AIM: Although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (RTKIs) have been tested in patients with neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) over the last two decades, no study to date has benchmarked efficacy and toxicity of these drugs in this patient population. METHODS: All phase II and phase III studies of anti-VEGF RTKIs in patients with NETs, published between January 1, 2000 andJuly 31, 2021, across major trial databases, were searched in August 2021 for relevant studies. The primary objectives of the meta-analysis were to compare objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) between patients with pancreatic NETs (pNETs) and extra-pancreatic NETs (epNETs), and the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of adverse events between patients receiving anti-VEGF RTKIs and control. RESULTS: 1611 patients were available for the meta-analysis; 1194 received anti-VEGF RTKIs. ORR in pNETs was 18% (95% confidence interval (CI) 13-25%), while ORR in epNETs was 8% (95% CI 5-12%); test for differences between pNETs and epNETs (x12 = 8.38, p < .01). Median PFS in pNETs was 13.9 months (95% CI 11.43-16.38 months), while median PFS in epNETs was 12.71 months (95% CI 9.37-16.05 months); test for differences between pNETs and epNETs (x12 = .35, p = .55). With regards to common grade 3/4 adverse events , patients who received anti-VEGF RTKIs were more likely to experience hypertension (IRR 3.04, 95% CI 1.63-5.65) and proteinuria (IRR 5.79, 95% CI 1.09-30.74) in comparison to those who received control. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-VEGF RTKIs demonstrate anti-tumour effect in both pNETs and epNETs, supporting their development in both populations. These agents also appear to be safe in patients with NETs.

Introduction

Social and behavioral factors are known to affect health but are not routinely assessed in medical practice. To date, no studies have assessed a parsimonious panel of measures of social and behavioral determinants of health (SBDs). This study evaluated the panel of SBD measures recommended by the Institute of Medicine and examined the effect of question order.

Methods

Adults, aged ≥18 years, were recruited using ResearchMatch.org for this randomized, parallel design study conducted in 2015 (data analyzed in 2015-2016). Three versions of the SBD measures, sharing the same items but in different orders of presentation (Versions 1-3), were developed. Randomized to six groups, participants completed each version at least 1 week apart (Weeks 1-3). Version order was counterbalanced across each administration and randomization was stratified by gender, race, and age. Main outcomes were effect of question order, completion time, and non-response rates.

Results

Of 781 participants, 624 (80%) completed the Week 1 questionnaire; median completion time for answering all SBD questions was 5 minutes, 583/624 participants answered all items, and no statistically significant differences associated with question order were observed when comparing responses across all versions. No significant differences in responses within assignment groups over time were found, with the exception of the stress measure for Group 5 (p=0.036).

Conclusion

Question order did not significantly impact participant responses. Time to complete the questionnaire was brief, and non-response rate was low. Findings support the feasibility of using the Institute of Medicine-recommended questionnaire to capture SBDs.

Background

While randomized controlled trials represent the highest level of evidence we can generate in comparative effectiveness research, there are clinical scenarios where this type of study design is not feasible. The Comparative Effectiveness Analyses of Surgery and Radiation in localized prostate cancer (CEASAR) study is an observational study designed to compare the effectiveness and harms of different treatments for localized prostate cancer, a clinical scenario in which randomized controlled trials have been difficult to execute and, when completed, have been difficult to generalize to the population at large.

Methods

CEASAR employs a population-based, prospective cohort study design, using tumor registries as cohort inception tools. The primary outcome is quality of life after treatment, measured by validated instruments. Risk adjustment is facilitated by capture of traditional and nontraditional confounders before treatment and by propensity score analysis.

Results

We have accrued a diverse, representative cohort of 3691 men in the USA with clinically localized prostate cancer. Half of the men invited to participate enrolled, and 86% of patients who enrolled have completed the 6-month survey.

Conclusion

Challenging comparative effectiveness research questions can be addressed using well-designed observational studies. The CEASAR study provides an opportunity to determine what treatments work best, for which patients, and in whose hands.

Background and objective

Quality measures used in pay-for-performance systems are intended to address specific quality goals, such as safety, efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness. Given the small number of narrowly focused measures in prostate cancer care, we sought to determine whether adherence to any of the available payer-driven quality measures influences patient-centered outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL), patient satisfaction, and treatment-related complications.

Methods

The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study is a population-based, prospective cohort study that enrolled 3708 men with clinically localized prostate cancer during 2011 and 2012, of whom 2601 completed the 1-year survey and underwent complete chart abstraction. Compliance with 6 quality indicators endorsed by national consortia was assessed. Multivariable regression was used to determine the relationship between indicator compliance and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) instrument summary scores, satisfaction scale scores (service satisfaction scale for cancer care), and treatment-related complications.

Results

Overall rates of compliance with these quality measures ranged between 64% and 88%. Three of the 6 measures were weakly associated with 1-year sexual function and bowel function scores (β=-4.6, 1.69, and 2.93, respectively; P≤0.05), whereas the remaining measures had no significant relationship with patient-reported HRQOL outcomes. Satisfaction scores and treatment-related complications were not associated with quality measure compliance.

Conclusions

Compliance with available nationally endorsed quality indicators, which were designed to incentivize effective and efficient care, was not associated with clinically important changes in patient-centered outcomes (HRQOL, satisfaction, or complications) within 1-year.

Background

The authors investigated the prevalence of pretreatment urinary, sexual, hormonal, and bowel dysfunction in a contemporary, population-based prostate cancer cohort. They also explored the associations between baseline function and age, comorbidity, and timing of baseline survey completion with respect to treatment.

Methods

The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a population-based, prospective cohort study that enrolled 3691 men with incident prostate cancer during 2011 and 2012. Pretreatment function was ascertained using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index-26 (EPIC-26). Data were stratified by age, comorbidity, and timing of baseline survey completion with respect to treatment. Unadjusted and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the relations between exposures and pretreatment function.

Results

After applying exclusion criteria, the study cohort comprised 3072 men. A strikingly high proportion of men reported inability to obtain erections satisfactory for intercourse (45%) and some degree of urinary incontinence (17%) at baseline. Sexual function was particularly age-sensitive, with patients aged ≤60 years reporting summary scores in excess of 30 points higher than patients aged ≥75 years (P < .001). Compared with the healthiest men, highly comorbid patients reported less favorable function in each domain, including urinary incontinence (summary score, 89.5 vs 74.1; P < .001) and sexual function (summary score, 70.8 vs 32.9; P < .001). Although statistically significant differences in summary scores were identified between patients who completed the baseline questionnaire before treatment (52%) versus after treatment (48%), the absolute differences were small (range, 1-3 points).

Conclusions

Patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer exhibit a wide distribution of pretreatment function. The current data may be used to redefine the population "at risk" for treatment-related harms.

Background

Despite the paramount importance of patient-reported outcomes, little is known about the evolution of patient-reported urinary and sexual function over time.

Objective

To evaluate differences in pretreatment urinary and sexual function in two population-based cohorts of men with prostate cancer enrolled nearly 20 yr apart.

Design, setting, and participants

Patients were enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study (PCOS) or the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study, two population-based cohorts that enrolled patients with incident prostate cancer from 1994 to 1995 and from 2011 to 2012, respectively. Participants completed surveys at baseline and various time points thereafter.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We performed multivariable logistic and linear regression analysis to investigate differences in pretreatment function between studies.

Results and limitations

The study comprised 5469 men of whom 2334 (43%) were enrolled in PCOS and 3135 (57%) were enrolled in CEASAR. Self-reported urinary incontinence was higher in CEASAR compared with PCOS (7.7% vs 4.7%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-2.43). Similarly, self-reported erectile dysfunction was more common among CEASAR participants (44.7% vs 24.0%) with an adjusted OR of 3.12 (95% CI, 2.68-3.64). Multivariable linear regression models revealed less favorable self-reported baseline function among CEASAR participants in the urinary incontinence and sexual function domains. The study is limited by its observational design and possibility of unmeasured confounding.

Conclusions

Reporting of pretreatment urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction has increased over the past two decades. These findings may reflect sociological changes including heightened media attention and direct-to-consumer marketing, among other potential explanations.

Patient summary

Patient reporting of urinary and sexual function has evolved and is likely contingent on continually changing societal norms. Recognizing the evolving nature of patient reporting is essential in efforts to conduct high-quality, impactful comparative effectiveness research.