No abstract

The advent of immune checkpoint‐inhibitors (CPI) has transformed treatment for several cancer types. This review was performed to assess the rate of adverse events (AEs) associated with the use of CPI, alone or in combinations. A review of AEs reporting quality was also performed. All publications of Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) assessing CPI published before December 2017 were included. To investigate the quality of AEs reporting, a set of items was defined based on the 2004 CONSORT harms extension statement. Rates of Grade 5, serious, and study‐withdrawal related AEs were collected in each treatment category. Specific immune related AEs (irAEs) were also collected when available. Pooled estimates of adverse event rates were calculated by using generalized linear mixed model. A total of 35 RCTs including 16,485 patients were included. The overall quality of AEs reporting was satisfactory, but items pertaining to methods of data collection and analysis were infrequently reported. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were reported for 14% (95% CI 12–16) of patients treated with PD(L)‐1 inhibitors, 34% (95% CI 27–42) of patients treated with CTLA‐4 inhibitors, 55% (95% CI 51–59) of patients on CPI combinations and 46% (95% CI 40–53) of patients on immunotherapy‐chemotherapy combination. The profile of irAEs was different among the treatment categories. The use of CPI, especially in combination, is associated with significant rates of Grade ≥ 3 AEs. Healthcare planning should anticipate the expected high number of patients presenting with irAEs in the future.

These data show that 3-year PFS for WHO grade II meningioma patients undergoing a complete resection (Simpson I-III) is superior to 70% when treated with high-dose (60 Gy) RT.

No abstract

Background The aim of the study was to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for interpreting group-level change over time, both within a group and between groups, for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with prostate cancer. Methods We used data from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors were selected by strength of correlations with QLQ-C30 scales. In addition, clinicians’ input was obtained with regard to plausibility of the selected anchors. The mean change method was applied for interpreting change over time within a group of patients and linear regression models were fitted to estimate MIDs for between-group differences in change over time. Distribution-based estimates were also evaluated. Results Two clinical anchors were eligible for MID estimation; performance status and the CTCAE diarrhoea domain. MIDs were developed for 7 scales (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, pain, fatigue, global quality of life, diarrhoea) and varied by scale and direction (improvement vs deterioration). Within-group MIDs ranged from 4 to 14 points for improvement and − 13 to − 5 points for deterioration and MIDs for between-group differences in change scores ranged from 3 to 13 for improvement and − 10 to − 5 for deterioration. Conclusions Our findings aid the meaningful interpretation of changes on a set of EORTC QLQ-C30 scale scores over time, both within and between groups, and for performing more accurate sample size calculations for clinical trials in prostate cancer.