Bottomley, Andrew

Abstract Background: Approximately 1% of all new cases of breast cancer (BC) occur in men. Care of male BC is largely based on extrapolation from treatment strategies and management of symptoms in women. The impact of BC diagnosis and therapy on Quality of Life (QoL) in women with BC is well documented. Comprehensive, prospective data about QoL in men treated for BC are sparse. Due to the lack of a validated male BC QoL questionnaire, we previously evaluated the QoL of the male BC using the original EORTC QLQ-C30 and breast module QLQ BR23 with “female” items replaced by male-specific items from the EORTC QoL prostate module (EORTC QLQ-PR25). The development of a validated worldwide questionnaire for male BC is sponsored by EORTC QoL Group and will be completed in cooperation with EORTC Breast Group and the International Male BC Program (a cooperation between EORTC-BCG, TBCRC, within the BIG and NABCG networks) Trial design: The evaluation of the QoL issues relevant for male BC, as well as the translation of issues into items to build the tool for QoL assessment in male BC will be carried out through four phases: 1. A systematic Literature review 2. Interviews with patients 3. Interviews with Health Care Professionals (HCP) 4. Consultation of experts in Oncology and QoL Inclusion criteria: • Histologically proven early BC or metastatic BC in male patients • Age ≥ 18 years • Ability to understand and fill out questionnaires • Written informed consent Exclusion criteria: • Other cancer in the past 5 years except non-melanotic skin cancer • Patients participating in interventional clinical studies with QoL as primary endpoint • Any condition potentially hampering compliance with the study protocol Aims: The study proposes to carry out an evaluation of the QoL issues relevant for male patients with BC, and translating the issues into questions to build the tool for an adequate QoL assessment in these patients. The specific aims are: 1) To carry out an evaluation of the existing EORTC QLQ-BR 45 (adapting for male BC) and for suitability of use in male BC patients 2) To carry out an evaluation of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 (adapting for male BC) for suitability of use in male BC patients 3) To provide recommendations to the EORTC on a suitable assessment approach to assess QOL in male BC Statistical methods: A systematic literature review to assess what factors are unique to male BC patients in influencing their QoL and what QoL measures exist for them will be performed. This will be conducted by reviewing all studies with male BC participants and including investigator brochures describing side effects in male BC patients, as well as by evaluating issues captured by other existing EORTC modules. The final list of potential QoL issues relevant to the male BC will be tested for relevance and importance in semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients and HCP. A total of 2-5 patients per year will be recruited from collaborating hospitals/countries. At least 40 in total will be interviewed before, during, or after treatment for male BC. At least 2 experts/country from the all collaborating centres will be included in the interview to discuss and consider the potential issues. Finally, the issue list will be translated into questions to build the tool for a QoL assessment in male BC patients. Present accrual and target accrual This study started in October 2019. A systematic literature review has been completed. Seventeen centres from worldwide are participating in the study. New centers may still join. Contact information for people with a specific interest in the trial Vesna Bjelic-Radisic E-Mail: Vesna.Bjelic-Radisic@helios-gesundheit.de Fatima Cardoso e-mail: fatimacardoso@fundacaochampalimaud.pt Citation Format: Vesna Bjelic-Radisic, Fatima Cardoso, Joachim Weis, Eveline Bleiker, David Cameron, Galina Velikova, Karatzyna Pogoda, Samantha Serpentini, Kevin Punie, Rinat Yerushalmi, Erika Matos, Birgit Carly, Ivana Bozovic-Spasojevic, Markus Fleisch, Zoe Luisa Probst, Sina Maria Schafer, Nicola Russell, Sofie Tombeur, Joanna Vermeij, Heidi Roelstraete, Kathryn Ruddy, Juan I Arraras, Andrew Bottomley. Adaption of the EORTC quality of life breast cancer module for male breast cancer - phase I [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT-14-01.

Abstract Background Two methods combining survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in glioma trials to calculate the “net clinical benefit” were evaluated: Quality-adjusted effect sizes (QASES) and joint modeling (JM). Methods The net clinical benefit in two trials was calculated as proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) and HRQoL between the experimental arm and standard treatment arm were calculated, while the relative emphasis placed on survival/HRQoL varied. JM allows simultaneous modeling of HRQoL and OS/PFS. Results In the EORTC 26951 trial, combined radiochemotherapy significantly prolonged OS (difference 11.7 months), but also resulted in more patients experiencing clinically relevant worsening (≥10 points) in appetite loss and nausea/vomiting shortly after treatment. Using QASES, the survival benefit of additional procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) decreased from 42.3 months to 29.5 and 28.2 months when accounting for appetite loss and nausea/vomiting, respectively. JM analyses resulted in a loss of the beneficial effect of additional PCV between 13% and 24% when adjusting for different HRQoL parameters. The EORTC 22033 trial showed no significant PFS difference between radiotherapy or temozolomide alone (46 vs 39 months), nor clinically relevant differences in HRQoL. JM analyses also showed no significant association between PFS and HRQoL scales/items, whereas QASES showed that temozolomide alone was more favorable when considering symptom burden (47–49 instead of 39 months). Conclusions Both methods resulted in different outcomes, but adjusting for the impact of treatment on HRQoL resulted in theoretically reduced survival benefits.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The impact of treatment on both the quality and the quantity of life, i.e. the ‘net clinical benefit’, should be considered to facilitate shared decision making. Two methods that combine survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data: Quality Adjusted Effect Sizes (QASES) and Joint Modelling (JM) were applied to gain insight in the net clinical benefit. METHODS The net clinical benefit in one RCT (EORTC 26951 comparing radiotherapy (RT) + PCV chemotherapy versus RT alone) was calculated 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. 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 (42.3 vs. 30.6 months). 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. QASES corresponded to a reduction in the median OS difference from 9.7 months up till 5.5 months, 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.

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.

Background There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. Methods and Results Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including “missing data,”“health-related quality of life,” and “patient-reported outcome.” Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. Conclusion The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.