Patient-reported outcomes in a phase II randomised study of regorafenib compared with lomustine in patients with relapsed glioblastoma (the REGOMA trial).
Glioblastoma
Health-related quality of life
Lomustine
Patient-reported outcome
Randomised phase II trial
Regorafenib
Journal
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)
ISSN: 1879-0852
Titre abrégé: Eur J Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9005373
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
received:
31
03
2021
revised:
28
06
2021
accepted:
30
06
2021
pubmed:
14
8
2021
medline:
17
12
2021
entrez:
13
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The REGOMA trial showed that regorafenib significantly improved overall survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma compared with lomustine. Patients treated with regorafenib experienced a higher occurrence of grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events than those receiving the standard treatment. Because this safety profile was expected, it was considered of great importance to assess the patient point of view regarding the disease and treatment impact on different aspects of life and patient well-being. We here report the final results of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment, a secondary end-point of the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02926222. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed, within a prospective, randomised, multicentre, open-label phase II trial, by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core questionnaire and brain module at baseline and every 8-weekly neuroradiological assessment till disease progression. Mixed-effect linear models were fitted for each of the HRQoL domain to examine the change over progression-free time within and between arms. Furthermore, differences were also classified as clinically meaningful changes. To correct for multiple comparisons and avoid type I errors, the level of significance was set at P = 0.01 (2-sided). Of 119 enrolled patients, 56/59 (95%) patients and 58/60 (97%) patients treated with regorafenib and lomustime completed questionnaires at baseline, respectively. No significant differences were observed in any generic or cancer-specific domain during treatment in both arms, or between the two arms, except for the appetite loss and diarrhoea scales which were significantly worse in patients treated with regorafenib. The rate of patients with a clinically meaningful worsening for appetite loss, diarrhoea and for any other domain was not statistically different between the two arms. Regorafenib did not negatively affect HRQoL in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. These data combined with the survival benefit shown in the REGOMA trial support the use of regorafenib as a treatment option for these patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The REGOMA trial showed that regorafenib significantly improved overall survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma compared with lomustine. Patients treated with regorafenib experienced a higher occurrence of grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events than those receiving the standard treatment. Because this safety profile was expected, it was considered of great importance to assess the patient point of view regarding the disease and treatment impact on different aspects of life and patient well-being. We here report the final results of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment, a secondary end-point of the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02926222.
METHODS
Patient-reported outcomes were assessed, within a prospective, randomised, multicentre, open-label phase II trial, by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core questionnaire and brain module at baseline and every 8-weekly neuroradiological assessment till disease progression. Mixed-effect linear models were fitted for each of the HRQoL domain to examine the change over progression-free time within and between arms. Furthermore, differences were also classified as clinically meaningful changes. To correct for multiple comparisons and avoid type I errors, the level of significance was set at P = 0.01 (2-sided).
RESULTS
Of 119 enrolled patients, 56/59 (95%) patients and 58/60 (97%) patients treated with regorafenib and lomustime completed questionnaires at baseline, respectively. No significant differences were observed in any generic or cancer-specific domain during treatment in both arms, or between the two arms, except for the appetite loss and diarrhoea scales which were significantly worse in patients treated with regorafenib. The rate of patients with a clinically meaningful worsening for appetite loss, diarrhoea and for any other domain was not statistically different between the two arms.
CONCLUSIONS
Regorafenib did not negatively affect HRQoL in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. These data combined with the survival benefit shown in the REGOMA trial support the use of regorafenib as a treatment option for these patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34388515
pii: S0959-8049(21)00454-8
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.055
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Phenylurea Compounds
0
Pyridines
0
regorafenib
24T2A1DOYB
Lomustine
7BRF0Z81KG
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02926222']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase II
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
179-190Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement GL has declared a consulting or advisory role for funding from Bayer, AbbVie, Orbus Therapeutics and BrainFarm; travel funding from Roche and Bayer; RR has declared research funding from Mundipharma, Novocure, UCB; BD has declared personal fees from EISAI, ELI LILLY, ASTRA ZENECA, MSD, ROCHE, AMGEN, personal grants and non-financial support from IPSEN, SANOFI and BAYER; VZ has declared consulting or advisory role funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck, Speakers Bureau funding from Bayer, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Servier, AstraZeneca and Lilly, travel and accommodation funding from Bayer, Roche and Servier. All remaining authors have declared no conflict of interest to declare.