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.

Patients with glioma present with complex palliative care needs throughout their disease trajectory. The life-limiting nature of gliomas and the presence of specific symptoms related to neurological deterioration necessitate an appropriate and early palliative care approach. The multidisciplinary palliative care task force of the European Association of Neuro-Oncology did a systematic review of the available scientific literature to formulate the best possible evidence-based recommendations for the palliative care of adult patients with glioma, with the aim to reduce symptom burden and improve the quality of life of patients and their caregivers, particularly in the end-of-life phase. When recommendations could not be made because of the scarcity of evidence, the task force either used evidence from studies of patients with systemic cancer or formulated expert opinion. Areas of palliative care that currently lack evidence and thus deserve attention for further research are fatigue, disorders of behaviour and mood, interventions for the needs of caregivers, and timing of advance care planning.

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

Provision of Special Care Units for people with Alzheimer's is seen as a solution to difficulties with their behavior, but the effect of such a unit is rarely tested. After Southland Care Center built an enclosed garden next to such a locked-in unit, residents' behavior was observed to look for such an effect. No pre-post-differences in disruptive behaviors were observed over the summer high-use period However, residents averaged only 14 percent of the peak afternoon use time in the garden, and those using it more displayed less disruptive behavior. As well, residents slept less in the daytime in summer compared to winter and spent more time in winter looking out the window and trying the handle of the door to the garden. Garden use appeared to have had a general positive effect on morale but little effect on disruptive behaviors, perhaps because of limited use by residents.

While they account for one-fifth of new cancer cases, rare cancers are difficult to study. A higher than average degree of uncertainty should be accommodated for clinical as well as for population-based decision making. Rules of rational decision making in conditions of uncertainty should be rigorously followed and would need widely informative clinical trials. In principle, any piece of new evidence would need to be exploited in rare cancers. Methodologies to explicitly weigh and combine all the available evidence should be refined, and the Bayesian logic can be instrumental to this end. Likewise, Bayesian-design trials may help optimize the low number of patients liable to be enrolled in clinical studies on rare cancers, as well as adaptive trials in general, with their inherent potential of flexibility when properly applied. While clinical studies are the mainstay to test hypotheses, the potential of electronic patient records should be exploited to generate new hypotheses, to create external controls for future studies (when internal controls are unpractical), to study effectiveness of new treatments in real conditions. Framework study protocols in specific rare cancers to stepwisely test sets of new agents, as from the early post-phase I development stage, should be encouraged. Also the compassionate and the off-label settings should be exploited to generate new evidence, and flexible regulatory innovations such as adaptive licensing could convey new agents early to rare cancer patients, while generating evidence. Though validation of surrogate end points is problematic in rare cancers, the use of an updated notion of tumor response may be of great value in the single patient to optimize the use of therapies, all the more the new ones. Disease-based communities, involving clinicians and patients, should be regularly consulted by regulatory bodies when setting their policies on drug approval and reimbursement in specific rare cancers .