Mo, Julia

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes may be associated with cancer outcomes. We evaluated clinically significant fatigue (CSF), overall survival, adverse events (AEs), and quality of life (QOL) during cancer treatment. METHODS: We compared outcomes in four phase II or III chemotherapy trials, two advanced non–small-cell lung cancer and two advanced hormone-refractory prostate cancer, with or without baseline CSF. CSF was defined as a rating of two or greater on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy fatigue question or a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire—Core 30 fatigue symptom score of 50% or greater. Survival was compared according to CSF using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression models. Differences in AE rates by CSF were assessed via chi-squared tests, and QOL changes from baseline to 3 months via linear regression. RESULTS: Of 1,994 participants, 1,907 (median age 69 years, range: 32-91) had complete baseline QOL survey data, with 52% reporting CSF at baseline. For the two hormone-refractory prostate cancer studies, baseline CSF was associated with higher mortality rates, with adjusted hazard ratios of (95% CI, P value) 1.32 (1.13 to 1.55, P < .001) and 1.31 (1.02 to 1.67, P = .03) and with increased incidence of grade 3-5 constitutional (16.5% v 9.4%, P = .002; 13.9% v 6.3%, P = .002) and neurologic (11.7% v 6.1%, P = .006; 9.0% v 3.9%, P = .01) AEs, respectively. Baseline CSF was associated with a higher mortality rate in one non–small-cell lung cancer study: hazard ratio 1.44 and 1.04 to 2.00, P = .03. CONCLUSION: Oncology trial participants with baseline CSF had poorer survival and experienced more AEs than participants without CSF. This indicates fatigue as an important baseline prognostic factor in oncology treatment trials.

140 Background: Prior studies have suggested that patient-reported outcomes may be associated with cancer outcomes. We evaluated the association between clinically significant fatigue (CSF) and adverse events (AEs), quality of life (QOL), and overall survival (OS) during cancer treatment. Methods: Four phase II or III chemotherapy trials, two each in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and advanced hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC), were used to compare patients with or without baseline CSF. Baseline CSF was defined as a rating of 2 or greater on the FACT fatigue survey question or an EORTC QLQ-C30 fatigue symptom score of 50% or greater. Change in QOL from baseline, AE rates, and survival were compared according to baseline CSF with linear regression models, equality of proportions chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression models, respectively, separately for each trial. Results: Of 1,994 participants, 1,907 had complete baseline QOL survey data, with 52% reporting CSF at baseline. Baseline CSF was associated with an increased incidence of grade 3-5 constitutional (16.5% vs 9.4%, p = 0.002 and 13.9% vs 6.3%, p = 0.002) and neurological (11.7% vs 6.1%, p = 0.006 and 9.0% vs 3.9%, p = 0.01) AEs, respectively, in two studies of advanced HRPC. Overall, patients with baseline CSF had significantly lower baseline QOL across all four domains (p < 0.01). Across all four studies, baseline CSF was associated with higher mortality rates, with adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval, p-value): 1.34 (1.14, 1.57, p < .001) and 1.30 (1.02, 1.66, p = 0.03) in NSCLC studies, 1.49 (0.95, 2.35, p = 0.09) and 1.53 (1.12, 2.11, p = 0.008) in HRPC studies. Conclusions: Oncology trial participants with baseline CSF had significantly lower baseline QOL, experienced more adverse events and had poorer survival compared to participants without CSF. We have confirmed previous work indicating that fatigue is an important baseline stratification factor that should be considered in all oncology treatment trials. Consistent with other research, our results indicate that fatigue should be measured and ameliorated wherever possible among advanced cancer patients.