13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Do drugs offering only PFS maintain quality of life sufficiently from a patient’s perspective? Results from AVALPROFS (Assessing the ‘VALue’ to patients of PROgression Free Survival) study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Trials of novel drugs used in advanced disease often show only progression-free survival or modest overall survival benefits. Hypothetical studies suggest that stabilisation of metastatic disease and/or symptom burden are worth treatment-related side effects. We examined this premise contemporaneously using qualitative and quantitative methods.

          Methods

          Patients with metastatic cancers expected to live > 6 months and prescribed drugs aimed at cancer control were interviewed: at baseline, at 6 weeks, at progression, and if treatment was stopped for toxicity. They also completed Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G) plus Anti-Angiogenesis (AA) subscale questionnaires at baseline then monthly for 6 months.

          Results

          Ninety out of 120 (75%) eligible patients participated: 41 (45%) remained on study for 6 months, 36 progressed or died, 4 had treatment breaks, and 9 withdrew due to toxicity. By 6 weeks, 66/69 (96%) patients were experiencing side effects which impacted their activities. Low QoL scores at baseline did not predict a higher risk of death or dropout. At 6-week interviews, as the side effect severity increased, patients were significantly less inclined to view the benefit of cancer control as worthwhile ( X 2 = 50.7, P < 0.001). Emotional well-being initially improved from baseline by 10 weeks, then gradually returned to baseline levels.

          Conclusion

          Maintaining QoL is vital to most patients with advanced cancer so minimising treatment-related side effects is essential. As side effect severity increased, drugs that controlled cancer for short periods were not viewed as worthwhile. Patients need to have the therapeutic aims of further anti-cancer treatment explained honestly and sensitively.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-018-4273-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13

          Objective To determine the availability of data on overall survival and quality of life benefits of cancer drugs approved in Europe. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Publicly accessible regulatory and scientific reports on cancer approvals by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2009 to 2013. Main outcome measures Pivotal and postmarketing trials of cancer drugs according to their design features (randomisation, crossover, blinding), comparators, and endpoints. Availability and magnitude of benefit on overall survival or quality of life determined at time of approval and after market entry. Validated European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) used to assess the clinical value of the reported gains in published studies of cancer drugs. Results From 2009 to 2013, the EMA approved the use of 48 cancer drugs for 68 indications. Of these, eight indications (12%) were approved on the basis of a single arm study. At the time of market approval, there was significant prolongation of survival in 24 of the 68 (35%). The magnitude of the benefit on overall survival ranged from 1.0 to 5.8 months (median 2.7 months). At the time of market approval, there was an improvement in quality of life in seven of 68 indications (10%). Out of 44 indications for which there was no evidence of a survival gain at the time of market authorisation, in the subsequent postmarketing period there was evidence for extension of life in three (7%) and reported benefit on quality of life in five (11%). Of the 68 cancer indications with EMA approval, and with a median of 5.4 years’ follow-up (minimum 3.3 years, maximum 8.1 years), only 35 (51%) had shown a significant improvement in survival or quality of life, while 33 (49%) remained uncertain. Of 23 indications associated with a survival benefit that could be scored with the ESMO-MCBS tool, the benefit was judged to be clinically meaningful in less than half (11/23, 48%). Conclusions This systematic evaluation of oncology approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most drugs entered the market without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life. At a minimum of 3.3 years after market entry, there was still no conclusive evidence that these drugs either extended or improved life for most cancer indications. When there were survival gains over existing treatment options or placebo, they were often marginal.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Chemotherapy Use, Performance Status, and Quality of Life at the End of Life.

            Although many patients with end-stage cancer are offered chemotherapy to improve quality of life (QOL), the association between chemotherapy and QOL amid progressive metastatic disease has not been well-studied. American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend palliative chemotherapy only for solid tumor patients with good performance status.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Regression models and life tables (with discussion)

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44 1273 873016 , val@sussex.ac.uk
                Journal
                Support Care Cancer
                Support Care Cancer
                Supportive Care in Cancer
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0941-4355
                1433-7339
                29 May 2018
                29 May 2018
                2018
                : 26
                : 11
                : 3941-3949
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7590, GRID grid.12082.39, Sussex Health Outcomes Research & Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton & Sussex Medical School (BSMS), , University of Sussex, ; Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RX UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000000121885934, GRID grid.5335.0, MRC Biostatistics Unit, , University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, ; Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0400 1238, GRID grid.416188.2, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, , Mount Vernon Hospital, ; Northwood, Middlesex, HA6 2RN UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.410725.5, Sussex Cancer Centre, , Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals, ; Brighton, BN2 5DA UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8939-0081
                Article
                4273
                10.1007/s00520-018-4273-3
                6182366
                29845422
                e4d45e51-9a6e-442d-aaaf-4a3b85bff2d5
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 22 December 2017
                : 15 May 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100008349, Boehringer Ingelheim;
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                progression-free survival,patients’ views,side effects,quality of life

                Comments

                Comment on this article