Lindsey E Minion1, Robert L Coleman2, Ronald D Alvarez3, Thomas J Herzog4. 1. Dignity Health at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, 500 West Thomas Road, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85013, United States. 2. The University of Texas at MD Anderson Medical Center, 1155 Herman Presslier Drive, Unit Number 1362, Houston, TX 77030, United States. 3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1700 6th Avenue South, Room 10250, Birmingham, AL 35233, United States. 4. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 234 Goodman Street, Cincinnati, OH 45219, United States. Electronic address: thomas.herzog@uc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In order to understand the patient's perspective in regards to meaningful surrogate clinical trial endpoints and the impact of treatment-related toxicity, and quality of life, we surveyed women with gynecological cancers to ascertain their preferences. METHODS: A 28-question anonymous online survey was posted on the OCNA website (www.ovariancancer.org). Survey questions included demographic factors, tumor data, and patients' preference regarding side effects and therapy endpoints. Data was analyzed for frequency and percentage of each response. Student t-test, Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sums were preformed. RESULTS: There were 1413 survey responses. Participants reported that for a new agent to be meaningful, the minimum extension of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) should be five or more months, 77% and 85% of the time, respectively. Most subjects (55%, n=612) were interested in an agent that would keep tumor growth relatively static without change in OS. Addressing the impact of adverse aspects from a hypothetical new agent as a function of response, there was significant migration (p<0.0001) to acceptance of greater toxicity and cost under the scenario of a 5-6months OS gain, despite three-fold higher neurotoxicity, as compared to a PFS gain of 3-4months/no OS gain without toxicity. Response patterns weren't altered by recurrence status. CONCLUSIONS: Herein, we show that magnitude of outcome is a desired effect, even given the prospect of significant toxicity and cost. However, these preferences appear to differ between those with primary and recurrent disease.
OBJECTIVE: In order to understand the patient's perspective in regards to meaningful surrogate clinical trial endpoints and the impact of treatment-related toxicity, and quality of life, we surveyed women with gynecological cancers to ascertain their preferences. METHODS: A 28-question anonymous online survey was posted on the OCNA website (www.ovariancancer.org). Survey questions included demographic factors, tumor data, and patients' preference regarding side effects and therapy endpoints. Data was analyzed for frequency and percentage of each response. Student t-test, Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sums were preformed. RESULTS: There were 1413 survey responses. Participants reported that for a new agent to be meaningful, the minimum extension of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) should be five or more months, 77% and 85% of the time, respectively. Most subjects (55%, n=612) were interested in an agent that would keep tumor growth relatively static without change in OS. Addressing the impact of adverse aspects from a hypothetical new agent as a function of response, there was significant migration (p<0.0001) to acceptance of greater toxicity and cost under the scenario of a 5-6months OS gain, despite three-fold higher neurotoxicity, as compared to a PFS gain of 3-4months/no OS gain without toxicity. Response patterns weren't altered by recurrence status. CONCLUSIONS: Herein, we show that magnitude of outcome is a desired effect, even given the prospect of significant toxicity and cost. However, these preferences appear to differ between those with primary and recurrent disease.
Authors: Charlotte Gamble; Laura J Havrilesky; Evan R Myers; Junzo P Chino; Scott Hollenbeck; Jennifer K Plichta; P Kelly Marcom; E Shelley Hwang; Noah D Kauff; Rachel A Greenup Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Michael Friedlander; Val Gebski; Emma Gibbs; Lucy Davies; Ralph Bloomfield; Felix Hilpert; Lari B Wenzel; Daniel Eek; Manuel Rodrigues; Andrew Clamp; Richard T Penson; Diane Provencher; Jacob Korach; Tomasz Huzarski; Laura Vidal; Vanda Salutari; Clare Scott; Maria Ornella Nicoletto; Kenji Tamura; David Espinoza; Florence Joly; Eric Pujade-Lauraine Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Mitchell S von Itzstein; Elda Railey; Mary L Smith; Carol B White; George W Sledge; John R Howell; Wendy Lawton; Donna M Marinucci; Nisha Unni; David E Gerber Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alli M Straubhar; Jennifer L Wolf; Ms Qin C Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Stephanie Cham; Jason D Wright; Kara Long Roche; Dennis S Chi; Oliver Zivanovic Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Gladys B Asiedu; Jennifer L Ridgeway; Katherine Carroll; Aminah Jatoi; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf Journal: Health Expect Date: 2018-04-14 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Chiara Whichello; Eline van Overbeeke; Rosanne Janssens; Karin Schölin Bywall; Selena Russo; Jorien Veldwijk; Irina Cleemput; Juhaeri Juhaeri; Bennett Levitan; Jürgen Kübler; Meredith Smith; Richard Hermann; Matthias Englbrecht; Axel J Hueber; Alina Comanescu; Sarah Harding; Steven Simoens; Isabelle Huys; Esther W de Bekker-Grob Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Michael Friedlander; Ursula Matulonis; Charlie Gourley; Andreas du Bois; Ignace Vergote; Gordon Rustin; Clare Scott; Werner Meier; Ronnie Shapira-Frommer; Tamar Safra; Daniela Matei; Vadim Shirinkin; Frédéric Selle; Anitra Fielding; Elizabeth S Lowe; Emma L McMurtry; Stuart Spencer; Philip Rowe; Helen Mann; David Parry; Jonathan Ledermann Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 7.640