This is a repository copy of International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium.

Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQL) and other patient-reported outcomes (PRO) generate important data in cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assist in evaluating the risks and benefits of cancer therapies, and fostering patient-centered cancer care.However, the various ways these measures are analyzed 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 international multidisciplinary consortium, directed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was convened to provide recommendations to standardize the analysis of HRQL and other PRO data in cancer RCTs. This article discusses the reasons why this project was initiated, the rationale for the planned work, and the expected benefits to cancer research, patient/provider decision-making, care delivery, and policymaking.5

BackgroundIn prognostic studies, the lasso technique is attractive since it improves the quality of predictions by shrinking regression coefficients, compared to predictions based on a model fitted via unpenalized maximum likelihood. Since some coefficients are set to zero, parsimony is achieved as well. It is unclear whether the performance of a model fitted using the lasso still shows some optimism. Bootstrap methods have been advocated to quantify optimism and generalize model performance to new subjects. It is unclear how resampling should be performed in the presence of multiply imputed data.MethodThe data were based on a cohort of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients. We constructed models to predict Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire dyspnea 6 months ahead. Optimism of the lasso model was investigated by comparing 4 approaches of handling multiply imputed data in the bootstrap procedure, using the study data and simulated data sets. In the first 3 approaches, data sets that had been completed via multiple imputation (MI) were resampled, while the fourth approach resampled the incomplete data set and then performed MI.ResultsThe discriminative model performance of the lasso was optimistic. There was suboptimal calibration due to over-shrinkage. The estimate of optimism was sensitive to the choice of handling imputed data in the bootstrap resampling procedure. Resampling the completed data sets underestimates optimism, especially if, within a bootstrap step, selected individuals differ over the imputed data sets. Incorporating the MI procedure in the validation yields estimates of optimism that are closer to the true value, albeit slightly too larger.ConclusionPerformance of prognostic models constructed using the lasso technique can be optimistic as well. Results of the internal validation are sensitive to how bootstrap resampling is performed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-116) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Understanding the mechanisms involved in long-term persistence of humoral immunity after natural infection or vaccination is challenging and crucial for further research in immunology, vaccine development as well as health policy. Long-lived plasma cells, which have recently been shown to reside in survival niches in the bone marrow, are instrumental in the process of immunity induction and persistence. We developed a mathematical model, assuming two antibody-secreting cell subpopulations (short- and long-lived plasma cells), to analyze the antibody kinetics after HAV-vaccination using data from two long-term follow-up studies. Model parameters were estimated through a hierarchical nonlinear mixed-effects model analysis. Long-term individual predictions were derived from the individual empirical parameters and were used to estimate the mean time to immunity waning. We show that three life spans are essential to explain the observed antibody kinetics: that of the antibodies (around one month), the short-lived plasma cells (several months) and the long-lived plasma cells (decades). Although our model is a simplified representation of the actual mechanisms that govern individual immune responses, the level of agreement between long-term individual predictions and observed kinetics is reassuringly close. The quantitative assessment of the time scales over which plasma cells and antibodies live and interact provides a basis for further quantitative research on immunology, with direct consequences for understanding the epidemiology of infectious diseases, and for timing serum sampling in clinical trials of vaccines.

The 5th EORTC Quality of Life in Cancer Clinical Trials Conference presented the current state of quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) research from the perspectives of researchers, regulators, industry representatives, patients and patient advocates and health care professionals. A major theme was the assessment of the burden of cancer treatments, and this was discussed in terms of regulatory challenges in using PRO assessments in clinical trials, patients' experiences in cancer clinical trials, innovative methods and standardisation in cancer research, innovative methods across the disease sites or populations and cancer survivorship. Conferees demonstrated that PROs are becoming more accepted and major efforts are ongoing internationally to standardise PROs measurement, analysis and reporting in trials. Regulators are keen to collaborate with all stakeholders to ensure that the right questions are asked and the right answers are communicated. Improved technology and increased flexibility of measurement instruments are making PROs data more

Background We aimed to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for interpreting group-level change over time, both within a group and between groups, for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with advanced breast cancer. Methods Data were derived from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors (eg, performance status [PS]) were selected using correlation strength and clinical plausibility of their association with a particular QLQ-C30 scale. Three change status groups were formed: deteriorated by one anchor category, improved by one anchor category, and no change. Patients with greater anchor changes were excluded. The mean change method was used to estimate MIDs for within-group change, and linear regression was used to estimate MIDs for between-group differences in change over time. For a given QLQ-C30 scale, MID estimates from multiple anchors were triangulated to a single value via a correlation-based weighted average. Results MIDs varied by QLQ-C30 scale, direction (improvement vs deterioration), and anchor. MIDs for within-group change ranged from 5 to 14 points (improvement) and −14 to −4 points (deterioration), and MIDs for between-group change over time ranged from 4 to 11 points and from −18 to −4 points. Correlation-weighted MIDs for most QLQ-C30 scales ranged from 4 to 10 points in absolute values. Conclusions Our findings aid interpretation of changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores over time, both within and between groups, and for performing more accurate sample size calculations for clinical trials in advanced breast cancer.

Introduction: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly recognised as an important end-point in cancer clinical trials. The concept of minimally important difference (MID) enables interpreting differences and changes in HRQOL scores in terms of clinical meaningfulness. We aimed to estimate MIDs for interpreting group-level change of European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with malignant melanoma. Methods: Data were pooled from three published melanoma phase III trials. Anchors relying on clinician's ratings, e.g. performance status, were selected using correlation strength and

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.