Impact of Patient- and Clinician-Reported Cumulative Toxicity on Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Naïve Prostate Cancer

Abstract

Background: Current toxicity evaluation is primarily focused on high-grade adverse events (AEs) reported by clinicians. However, the cumulative effect of multiple lower-grade AEs may also impact patients' quality of life (QoL). Further, patient-reported toxicity may be more representative of patients' treatment experiences. This study aimed to determine whether cumulative toxicity comprising all-grade AEs is more associated with QoL than cumulative toxicity comprising high-grade AEs only, and whether patient-reported cumulative toxicity is more associated with QoL than clinician-reported cumulative toxicity. Methods: Patients with metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer participating in the phase III GETUG-AFU 15 trial completed questionnaires on AEs (at 3 and 6 months) and QoL (at baseline and 3 and 6 months). Clinicians reported AEs during clinical visits. Cumulative toxicity scores were calculated for clinicians and patients in 3 ways: total number of high-grade AEs, total number of all-grade AEs, and total number of all AEs multiplied by their grade (severity score). Relationships between cumulative toxicity scores and QoL were studied using longitudinal regression analyses; unstandardized (B) and standardized regression coefficients (β) are reported. Results: Of 385 patients, 184 with complete QoL and toxicity data were included. Clinician-reported all-grade AEs (B, -2.2; 95% CI, -3.3 to -1.1; P<.01) and severity score (B, -1.4; 95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7; P<.01) were associated with deteriorated physical QoL, whereas the total number of high-grade AEs was not. All patient-reported scores were significantly (P<.01 for all) associated with deteriorated physical and global QoL. Standardized regression coefficients indicated that patient-reported toxicity scores were more associated with QoL outcomes than clinician-reported scores, with the strongest association found for the all-grade AEs and severity cumulative toxicity scores. Conclusions: Patient-and clinician-based cumulative toxicity scores comprising all-grade AEs better reflect impact on patient QoL than toxicity scores comprising high-grade AEs only. To assess the effect of toxicity on QoL, patient-reported cumulative toxicity scores are preferred.

Impact of patient-reported outcomes on symptom monitoring during treatment with checkpoint inhibitors: health-related quality of life among melanoma patients in a randomized controlled trial

“…The fact that patients experience severe irAEs may not automatically result in impaired HRQoL. A study published in 2018 suggests that cumulative toxicity scores comprising all-grade adverse events (AEs) better reflect impact on QoL than high-grade AEs alone [ 16 ]. In addition, patients who experience moderate or even mild irAEs may experience substantial HRQoL impacts because adverse events are long term or particularly troublesome, occur regularly, interfere with daily activities [ 17 ], or lead to psychological distress [ 18 , 19 ].…”

Management of newly diagnosed metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer: A survey of UK Uro‐oncologists

“…Notably, an impact on daily activities was also reported, eg, limits to ambulatory capacity and psychological effects. In an analysis of data from GETUG‐AF15, all cumulative toxicity measures (ie, all grades/severity of adverse events) were associated with reduced quality of life 19 . However, the negative impact of docetaxel on quality of life is associated with treatment toxicity within the first 3 months but typically recovers after the cessation of treatment.…”

Therapy preferences in melanoma treatment—Willingness to pay and preference of quality versus length of life of patients, physicians, healthy individuals and physicians with oncological disease

“…As Levy et al describe, living with melanoma under immunotherapy could be compared to living in a phase of uncertainty, like playing a Russian roulette 18 . Particularly noteworthy was the fact that all grades of adverse events had an impact on the quality of life of the patient, besides the less common adverse events 19 …”