Explore the vast range of titles available.

A previous review published in 2008 highlighted the prognostic significance of baseline patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as independent predictors of the overall survival of patients with cancer in clinical studies. In response to the methodological limitations of studies included in the previous review, recommendations were subsequently published in the same year to promote a higher level of methodological rigour in studies of prognostic factors. Our systematic review aimed to provide an update on progress with the implementation of these recommendations and to assess whether the methodological quality of prognostic factor analyses has changed over time. Of the 44 studies published between 2006 and 2018 that were included in our review, more standardisation and rigour of the methods used for prognostic factor analysis was found compared with the previous review. 41 (93%) of the trials reported at least one PRO domain as independently prognostic. The most common significant prognostic factors reported were physical functioning (17 [39%] studies) and global health or quality of life (15 [34%] studies). These findings highlight the value of PROs as prognostic or stratification factors in research across most types of cancer.

Although individual studies show that baseline health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a prognostic factor for survival, contradictory results have been published and very few meta-analyses have confirmed the finding. We examined whether HRQOL scores are associated with survival when pooled across a large sample of patients with different disease sites. We selected 30 randomised controlled trials from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) started between 1986 and 2004, which included survival data for 10 108 patients with 11 different cancer sites. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had completed a baseline HRQOL assessment with the EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30; n=7417). Sociodemographic variables were age (≤60 vs >60 years) and sex (men vs women), and clinical variables were WHO performance status (0–1 vs 2–3), distant metastases (no vs yes), and cancer site. We assessed prognostic significance of sociodemographic and clinical variables and the 15 QLQ-C30 scales with Cox proportional hazard models. In the stratified multivariate model including sociodemographic, clinical, and HRQOL data, the HRQOL parameters of physical functioning (hazard ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·92–0·96; p<0·0001), pain (1·04, 1·02–1·06; p<0·0001), and appetite loss (1·05, 1·03–1·06; p<0·0001) provided significant prognostic information in addition to the parameters age (1·17, 1·06–1·28; p=0·0001), sex (0·74, 0·67–0·82; p<0·0001), and distant metastases (1·70, 1·49–1·93; p<0·0001), but not for WHO performance status (1·07, 0·97–1·19; p=0·11). Consideration of the three HRQOL parameters and sociodemographic and clinical data increased the predictive accuracy of prognosis of overall survival by 6% relative to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics alone ( C statistic for concordance between predicted and observed overall survival 0·68 for sociodemographic and clinical variables, and 0·72 for sociodemographic, clinical, and HRQOL variables). The results suggest that HRQOL scales provide prognostic information in addition to that of sociodemographic and clinical measures. This study shows that HRQOL data can help to predict survival in patients with cancer. Merck KGaA, EORTC Charitable Trust, and National Cancer Institute.

If treatment of the axilla is indicated in patients with breast cancer who have a positive sentinel node, axillary lymph node dissection is the present standard. Although axillary lymph node dissection provides excellent regional control, it is associated with harmful side-effects. We aimed to assess whether axillary radiotherapy provides comparable regional control with fewer side-effects. Patients with T1–2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy were enrolled in the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive either axillary lymph node dissection or axillary radiotherapy in case of a positive sentinel node, stratified by institution. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of 5-year axillary recurrence, considered to be not more than 4% for the axillary radiotherapy group compared with an expected 2% in the axillary lymph node dissection group. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. The AMAROS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00014612. Between Feb 19, 2001, and April 29, 2010, 4823 patients were enrolled at 34 centres from nine European countries, of whom 4806 were eligible for randomisation. 2402 patients were randomly assigned to receive axillary lymph node dissection and 2404 to receive axillary radiotherapy. Of the 1425 patients with a positive sentinel node, 744 had been randomly assigned to axillary lymph node dissection and 681 to axillary radiotherapy; these patients constituted the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·1–8·0) for the patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes. In the axillary lymph node dissection group, 220 (33%) of 672 patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection had additional positive nodes. Axillary recurrence occurred in four of 744 patients in the axillary lymph node dissection group and seven of 681 in the axillary radiotherapy group. 5-year axillary recurrence was 0·43% (95% CI 0·00–0·92) after axillary lymph node dissection versus 1·19% (0·31–2·08) after axillary radiotherapy. The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the low number of events. The one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority test on the hazard ratio was 0·00–5·27, with a non-inferiority margin of 2. Lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm was noted significantly more often after axillary lymph node dissection than after axillary radiotherapy at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. Axillary lymph node dissection and axillary radiotherapy after a positive sentinel node provide excellent and comparable axillary control for patients with T1–2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy. Axillary radiotherapy results in significantly less morbidity. EORTC Charitable Trust.

Pazopanib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has single-agent activity in patients with advanced non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma. We investigated the effect of pazopanib on progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after failure of standard chemotherapy. This phase 3 study was done in 72 institutions, across 13 countries. Patients with angiogenesis inhibitor-naive, metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, progressing despite previous standard chemotherapy, were randomly assigned by an interactive voice randomisation system in a 2:1 ratio in permuted blocks (with block sizes of six) to receive either pazopanib 800 mg once daily or placebo, with no subsequent cross-over. Patients, investigators who gave the treatment, those assessing outcomes, and those who did the analysis were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753688. 372 patients were registered and 369 were randomly assigned to receive pazopanib (n=246) or placebo (n=123). Median progression-free survival was 4·6 months (95% CI 3·7–4·8) for pazopanib compared with 1·6 months (0·9–1·8) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·31, 95% CI 0·24–0·40; p<0·0001). Overall survival was 12·5 months (10·6–14·8) with pazopanib versus 10·7 months (8·7–12·8) with placebo (HR 0·86, 0·67–1·11; p=0·25). The most common adverse events were fatigue (60 in the placebo group [49%] vs 155 in the pazopanib group [65%]), diarrhoea (20 [16%] vs 138 [58%]), nausea (34 [28%] vs 129 [54%]), weight loss (25 [20%] vs 115 [48%]), and hypertension (8 [7%] vs 99 [41%]). The median relative dose intensity was 100% for placebo and 96% for pazopanib. Pazopanib is a new treatment option for patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after previous chemotherapy. GlaxoSmithKline.

In this randomized trial, standard primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy was compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by debulking surgery in women with bulky stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. Starting treatment with chemotherapy allowed more patients to undergo optimal tumor debulking during the subsequent operation. However, the outcomes were the same regardless of the timing of the debulking operation. Primary chemotherapy is an option in the management of bulky ovarian cancer. In most women with ovarian carcinoma, the disease is not diagnosed until it is at an advanced stage. Primary cytoreductive surgery is considered the standard of care for advanced ovarian carcinoma. 1 – 4 However, data from prospective, randomized, controlled trials assessing the role of primary surgery in the treatment of such cases are lacking. Interval debulking surgery has not been viewed as beneficial in women with residual tumor that exceeds 1 cm in diameter after primary debulking surgery performed with the objective of maximal surgical effort by a gynecologic oncologist. 5 – 7 As an alternative to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy, . . .

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.

Bevacizumab is frequently used in the treatment of recurrent WHO grade II and III glioma, but without supporting evidence from randomised trials. Therefore, we assessed the use of bevacizumab in patients with first recurrence of grade II or III glioma who did not have 1p/19q co-deletion. The TAVAREC trial was a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial done at 32 centres across Europe in patients with locally diagnosed grade II or III glioma without 1p/19q co-deletion, with a first and contrast-enhancing recurrence after initial radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both. Previous chemotherapy must have been stopped at least 6 months before enrolment and radiotherapy must have been stopped at least 3 months before enrolment. Random group assignment was done electronically through the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer web-based system, stratified by a minimisation procedure using institution, initial histology (WHO grade II vs III), WHO performance status (0 or 1 vs 2), and previous treatment (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or both). Patients were assigned to receive either temozolomide (150–200 mg/m2, orally) monotherapy on days 1–5 every 4 weeks for a maximum of 12 cycles, or the same temozolomide regimen in combination with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, intravenously) every 2 weeks until progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 12 months in the per-protocol population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who started their allocated treatment. The study is registered at EudraCT (2009–017422–39) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01164189), and is complete. Between Feb 8, 2011, and July 31, 2015, 155 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either monotherapy (n=77) or combination therapy (n=78). Overall survival in the per-protocol population at 12 months was achieved by 44 (61% [80% CI 53–69]) of 72 patients in the temozolomide group and 38 (55% [47–69]) of 69 in the combination group. The most frequent toxicity was haematological: 17 (23%) of 75 patients in the monotherapy group and 25 (33%) of 76 in the combination group developed grade 3 or 4 haematological toxicity. Other than haematological toxicities, the most common adverse events were nervous system disorders (59 [79%] of 75 patients in the monotherapy group vs 65 [86%] of 76 in the combination group), fatigue (53 [70%] vs 61 [80%]), and nausea (39 [52%] vs 43 [56%]). Infections were more frequently reported in the combination group (29 [38%] of 76 patients) than in the monotherapy group (17 [23%] of 75). One treatment-related death was reported in the combination group (infection after intratumoral haemorrhage during a treatment-related grade 4 thrombocytopenia). We found no evidence of improved overall survival with bevacizumab and temozolomide combination treatment versus temozolomide monotherapy. The findings from this study provide no support for further phase 3 studies on the role of bevacizumab in this disease. Roche Pharmaceuticals.

Clinical trials of treatments for high-grade gliomas have traditionally relied on measures of response or time-dependent metrics; however, these endpoints have limitations because they do not characterise the functional or symptomatic effect of the condition on the person. Including clinical outcome assessments, such as patient- reported outcomes (PROs), to determine net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy is needed because of the substantial burden of symptoms and impaired functioning in this patient population. The US National Cancer Institute convened a meeting to review previous recommendations and existing PRO measures of symptoms and function that can be applied to current trials and clinical practice for high-grade gliomas. Measures were assessed for relevance, relationship to disease and therapy, sensitivity to change, psychometric properties, response format, patient acceptability, and use of self-report. The group also relied on patient input including the results of an online survey, a literature review on available clinical outcomes, expert opinion, and alignment with work done by other organisations. A core set of priority constructs was proposed that allows more comprehensive evaluation of therapies and comparison of outcomes among studies, and enhances efforts to improve the measurement of these core clinical outcomes. The proposed set of constructs was then presented to the Society for Neuro-Oncology Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group and feedback was solicited.

Serum CA125 concentration often rises several months before clinical or symptomatic relapse in women with ovarian cancer. In the MRC OV05/EORTC 55955 collaborative trial, we aimed to establish the benefits of early treatment on the basis of increased CA125 concentrations compared with delayed treatment on the basis of clinical recurrence. Women with ovarian cancer in complete remission after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and a normal CA125 concentration were registered for this randomised controlled trial. Clinical examination and CA125 measurement were done every 3 months. Patients and investigators were masked to CA125 results, which were monitored by coordinating centres. If CA125 concentration exceeded twice the upper limit of normal, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to early or delayed chemotherapy. Patients and clinical sites were informed of allocation to early treatment, and treatment was started as soon as possible within 28 days of the increased CA125 measurement. Patients assigned to delayed treatment continued masked CA125 measurements, with treatment commencing at clinical or symptomatic relapse. All patients were treated according to standard local practice. The primary outcome was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, ISRCTN87786644. 1442 patients were registered for the trial, of whom 529 were randomly assigned to treatment groups and were included in our analysis (265 early, 264 delayed). With a median follow-up of 56·9 months (IQR 37·4–81·8) from randomisation and 370 deaths (186 early, 184 delayed), there was no evidence of a difference in overall survival between early and delayed treatment (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·80–1·20, p=0·85). Median survival from randomisation was 25·7 months (95% CI 23·0–27·9) for patients on early treatment and 27·1 months (22·8–30·9) for those on delayed treatment. Our findings showed no evidence of a survival benefit with early treatment of relapse on the basis of a raised CA125 concentration alone, and therefore the value of routine measurement of CA125 in the follow-up of patients with ovarian cancer who attain a complete response after first-line treatment is not proven. UK Medical Research Council and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, are important endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there is little consensus about the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of these data. We did a systematic review to assess the variability, quality, and standards of PRO data analyses in advanced breast cancer RCTs. We searched PubMed for English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2017. Eligible articles were those that reported PRO results from RCTs of adult patients with advanced breast cancer receiving anti-cancer treatments with reported sample sizes of at least 50 patients—66 RCTs met the selection criteria. Only eight (12%) RCTs reported a specific PRO research hypothesis. Heterogeneity in the statistical methods used to assess PRO data was observed, with a mixture of longitudinal and cross-sectional techniques. Not all articles addressed the problem of multiple testing. Fewer than half of RCTs (28 [42%]) reported the clinical significance of their findings. 48 (73%) did not report how missing data were handled. Our systematic review shows a need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs. Lack of standardisation makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions and compare findings across trials. The Setting International Standards in the Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data Consortium was set up to address this need and develop recommendations on the analysis of PRO data in RCTs.