ReviewQuality-of-Life Assessment and Reporting in Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review of Phase 3 Trials Testing Anticancer Drugs Published Between 2012 and 2018
Introduction
The treatment landscape of prostate cancer has undergone substantial changes over the past years, with several drugs approved by regulatory agencies in the setting of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and, most recently, nonmetastatic CRPC. Although these new treatments have produced encouraging results in terms of efficacy, it is critical for new therapies to show an improvement not only in terms of quantity of life but also quality of life (QoL).1
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which are outcomes evaluated directly by patients themselves,2 are currently considered to be the reference standard for the assessment of patient experience of the disease and its treatment.3 Health-related QoL is a specific and multidimensional type of PRO, defined as “the patient’s subjective perception of the impact of his disease and its treatment(s) on his daily life, physical, psychological and social functioning and well-being.”2 The evaluation of QoL is of paramount importance for patients with prostate cancer. The balance between disease-related symptoms and treatment-related adverse effects is even more delicate in this population because of advanced age, frequent comorbidities, and risk of frailty. The longer life expectancy of prostate cancer patients and the improved efficacy of new treatments cause prolonged drug assumption and risk of developing treatment-related adverse events,4 and can greatly affect patients’ QoL. This is becoming even more relevant in recent years, with the progressive intensification of treatment by moving to earlier-stage therapies that were initially approved only in the setting of metastatic CRPC. Furthermore, in a context like prostate cancer, where the number of existing options keeps growing, the evaluation of QoL could be the ace in the hole in the process of decision making,5 especially if alternative treatments produce similar efficacy results. Prostate cancer working groups recognize the importance of evaluating PROs in both clinical trials and in routine clinical care.6, 7 Notably, the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 recommends the measure of disease-related symptoms, including pain intensity and interference as well as physical functioning, using validated instruments.6 The Advanced Prostate Cancer Working Group of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, although recognizing the existence of logistic challenges, suggests that patient-reported health status should be regularly evaluated in clinical practice.7
Even though the entire oncologic community agrees on the relevance of QoL evaluation to better define the value of treatments tested in clinical trials and to optimize patients’ management in clinical practice, the adoption of QoL tools is actually far from optimal. In a previous systematic review of phase 3 randomized controlled trials conducted in all solid tumors published by major journals between 2012 and 2016, QoL was not included among end points in 210 (47%) of 446 of the primary publications analyzed—a not insignificant number.8 Moreover, we found that even when QoL is included as an end point, QoL results are underreported and have a substantial delay in publication compared to primary results.
In this systematic review, we sought to describe QoL prevalence as an end point in randomized phase 3 trials published between 2012 and 2018 that tested anticancer drugs in prostate cancer patients. In addition, we evaluated QoL reporting deficiencies by investigating the underreporting of QoL results and the methodology of QoL assessment.
Section snippets
Methods
A literature search was performed of the PubMed database on March 1, 2019, to identify all primary publications of randomized phase 3 trials testing anticancer drugs in patients with prostate cancer published between 2012 and 2018. The following keywords were used: prostate AND (cancer OR *carcinoma) AND (random* OR “phase 3”) AND (“2012”[Date - Publication]: “2018”[Date - Publication]).
Trials testing supportive-care drugs were excluded from the analysis unless their outcome was anticancer
Study Characteristics
A flowchart of the study selection process is shown in Supplemental Figure 1 in the online version. Overall, 72 eligible publications were included in the analysis including a total number of 60,158 randomized patients.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,
Discussion
This systematic review of recently published randomized phase 3 trials evaluating anticancer drugs in prostate cancer patients found that QoL data are absent in a high proportion of publications, although we found that QoL results were more frequently reported in positive trials, especially in the CRPC setting. Furthermore, the methodology of QoL analysis is heterogeneous in terms of type of instruments, methodology of analysis, and presentation of results.
These results demonstrate the need for
Conclusion
Our systematic review, based on prostate cancer trials published during the last few years, shows that the adoption of QoL among end points, as well as attention to timely and exhaustive reporting of QoL results, requires improvement. Indeed, QoL information is lacking in a not negligible proportion of recently published phase 3 trials in prostate cancer, either as a result of the absence of QoL among trial end points or the absence of such results in the publication. Disappointingly, despite a
Disclosure
M.A. has received fees for consulting or advisory board roles from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Roche. G.V.S. has received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lilly Pharma, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. F.P. has received personal fees from Bayer, Sandoz, Incyte, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, and Janssen-Cilag. M.D.M. has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Takeda. The other authors have stated that they have no
References (104)
Considering quantity and quality of life in metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer
Lancet Oncol
(2018)- et al.
Hard problems need “soft” science: integrating quality of life into treatment decision making
Eur Urol
(2019) - et al.
Patient-reported outcomes in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer in the adjuvant setting
Eur Urol Focus
(2019) - et al.
Development of a standardized set of patient-centered outcomes for advanced prostate cancer: an international effort for a unified approach
Eur Urol
(2015) - et al.
Deficiencies in health-related quality-of-life assessment and reporting: a systematic review of oncology randomized phase III trials published between 2012 and 2016
Ann Oncol
(2018) - et al.
Denosumab and bone-metastasis–free survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: results of a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled trial
Lancet
(2012) - et al.
Dutasteride in localised prostate cancer management: the REDEEM randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Lancet
(2012) - et al.
STAMPEDE investigators. Celecoxib plus hormone therapy versus hormone therapy alone for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: first results from the STAMPEDE multiarm, multistage, randomised controlled trial
Lancet Oncol
(2012) - et al.
The FinnProstate Study VII: intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation in patients with advanced prostate cancer
J Urol
(2012) - et al.
Randomised phase II/III study of docetaxel with or without risedronate in patients with metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer (CRPC), the Netherlands Prostate Study (NePro)
Eur J Cancer
(2012)
2-Weekly versus 3-weekly docetaxel to treat castration-resistant advanced prostate cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Androgen-deprivation therapy alone or with docetaxel in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Aflibercept versus placebo in combination with docetaxel and prednisone for treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (VENICE): a phase 3, double-blindrandomised trial
Lancet Oncol
Docetaxel and atrasentan versus docetaxel and placebo for men with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer (SWOG S0421): a randomised phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Docetaxel and dasatinib or placebo in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (READY): a randomised, double-blind phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03.04 RADAR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 factorial trial
Lancet Oncol
Orteronel plus prednisone in patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (ELM-PC 4): a double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled trial
Lancet Oncol
High-dose radiotherapy with short-term or long-term androgen deprivation in localised prostate cancer (DART01/05 GICOR): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Prevention of bone metastases in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with zoledronic acid: efficacy and safety results of the Zometa European Study (ZEUS)
Eur Urol
Docetaxel and prednisone with or without lenalidomide in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (MAINSAIL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial
Lancet Oncol
A randomised, double-blind study comparing the addition of bicalutamide with or without dutasteride to GnRH analogue therapy in men with non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer
Eur J Cancer
Randomized non-inferiority trial of bicalutamide and dutasteride versus LHRH agonists for prostate volume reduction prior to I-125 permanent implant brachytherapy for prostate cancer
Radiother Oncol
Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial
Lancet
Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation therapy in patients with relapsing or locally advanced prostate cancer: a phase 3b randomised study (ICELAND)
Eur Urol
Timing of androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer with a rising PSA (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Salvage radiotherapy with or without short-term hormone therapy for rising prostate-specific antigen concentration after radical prostatectomy (GETUG-AFU 16): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial
Lancet Oncol
Custirsen in combination with docetaxel and prednisone for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (SYNERGY trial): a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised trial
Lancet Oncol
A phase 3, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of abiraterone acetate in chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC in China, Malaysia, Thailand and Russia
Asian J Urol
Custirsen (OGX-011) combined with cabazitaxel and prednisone versus cabazitaxel and prednisone alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel (AFFINITY): a randomised, open-label, international, phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Docetaxel versus surveillance after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: results from the prospective randomised, open-label phase 3 Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 12 trial
Eur Urol
Duration of androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer: a randomized phase III trial
Eur Urol
Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial
Lancet
A phase III trial of docetaxel–estramustine in high-risk localised prostate cancer: a planned analysis of response, toxicity and quality of life in the GETUG 12 trial
Eur J Cancer
Quality of life in men with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with leuprorelin and radiotherapy with or without zoledronic acid (TROG 03.04 RADAR): secondary endpoints from a randomised phase 3 factorial trial
Lancet Oncol
Advanced prostate cancer treated with intermittent or continuous androgen deprivation in the randomisedFinnProstate Study VII: quality of life and adverse effects
Eur Urol
Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus prednisone alone in chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: patient-reported outcome results of a randomised phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Effect of enzalutamide on time to first skeletal-related event, pain, and quality of life in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from the randomised, phase 3 AFFIRM trial
Lancet Oncol
Effect of enzalutamide on health-related quality of life, pain, and skeletal-related events in asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic, chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PREVAIL): results from a randomised, phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Patient-reported quality-of-life analysis of radium-223 dichloride from the phase III ALSYMPCA study
Ann Oncol
Health-related quality of life for immediate versus delayed androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with asymptomatic, non-curable prostate cancer (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Patient-reported outcomes following abiraterone acetate plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): an international, randomised phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Effect of apalutamide on health-related quality of life in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an analysis of the SPARTAN randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Quality of life assessment using patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: still a Cinderella outcome?
Ann Oncol
Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of prostate cancer: methodological quality and impact on clinical decision making
Eur Urol
Reflection paper on the use of patient reported outcome measure in oncology studies. June 17, 2014
Patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of toxicity of anticancer treatments
Nat Rev Clin Oncol
Trial design and objectives for castration-resistant prostate cancer: updated recommendations from the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3
J Clin Oncol
Cited by (9)
Quality of life analysis in lung cancer: A systematic review of phase III trials published between 2012 and 2018
2020, Lung CancerCitation Excerpt :Lung cancer patients could consider symptom control and quality of life even more important than life prolongation [13]. However, our analysis shows a significant proportion of studies not reporting QoL as a trial endpoint in all settings of disease, results in line with those already reported in other solid tumors and in prostate and colorectal cancer [12,14,15]. If in the early stages, where systemic therapy is administered as adjuvant/neoadjuvant option, a potential detrimental effect on QoL can be considered transient and tolerable, compared to the possibility of a definitive cure, whereas in the advanced setting, representing the majority of trials included in the analysis and the majority of patients in clinical practice, life expectancy is definitely different.
Health-related quality of life in patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer: CAPLIFE study
2023, Quality of Life Research