Missing data strategies for the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Alliance A091105 and COMET-2
Gina L Mazza, Molly M Petersen, Brenda Ginos, Blake T Langlais, Narre Heon, Mrinal M Gounder, Michelle R Mahoney, Alexander J Zoroufy, Gary K Schwartz, Lauren J Rogak, Gita Thanarajasingam, Ethan Basch, Amylou C Dueck, Gina L Mazza, Molly M Petersen, Brenda Ginos, Blake T Langlais, Narre Heon, Mrinal M Gounder, Michelle R Mahoney, Alexander J Zoroufy, Gary K Schwartz, Lauren J Rogak, Gita Thanarajasingam, Ethan Basch, Amylou C Dueck
Abstract
Purpose: Missing scores complicate analysis of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) because patients with and without missing scores may systematically differ. We focus on optimal analysis methods for incomplete PRO-CTCAE items, with application to two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trials.
Methods: In Alliance A091105 and COMET-2, patients completed PRO-CTCAE items before randomization and several times post-randomization (N = 64 and 107, respectively). For each trial, we conducted between-arm comparisons on the PRO-CTCAE via complete-case two-sample t-tests, mixed modeling with contrast, and multiple imputation followed by two-sample t-tests. Because interest lies in whether CTCAE grades can inform missing PRO-CTCAE scores, we performed multiple imputation with and without CTCAE grades as auxiliary variables to assess the added benefit of including them in the imputation model relative to only including PRO-CTCAE scores across all cycles.
Results: PRO-CTCAE completion rates ranged from 100.0 to 71.4% and 100.0 to 77.1% across time in A091105 and COMET-2, respectively. In both trials, mixed modeling and multiple imputation provided the most similar estimates of the average treatment effects. Including CTCAE grades in the imputation model did not consistently narrow confidence intervals of the average treatment effects because correlations for the same PRO-CTCAE item between different cycles were generally stronger than correlations between each PRO-CTCAE item and its corresponding CTCAE grade at the same cycle.
Conclusion: For between-arm comparisons, mixed modeling and multiple imputation are informative techniques for handling missing PRO-CTCAE scores. CTCAE grades do not provide added benefit for informing missing PRO-CTCAE scores.
Clinicaltrials: gov Identifiers: NCT02066181 (Alliance A091105); NCT01522443 (COMET-2).
Keywords: Adverse event; Missing data; Multiple imputation; PRO-CTCAE; Patient-reported outcome.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests pertaining to this analysis. Competing interests pertaining to Alliance A091105 were reported in Gounder et al. Competing interests pertaining to COMET-2 were reported in Basch et al.
© 2021. The Author(s).
References
- Basch E, et al. Development of the national cancer institute’s Patient-reported outcomes version of the Common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE) Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2014 doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju244.
- National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences. (2019). Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Retrieved January 1, 2018 from .
- Basch E. The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010;362(10):865–869. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0911494.
- Basch E, et al. Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2017;318(2):197–198. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7156.
- Gounder MM, et al. Sorafenib for advanced and refractory desmoid tumors. New England Journal of Medicine. 2018;379(25):2417–2428. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805052.
- Basch EM, et al. Cabozantinib versus Mitoxantrone-prednisone in symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A randomized phase 3 trial with a primary pain endpoint. European Urology. 2019;75(6):929–937. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.033.
- Coens C, et al. International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: Recommendations of the SISAQOL consortium. The Lancet Oncology. 2020;21(2):e83–e96. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30790-9.
- Collins LM, Schafer JL, Kam C-M. A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods. 2001;6(4):330–351. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.330.
- Enders CK. The impact of nonnormality on full information m aximum-likelihood estimation for structural equation models with missing data. Psychological Methods. 2001;6(4):352–370. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.352.
- Enders CK. Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press; 2010.
- Graham JW, Collins LM. Using modern missing data methods with auxiliary variables to mitigate the effects of attrition on statistical power. In: Graham JW, editor. Missing data: Analysis and design. Springer; 2012. pp. 253–275.
- Enders CK. A note on the use of missing auxiliary variables in full information maximum likelihood-based structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling. 2008;15(3):434–448. doi: 10.1080/10705510802154307.
Source: PubMed