1 / 35

David Cella & David T. Eton, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare & Northwestern University

Clinically Meaningful Change and Clinical Relevance of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung: Analysis of ECOG 5592 Data. David Cella & David T. Eton, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare & Northwestern University Diane L. Fairclough, AMC Cancer Research Center

darnellb
Download Presentation

David Cella & David T. Eton, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare & Northwestern University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Clinically Meaningful Change and Clinical Relevance of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung: Analysis of ECOG 5592 Data David Cella & David T. Eton, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare & Northwestern University Diane L. Fairclough, AMC Cancer Research Center Philip Bonomi, Rush-Presbyterian St Luke’s Medical Center David H. Johnson, Vanderbilt University Anne Heyes, Cheryl Silberman, & Mike Wolf, AstraZeneca

  2. Acknowledgements • National Cancer Institute (grants CA 23318, CA66636, CA21115, CA 17145, CA 49957) • AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

  3. What is a (clinically) meaningful change? • Meaningful change: A difference or change in score on a health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaire that is important to the involved person or people • “Clinically” meaningful corresponds to a clinically important difference or change in patient status.

  4. How are CMCs determined? • Anchor-based methods - Anchoring score differences to traditional clinical parameters (e.g., tumor response, time to progression) • Distribution-based methods - Standard deviation - Standard error of measurement

  5. The Present Study • Purpose: To determine CMCs in two score aggregates of the FACT-L (the Lung Cancer Subscale & the Trial Outcomes Index) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients. • Data source: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study 5592

  6. Sample Characteristics E5592 (N = 573) • 63% Female; 37% Male • Mean age = 60 years; range = 32-81 years • 87% Caucasian; 10% Afric-Am; 3% Other • 81% Stage IV; 19% Stage IIIB • Baseline Performance Status: - 68% ECOG 1 - 32% ECOG 0 • Treatment Arm: - 34% cisplatin + etoposide - 33% cisplatin + paclitaxel (high dose) + g-csf - 33% cisplatin + paclitaxel (std dose)

  7. HRQoL Assessment • The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire - Physical well-being (PWB) (7 items) - Social/family well-being (SWB) (7 items) - Emotional well-being (EWB) (5 items) - Functional well-being (FWB) (7 items) - Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS) (7 items) - Trial Outcome Index (TOI) (21 items)

  8. HRQoL Assessment • The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung Questionnaire (FACT-L) - Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS): 7 items - Trial Outcome Index (TOI): 21 items • Baseline & 12-week assessments used

  9. Anchor-based methods - Independent samples t-tests (baseline) - One-way ANCOVAs on changes in HRQoL over time (controlling for baseline clinical factors) • Distribution-based methods - 1/3 and 1/2 standard deviation (SD) - Standard error of measurement (SEM) SEM = SD (1 - reliability)1/2 Data Analysis

  10. Mean (SD) differencesin baseline clinical indicators

  11. Baseline to 12-week change in Lung Cancer Subscale score (best overall response) CR/PR > PD

  12. Baseline to 12-week change inLung Cancer Subscale score(time to progression: < 116 days vs. > 116 days)

  13. Baseline to 12-week change in TrialOutcome Index score (best overall response) CR/PR > PD

  14. Baseline to 12-week change inTrial Outcome Index score(time to progression: < 116 days vs. > 116 days)

  15. Distribution-based criteriaof clinical significance

  16. Summary Based on anchor & distribution-based methods... • A 2 to 3 point score difference approximates a CMC on the LCS of the FACT-L • A 5 to 6 point score difference approximates a CMC on the TOI of the FACT-L

  17. E5592 - Shortness of Breath(Higher score corresponds to worse function) Very much Not at all

  18. E5592 - Weight loss(Higher score corresponds to worse function) Very much Not at all

  19. E5592 - Good appetite(Higher score corresponds to better function) Very much Not at all

  20. Practical Implications • Determine sample size in clinical trials • Evaluate treatment efficacy

  21. Summary • Baseline HRQL predicts outcome in advanced NSCLC • Longitudinal HRQL adds to the prognostic ability of baseline HRQL • Physical well-being, functional well-being and pt. reported symptoms are reliable predictors of outcome in advanced NSCLC

  22. HRQL as a Predictor of Outcome

  23. The Present Study • Data source: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study 5592 • Objectives (3) - Show that HRQL predicts outcome - Show that changes in HRQL add to the prediction of outcome - Show that longitudinal HRQL data have clinical import

  24. HRQoL Assessment • The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung Questionnaire (FACT-L) - Physical well-being (PWB) (7 items) - Social/family well-being (SWB) (7 items) - Emotional well-being (EWB) (5 items) - Functional well-being (FWB) (7 items) - Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS) (7 items) - Trial Outcome Index (TOI) (21 items) • Baseline & 6-week assessments used

  25. Outcomes • Time to disease progression • Survival duration

  26. Data Analysis • Spearman correlation () • Cox proportional hazards regression • Survival curves

  27. Correlations () of Baseline HRQL & Outcome *** p < .001

  28. Stepwise Cox Regression for Disease Progression

  29. Stepwise Cox Regression for Survival

  30. Does change in HRQL predict outcome?

  31. 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 0.0 0 200 400 600 800 Time to progression based on Trial Outcome Index scores -2 Log likelihood = 2940.24 Overall 2 (7) = 67.67, p<.001 Hi baseline - improve Hi baseline - decline Proportion not progressing Lo baseline - improve Lo baseline - decline Time to progression in days

  32. Survival duration based on Physical Well-Being scores -2 Log likelihood = 3058.81 Overall 2 (8) = 67.21, p<.001 Hi baseline - improve Hi baseline - decline Proportion surviving Lo baseline - improve Lo baseline - decline Survival post-randomization in days

  33. Summary • Baseline HRQL predicts outcome in advanced NSCLC • Longitudinal HRQL adds to the prognostic ability of baseline HRQL • Physical well-being, functional well-being and pt. reported symptoms are reliable predictors of outcome in advanced NSCLC

  34. Practical Implications • Patient stratification in clinical trials • Treatment planning & adjustment

  35. Our next step: ALCaMP-2Real-time (weekly) assessment of all lung cancer patients beginning chemotherapy

More Related