Start Your Search
OA07 - Precision Medicine Involves Biology and Patients (ID 132)
- Event: WCLC 2019
- Type: Oral Session
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Now Available
- Moderators:Silvia Novello, Fabrice Barlesi
- Coordinates: 9/09/2019, 11:00 - 12:30, Copenhagen (1980)
OA07.07 - Quality of Life (QoL) Analysis in Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review of Phase III Trials Published Between 2012 and 2018 (Now Available) (ID 1958)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): Gianmarco Leone
We previously reported that QoL is not included among endpoints and QoL results are underreported in a high proportion of phase III trials in oncology. Here we describe QoL prevalence and heterogeneity in QoL reporting in lung cancer phase III trials.Method
We selected all primary publications of lung cancer phase III trials evaluating anticancer drugs published between 2012 and 2018 by 11 major journals. We analyzed QoL inclusion among endpoints, presence of QoL results and methodology of QoL analysis.Result
122 publications were identified. In 39 (32.0%) publications, QoL was not listed among endpoints: 10/17 (58.8%) early stage/locally advanced NSCLC, 15/54 (27.8%) first-line of advanced NSCLC; 10/41 (24.4%) second and further lines of advanced NSCLC, 4/10 (40.0%) SCLC. Proportion of trials not including QoL was similar over time: 32.9% publications in 2012-2015 vs. 30.6% in 2016-2018. QoL was not listed among endpoints in primary publication in 16/80 (20.0%) for-profit trials vs. 23/42 (54.8%) no-profit trials. Out of 83 trials including QoL among endpoints, QoL results were not reported in 36 primary publications (43.4%). Proportion of trials not reporting QoL results in primary publication significantly increased over time (30.6% 2012-2015 vs. 61.8% 2016-2018, p=0.005). Overall, QoL data were not available in 65/122 (61.5%) primary publications, due to the absence as endpoint or unpublished results. QoL data were not available in primary publication in 48/80 (60.0%) for-profit trials vs. 27/42 (64.3%) no-profit trials. QoL data were lacking in 48/78 (70.6%) publications of trials with overall survival as primary endpoint, 27/54 (50.0%) with other primary endpoints and 28/54 (51.9%) publications with a positive result. For trials including QoL among endpoints but lacking QoL results in primary publication, probability of secondary publication was 6.3%, 30.1% and 49.8% after 1, 2 and 3 years respectively, without evidence of improvement in time to publication comparing 2012-2015 vs. 2016-2018. Out of 83 trials including QoL, most common tools were EORTC QLQ-C30 (42, 50.6%); EORTC LC13 (39, 47.0%); EQ-5D (37, 44.6%); LCSS (19, 22.9%); FACT-L (15, 18.1%). Out of 58 trials with available results, common methods of analysis were mean scores or changes (45, 77.6%), time to deterioration (31, 53.4%) and proportion of responders (19, 32.8%). Availability of a secondary QoL publication allowed a higher number of methods of QoL analysis (p<0.001).Conclusion
QoL is not assessed in a high proportion of phase III trials evaluating lung cancer patients, a setting where attention to QoL should be particularly high, due to symptoms and limited life expectancy. Furthermore, the timely inclusion of QoL results in primary publications is worsening in recent years. Secondary publications allow a more complete description of QoL results, but imply a delay in their availability.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.