Development of the EORTC QLQ-CAX24, a questionnaire for cancer patients with cachexia

Context Cachexia is commonly found in cancer patients and has profound consequences; yet there is only one questionnaire that examines the patient's perspective. Objective To report a rigorously developed module for patient self-reported impact of cancer cachexia. Methods Module development followed published guidelines. Patients from across the cancer cachexia trajectory were included. In Phase 1, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues were generated from a literature review and interviews with patients in four countries. The issues were revised based on patient and health care professional (HCP) input. In Phase 2, questionnaire items were formulated and translated into the languages required for Phase 3, the pilot phase, in which patients from eight countries scored the relevance and importance of each item, and provided qualitative feedback. Results A total of 39 patients and 12 HCPs took part in Phase 1. The literature review produced 68 HRQOL issues, with 22 new issues arising from the patient interviews. After patient and HCP input, 44 issues were formulated into questionnaire items in Phase 2. One hundred ten patients took part in Phase 3. One item was reworded, and 20 items were deleted as a consequence of patient feedback. Conclusions The QLQ-CAX24 is a cancer cachexia-specific questionnaire, comprising 24 items, for HRQOL assessment in clinical trials and practice. It contains five multi-item scales (food aversion, eating and weight-loss worry, eating difficulties, loss of control, and physical decline) and four single items

Physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 1 of the cachexia endpoints series

In cancer cachexia trials, measures of physical function are commonly used as endpoints. For drug trials to obtain regulatory approval, efficacy in physical function endpoints may be needed alongside other measures. However, it is not clear which physical function endpoints should be used. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. Following a comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990-2021), records were retrieved. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), controlled design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a physical function endpoint. Physical function measures were classified as an objective measure (hand grip strength [HGS], stair climb power [SCP], timed up and go [TUG] test, 6-min walking test [6MWT] and short physical performance battery [SPPB]), clinician assessment of function (Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status [ECOG-PS]) or patient-reported outcomes (physical function subscale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires [EORTC QLQ-C30 or C15]). Data extraction was performed using Covidence and followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 potential studies were examined and 71 were eligible. Pharmacological interventions were assessed in 38 trials (54%). Of these, 11 (29%, n = 1184) examined megestrol and 5 (13%, n = 1928) examined anamorelin; nutritional interventions were assessed in 21 trials (30%); and exercise-based interventions were assessed in 6 trials (8%). The remaining six trials (8%) assessed multimodal interventions. Among the objective measures of physical function (assessed as primary or secondary endpoints), HGS was most commonly examined (33 trials, n = 5081) and demonstrated a statistically significant finding in 12 (36%) trials (n = 2091). The 6MWT was assessed in 12 trials (n = 1074) and was statistically significant in 4 (33%) trials (n = 403), whereas SCP, TUG and SPPB were each assessed in 3 trials. KPS was more commonly assessed than the newer ECOG-PS (16 vs. 9 trials), and patient-reported EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function was reported in 25 trials. HGS is the most commonly used physical function endpoint in cancer cachexia clinical trials. However, heterogeneity in study design, populations, intervention and endpoint selection make it difficult to comment on the optimal endpoint and how to measure this. We offer several recommendations/considerations to improve the design of future clinical trials in cancer cachexia

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

A systematic review examining nutrition support interventions in patients with incurable cancer.

From PubMed via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2019-03-14, accepted 2019-07-16Publication status: aheadofprintRecent guidelines by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) have advocated increased attention to nutritional support in all patients with cancer; however, little is known about the optimal type of nutritional intervention. The aim of this review was to assess the current evidence for nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched from 1990 to 2018. Evidence was appraised using a modified risk of bias table, based on guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Sixty studies were assessed of which twelve met the eligibility criteria. Eleven studies examined body composition, with six studies reporting improvements in weight. Six studies examined nutritional status with three studies reporting an improvement. Nine studies examined nutritional intake with six showing improvements including significant improvements in dietary and protein intake. Ten studies examined quality of life, with six studies reporting improvements following intervention. The most common nutritional interventions examined were nutrition counselling and dietary supplementation. There is moderate quality evidence to support the need for increased attention to nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer; however, despite some statistically significant results being reported, the clinical effects of them were small. Key questions remain as to the optimal timing for these interventions to be implemented (e.g. cachexia stage, illness stage and timing with anticancer therapy) and the most appropriate endpoint measures

A systematic review examining nutrition support interventions in patients with incurable cancer

Purpose: Recent guidelines by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) have advocated increased attention to nutritional support in all patients with cancer: however, little is known about the optimal type of nutritional intervention. The aim of this review was to assess the current evidence for nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer. Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. EMBASE, Medline and CINAHL were searched from 1990-2018. Evidence was appraised using a modified risk of bias table, based on guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: Sixty studies were assessed of which twelve met the eligibility criteria. Eleven studies examined body composition, with six studies reporting improvements in weight. Six studies examined nutritional status with three studies reporting an improvement. Nine studies examined nutritional intake with six showing improvements including significant improvements in dietary and protein intake. Ten studies examined quality of life, with six studies reporting improvements following intervention. The most common nutritional interventions examined were nutrition counselling and dietary supplementation. Conclusions: There is moderate quality evidence to support the need for increased attention to nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer; however, despite some statistically significant results being reported the clinical effects of them were small. Key questions remain as to the optimal timing for these interventions to be implemented (e.g. cachexia stage, illness stage, timing with anticancer therapy) and the most appropriate endpoint measures.This work was financially supported by the Nancie Massey Charitable Trust, Miss M B Reekie’s Charitable Trust and the P F Charitable Trust.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04999-428pubpu