Emotional distress (ED), commonly characterized by symptoms of depression and/or anxiety, is prevalent in patients with cancer. Preclinical studies suggest that ED can impair antitumor immune responses, but few clinical studies have explored its relationship with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Here we report results from cohort 1 of the prospective observational STRESS-LUNG study, which investigated the association between ED and clinical efficacy of first-line treatment of ICIs in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. ED was assessed by Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale. The study included 227 patients with 111 (48.9%) exhibiting ED who presented depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score ≥5) and/or anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item score ≥5) symptoms at baseline. On the primary endpoint analysis, patients with baseline ED exhibited a significantly shorter median progression-free survival compared with those without ED (7.9 months versus 15.5 months, hazard ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 2.43, P = 0.002). On the secondary endpoint analysis, ED was associated with lower objective response rate (46.8% versus 62.1%, odds ratio 0.54, P = 0.022), reduced 2-year overall survival rate of 46.5% versus 64.9% (hazard ratio for death 1.82, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.97, P = 0.016) and detriments in quality of life. The exploratory analysis indicated that the ED group showed elevated blood cortisol levels, which was associated with adverse survival outcomes. This study suggests that there is an association between ED and worse clinical outcomes in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with ICIs, highlighting the potential significance of addressing ED in cancer management. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05477979.

Association between dietary nitrate and nitrite intake and site-specific cancer risk: evidence from observational studies Association between dietary nitrate and nitrite intake and site-specific cancer risk: evidence from observational studies

The hazard ratio (HR) is used routinely to quantify the treatment effect for time-to-event end points in oncology trials, but its use requires that there be proportional hazards in the treatment arms. Non-proportional hazards are observed frequently in cancer immunotherapy trials due to the long-term survival and delayed clinical effect. Although values of HR are quoted in such trials, they are not valid measures of outcome. Reports of parallel group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors with overall survival data were eligible. For each trial, the ratio of restricted mean survival time (RMST) between the arms was based on reconstructed individual patient data for overall survival. Twenty-five RCTs totaling 12 870 patients were included in this study. Overall survival was used as primary or coprimary end point in 18 trials (72%). In all trials, there was agreement between the ratio of RMST or RMTL and the reported HR about the direction of treatment effect. Estimates of HR provided larger estimates of treatment effect than the ratio of RMST or RMTL in all these trials. The estimated HR and RMST-based measures were in agreement regarding the statistical significance of the effect in all but two trials. Ratio of RMST is a complementary technique that provides alternative method of summarizing treatment effects. Proportional hazards of the treatment effect should not be assumed in RCTs evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors, and RMST analysis should be reported in such trials.

Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0 (CTCAE v3.0) were released in 2003 and have been used widely to report toxicity in publications or presentations describing cancer clinical trials. Here we evaluate whether guidelines for reporting toxicity are followed in publications reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for cancer. Phase III RCTs evaluating systemic cancer therapy published between 2011 and 2013, were reviewed to identify eligible studies, which stated explicitly that CTCAE v3.0 was used to report toxicity. Each AE term and its grade were located in CTCAE v3.0 to determine if they fell within the guidelines provided in the explanatory file. A total of 166 publications were included in this analysis. Criteria from CTCAE v3.0 were frequently used incorrectly. For example, CATEGORY names such as Metabolic were misreported as AEs in 19 trials, and inappropriate grades for AEs assigned frequently. For example, febrile neutropenia was graded 1 or 2 in 35 of 91 studies (38 %), but the minimum grade for this toxicity is 3. Alopecia was graded 3 or more in 19 of 77 studies (25 %), but the maximum is only grade 2. The present study provides evidence of poor reporting of toxicity in clinical trials. The study provides a lower estimate for the misuse of AE terms and grades, and implies that other AE terms and grades that conform to CTCAE v3.0 guidelines may have been assigned incorrectly. Inaccurate reporting of toxicity in clinical trials can lead clinicians to make inappropriate treatment decisions.

Purpose: Treatment decisions in clinical oncology are guided by results from phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The results of subgroup analyses may be potentially important in individualizing patient care. We investigated the appropriateness of the use and interpretation of subgroup analyses in oncology RCTs on the basis of the CONSORT statement requirements. Methods: Phase III RCTs published between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013, were reviewed to identify eligible studies of solid tumor treatments. Information related to the subgroup analyses included prespecification, number, subgroup factors, interaction test use, and claim of subgroup difference. Results: A total of 221 publications reporting data on 184,500 patients were analyzed. One hundred eighty-eight (85%) RCTs were reported with subgroup analyses. Of those, 146 (78%) trials were reported with at least six subgroups. For the majority of trials with subgroup analyses (173; 92%), the actual number of subgroup analyses conducted cannot be determined. Only 59 (31%) RCTs were reported with fully prespecified subgroups and only 64 (34%) trials were reported with interaction tests. In addition, 102 (54%) RCTs were reported with claims of subgroup differences. Of those, only 18 claims of RCTs (18%) were based on significant interaction test results. Conclusion: The reporting of subgroup analyses in contemporary oncology RCTs is neither uniform nor complete; it requires improvement to ensure consistency and to provide critical information for guiding patient care. Major problems include testing of a large number of subgroups, subgroups without prespecifications, and inadequate use of interaction tests.