OS7.4 Calculating the net clinical benefit in brain tumor clinical trials by combining survival and health-related quality of life data using two methods: quality adjusted survival effect sizes (QASES) and joint modelling (JM). (6th September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Coomans, M; Dirven, L; Bottomley, A; van den Bent, M; Sloan, J; Stupp, R; Weller, M; Reijneveld, J C; Taphoorn, M; Aaronson, N; Baumert, B G; Brandes, A A; Chinot, O; Coens, C; Gorlia, T; Herrlinger, U; Keime-Guibert, F; Malmström, A; Martinelli, F; Talacchi, A; Wick, W
• Is Part Of: Neuro-oncology. Volume 21(2019)Supplement 3
• Page Start: iii14
• Page End: iii15
• Publication Date: 2019-09-06
• Subjects: Brain Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Brain -- Tumors -- Periodicals; Brain -- Cancer -- Periodicals; Nervous system -- Cancer -- Periodicals; 616.99481
• DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noz126.047
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-8517

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The impact of treatment on both the quality and the quantity of life, i.e. the 'net clinical benefit', should be considered to inform glioma patients and facilitate shared decision making. We applied two methods (i.e. Quality Adjusted Effect Sizes (QASES) and Joint Modelling (JM)) that combine survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data into one outcome, to gain insight in the net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy. In addition, we assessed if both methods result in similar interpretations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We calculated the net clinical benefit in one randomized controlled trial, EORTC 26951 comparing radiotherapy (RT) + PCV chemotherapy versus RT alone, as a proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in survival and HRQoL between treatment arms were calculated. Next, the combined effect size can be determined by weighing the emphasis put on survival or HRQoL (e.g. survival more important). JM allows simultaneous modeling of a longitudinal outcome (HRQoL), and a time-to event outcome (survival). HRQoL scales/items that were selected for primary analysis in the main study were also selected for this analysis: fatigue, global health, social functioning, communication deficit, seizures, physical functioning, and nausea/vomiting. RESULTS: 288/386 patients completed baseline HRQoL forms and were included in the analysis. Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with combined treatment (difference of 10.8 months). In contrast, the percentage of patients who experienced a clinically relevant deterioration (≥10 points) in nausea/vomiting, fatigue, social functioning and global health up to one year after treatment compared to baseline was larger in the RT+PCV arm. The QASES corresponded to a reduction in the median OS difference from 10.8 months to 6.8 months when adjusted for the HRQoL scales/items, when given equal weights to OS and HRQoL. JM analyses resulted in a theoretical loss of treatment effect in OS of 2–6% when adjusting for HRQoL. CONCLUSION: Both methods showed that adjusting for the impact of treatment on a relevant HRQoL parameter reduced the survival benefit in the experimental treatment arm compared to standard treatment arm. Applying these methods may facilitate communicating the impact of treatment to patients in clinical practice.