Quality-of-life assessment in French patients with metastatic melanoma in real life.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cohort Studies
Disease Progression
Female
France
/ epidemiology
Humans
Immunotherapy
Male
Melanoma
/ epidemiology
Middle Aged
Molecular Targeted Therapy
Neoplasm Metastasis
Neoplasms, Second Primary
/ epidemiology
Prospective Studies
Quality of Life
Survival Rate
Young Adult
clinical practice
immunotherapy
metastatic melanoma
quality of life
real-life
targeted therapy
Journal
Cancer
ISSN: 1097-0142
Titre abrégé: Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2020
01 02 2020
Historique:
received:
04
04
2019
revised:
10
07
2019
accepted:
21
08
2019
pubmed:
23
10
2019
medline:
13
8
2020
entrez:
23
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Significant progress was recently observed in the treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM). With >50% of patients now reaching a second line of treatment and a significant improvement in the survival rate, an assessment of quality of life (QoL) during the whole course of the disease becomes necessary. The objective of this study was to describe the QoL of patients with MM in France, from their diagnosis of advanced disease to their death, in real life. QoL data were collected through MelBase, a prospective, French, multicentric cohort dedicated to the follow-up of adults with MM. QoL was assessed using the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment (FACT)-Melanoma questionnaire at the time of study inclusion, every 3 months, and at the time of each treatment change until death. To assess longitudinal changes from baseline to death, mixed-effect models for repeated-measures analyses were used to control for baseline covariates. QoL was assessed in 1435 patients who were included in the study between 2013 and 2018. The median follow-up was 9.4 months, and 47% of patients died during follow-up. During first-line treatment, the model-based, mean utility score was 0.830 (95% CI, 0.818-0.843), the mean FACT-General score was 77.22 (95% CI, 76.23-78.22), and the mean FACT-Melanoma score was 129.46 (95% CI, 128.02-130.90). At the time of a change in treatment line, there was a decrease of -0.027 (95% CI, -0.03, -0.02) in the utility score, -1.82 (95% CI, -1.88, -1.76) in the FACT-General score, and -2.98 (95% CI, -3.05, -2.91) in the FACT-Melanoma score compared with first-line treatment. In the MelBase cohort, the QoL among patients with MM seems to be fairly stable over the whole disease course, although a small but significant decrease at time therapy is changed is observed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Significant progress was recently observed in the treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM). With >50% of patients now reaching a second line of treatment and a significant improvement in the survival rate, an assessment of quality of life (QoL) during the whole course of the disease becomes necessary. The objective of this study was to describe the QoL of patients with MM in France, from their diagnosis of advanced disease to their death, in real life.
METHODS
QoL data were collected through MelBase, a prospective, French, multicentric cohort dedicated to the follow-up of adults with MM. QoL was assessed using the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment (FACT)-Melanoma questionnaire at the time of study inclusion, every 3 months, and at the time of each treatment change until death. To assess longitudinal changes from baseline to death, mixed-effect models for repeated-measures analyses were used to control for baseline covariates.
RESULTS
QoL was assessed in 1435 patients who were included in the study between 2013 and 2018. The median follow-up was 9.4 months, and 47% of patients died during follow-up. During first-line treatment, the model-based, mean utility score was 0.830 (95% CI, 0.818-0.843), the mean FACT-General score was 77.22 (95% CI, 76.23-78.22), and the mean FACT-Melanoma score was 129.46 (95% CI, 128.02-130.90). At the time of a change in treatment line, there was a decrease of -0.027 (95% CI, -0.03, -0.02) in the utility score, -1.82 (95% CI, -1.88, -1.76) in the FACT-General score, and -2.98 (95% CI, -3.05, -2.91) in the FACT-Melanoma score compared with first-line treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
In the MelBase cohort, the QoL among patients with MM seems to be fairly stable over the whole disease course, although a small but significant decrease at time therapy is changed is observed.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
611-618Informations de copyright
© 2019 American Cancer Society.
Références
Falkson CI, Ibrahim J, Kirkwood JM, Coates AS, Atkins MB, Blum RH. Phase III trial of dacarbazine versus dacarbazine with interferon alpha-2b versus dacarbazine with tamoxifen versus dacarbazine with interferon alpha-2b and tamoxifen in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:1743-1751.
Middleton MR, Grob JJ, Aaronson N, et al. Randomized phase III study of temozolomide versus dacarbazine in the treatment of patients with advanced metastatic malignant melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:158-166.
Robert C, Thomas L, Bondarenko I, et al. Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2517-2526.
Hauschild A, Grob JJ, Demidov LV, et al. Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;380:358-365.
Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:320-330.
Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2507-2516.
Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:23-34.
Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2521-2532.
Ascierto PA, McArthur GA, Dreno B, et al. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma (coBRIM): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1248-1260.
Dreno B, Ascierto PA, Atkinson V, et al. Health-related quality of life impact of cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in patients with advanced or metastatic BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. Br J Cancer. 2018;118:777-784.
Grob JJ, Amonkar MM, Karaszewska B, et al. Comparison of dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy with vemurafenib monotherapy on health-related quality of life in patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous BRAF Val600-mutation-positive melanoma (COMBI-v): results of a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1389-1398.
Long GV, Atkinson V, Ascierto PA, et al. Effect of nivolumab on health-related quality of life in patients with treatment-naive advanced melanoma: Results from the phase III CheckMate 066 study. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:1940-1946.
Petrella TM, Robert C, Richtig E, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in KEYNOTE-006, a randomised study of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Eur J Cancer. 2017;86:115-124.
Revicki DA, van den Eertwegh AJ, Lorigan P, et al. Health related quality of life outcomes for unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients receiving ipilimumab treatment. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:66.
Schadendorf D, Amonkar MM, Milhem M, et al. Functional and symptom impact of trametinib versus chemotherapy in BRAF V600E advanced or metastatic melanoma: quality-of-life analyses of the METRIC study. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:700-706.
Schadendorf D, Larkin J, Wolchok J, et al. Health-related quality of life results from the phase III CheckMate 067 study. Eur J Cancer. 2017;82:80-91.
Donia M, Kimper-Karl ML, Hoyer KL, Bastholt L, Schmidt H, Svane IM. The majority of patients with metastatic melanoma are not represented in pivotal phase III immunotherapy trials. Eur J Cancer. 2017;74:89-95.
Beutel ME, Fischbeck S, Binder H, et al. Depression, anxiety and quality of life in long-term survivors of malignant melanoma: a register-based cohort study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0116440.
Schubert-Fritschle G, Schlesinger-Raab A, Hein R, et al. Quality of life and comorbidity in localized malignant melanoma: results of a German population-based cohort study. Int J Dermatol. 2013;52:693-704.
Beusterien KM, Szabo SM, Kotapati S, et al. Societal preference values for advanced melanoma health states in the United Kingdom and Australia. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:387-389.
Tromme I, Devleesschauwer B, Beutels P, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with melanoma expressed as utilities and disability weights. Br J Dermatol. 2014;171:1443-1450.
European Medicines Agency. Guideline on Missing Data in Confirmatory Clinical Trials. European Medicines Agency; 2011.
National Research Council. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials. Panel on Handling Missing Data in Clinical Trials, Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press; 2010. https://www.cytel.com/hs-fs/hub/1670/file-2411099288-pdf/Pdf/MissingDataNationalAcademyof_Medicine.2010.pdf
Bottomley A, Pe M, Sloan J, et al. Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e510-e514.
Cella D. Assessment methods for quality of life in cancer patients: the FACIT measurement system. Int J Pharm Med. 2000;14:78-81.
Cormier JN, Davidson L, Xing Y, Webster K, Cella D. Measuring quality of life in patients with melanoma: development of the FACT-Melanoma subscale. J Support Oncol. 2005;33:139-145.
Cormier JN, Ross MI, Gershenwald JE, et al. Prospective assessment of the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma questionnaire. Cancer. 2008;112:2249-2257.
EuroQoL Group. EQ-5D-3L User Guide. Basic Information on How to Use the EQ-5D-3L Instrument. European Quality of Life Foundation; 2015. Accessed October 4, 2019. https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/EQ-5D-3L_UserGuide_2015.pdf
Chevalier J, de Pouvourville G. Valuing EQ-5D using time trade-off in France. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14:57-66.
Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis With Missing Data. John Wiley & Sons; 1987.
Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:6199-6206.
Hatswell AJ, Pennington B, Pericleous L, Rowen D, Lebmeier M, Lee D. Patient-reported utilities in advanced or metastatic melanoma, including analysis of utilities by time to death. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:140.
Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, Heisterkamp S, Van Willigen G. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R Package version 3.1-131 [computer software]. R Core Team; 2017. Accessed October 4, 2019. https://CRAN.r-project.org/package=nlme
van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:i03.
Kandel M, Allayous C, Dalle S, et al. Update of survival and cost of metastatic melanoma with new drugs: estimations from the MelBase cohort. Eur J Cancer. 2018;105:33-40.
Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70.
Askew RL, Xing Y, Palmer JL, Cella D, Moye LA, Cormier JN. Evaluating minimal important differences for the FACT-Melanoma quality of life questionnaire. Value Health. 2009;12:1144-1150.