients' experience of CRPC symptoms including pain, and their impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL), semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 patients with CRPC and bone metastases. The content validity of the Present Pain Intensity (PPI) scale from the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and the 'Average Pain' and 'Worst Pain' items of the Brief Pain Inventory Short-Form (BPI-SF) was also assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients with CRPC and bone metastases present with a constellation of symptoms that can have a profound effect on HRQL. For patients in this study, bone pain was the most prominent and debilitating symptom associated with their condition. Bone pain was chronic and, despite being generally well-managed by analgesic medication, instances of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) were common. Cognitive debriefing of the selected PRO measures of pain severity highlighted difficulties among patients in understanding the verbal response scale (VRS) of the MPQ PPI scale. There were also some inconsistencies in the way in which the BPI-SF 'Average Pain' item was interpreted by patients. In contrast, the BPI-SF 'Worst Pain' item was well understood and interpreted consistently among patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Study findings support the importance of PRO measures of pain severity as key endpoints for evaluating the efficacy of treatments for CRPC, particularly for patients with bone metastases where episodes of BTcP are common. Qualitative evidence from CRPC patients supports the content validity of the BPI-SF ''Worst Pain' item and promotes use of this item for measuring pain severity in this population.</p

Clinical risk factors for age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of blindness in Western countries. Numerous risk factors have been reported but the evidence and strength of association is variable. We aimed to identify those risk factors with strong levels of evidence which could be easily assessed by physicians or ophthalmologists to implement preventive interventions or address current behaviours. METHODS: A systematic review identified 18 prospective and cross-sectional studies and 6 case control studies involving 113,780 persons with 17,236 cases of late AMD that included an estimate of the association between late AMD and at least one of 16 pre-selected risk factors. Fixed-effects meta-analyses were conducted for each factor to combine odds ratio (OR) and/or relative risk (RR) outcomes across studies by study design. Overall raw point estimates of each risk factor and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Increasing age, current cigarette smoking, previous cataract surgery, and a family history of AMD showed strong and consistent associations with late AMD. Risk factors with moderate and consistent associations were higher body mass index, history of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and higher plasma fibrinogen. Risk factors with weaker and inconsistent associations were gender, ethnicity, diabetes, iris colour, history of cerebrovascular disease, and serum total and HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking, previous cataract surgery and a family history of AMD are consistent risk factors for AMD. Cardiovascular risk factors are also associated with AMD. Knowledge of these risk factors that may be easily assessed by physicians and general ophthalmologists may assist in identification and appropriate referral of persons at risk of AMD

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMmotion151):a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

Background A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, patients with a component of clear cell or sarcomatoid histology and who were previously untreated, were recruited from 152 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 21 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. A permuted-block randomisation ( block size of 4) was applied to obtain a balanced assignment to each treatment group with respect to the stratification factors. Study investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Patients, investigators, independent radiology committee members, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the PD-L1 positive population and overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420821. Findings Of 915 patients enrolled between May 20, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group. 362 (40%) of 915 patients had PD-L1 positive disease. Median follow-up was 15 months at the primary progression-free survival analysis and 24 months at the overall survival interim analysis. In the PD-L1 positive population, the median progression-free survival was 11.2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7.7 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74 [95% CI 0.57-0.96]; p=0.0217). In the ITT population, median overall survival had an HR of 0.93 (0.76-1.14) and the results did not cross the significance boundary at the interim analysis. 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the sunitinib group had treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had treatment-related all-grade adverse events, which led to treatment-regimen discontinuation. Interpretation Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and showed a favourable safety profile. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish whether a survival benefit will emerge. These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selected patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards

Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes generate important data in cancer randomised trials to assist in assessing the risks and benefits of cancer therapies and fostering patient-centred cancer care. However, the various ways these measures are analysed and interpreted make it difficult to compare results across trials, and hinders the application of research findings to inform publications, product labelling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. To address these problems, the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data (SISAQOL) initiative has been established. This consortium, directed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was convened to provide recommendations on how to standardise the analysis of HRQOL and other patient-reported outcomes data in cancer randomised trials. This Personal View discusses the reasons why this project was initiated, the rationale for the planned work, and the expected benefits to cancer research, patient and provider decision making, care delivery, and policy making

International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed