Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Happened to All the Patients? Event Charts for Summarizing Individual Patient Data and Displaying Clinically Significant Changes in Quality of Life Data

  • Clinical Trials
  • Published:
Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Research

Event charts are a novel way of presenting data from pharmaceutical phase 1 clinical trials. We applied event chart methodology to summarize clinically significant changes in quality of life (QOL) data over time for oncology patients enrolled in North Central Cancer Treatment Group and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center clinical trials.

Methods

Recent developments in QOL research have led to a number of definitions for clinically significant changes in oncology QOL measures. Many approaches suggest that on a 0 to 100 point scale, changes of <10 are small, 10 to 20 are moderate, and more than 20 points are large differences in QOL scores. This taxonomy is analogous to the tracking methodology invoked for the monitoring of toxicity data via National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria guidelines. This categorization was combined with event chart methodology to summarize QOL data over time for patients enrolled in oncology clinical trials. Event charts were compared to both the scatter plot approach and Kaplan-Meier time-to-event graphical representations.

Results

The event chart method proved superior to plotting raw scores over time since at-risk individuals were identified with greater facility and censored or missing data were incorporated more readily due to the intent-to-treat nature of this method. Furthermore, event charts identified time points where patients may have experienced potential crises in QOL and where interventions could be employed.

Conclusions

The event chart provides an innovative method for summarizing individual patient QOL data over time. This methodology has the potential for use as a tracking device in oncology clinical trials. In this sense, we can record QOL “events” and potentially intervene based upon the observed magnitude of changes in scores.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Francis B, Fuller M. Visualisation of event histories. J Roy Stat Soc. 1996; Series A, 159: 301–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chuang-Stein C. Statistics for safety data. Chapter 9 in Detection of New Adverse Drug Reactions. 4th ed. London, UK: Macmillan Publisher; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chuang-Stein C, Le V, Chen W. Recent advances in the analysis and presentation of safety data. Drug Inf J. 2001;35:377–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Goldman AI. Event charts: visualizing survival and other time-events data. Am Stat. 1992;46: 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Enas CG. Some useful pictures and methods in survival analysis of oncology data. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section. Alexandria, VA; American Statistical Association; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dublin S, Rosenberg PS, Goedert JJ. Patterns and predictors of high-risk sexual behavior in female partners of HIV-infected men with hemophilia. AIDS. 1992;6(5):475–482.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Therber A, Delucchi K. Letter to the editor: Comments on ‘Event charts; visualizing survival and other timed-events data’ by A.I. Goldman. Am Stat. 1992;46:334–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lesser ML, Kohn NE, Napolitano BA, Pahwa S. The FU-PLOT: a graphical method for visualizing the timing follow-up in longitudinal studies. Am Stat. 1995;49:139–143.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lee JJ, Hess KR, Dubin JA. Statistical computing and graphics: extensions and applications of event charts. Am Stat. 2000;54(1):63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Szarfman A. Talarico L, Levine JG, Analysis and risk assessment of hematological data from clinical trials. In: toxicology of the hematopoietic system. In: Sipes IG, McQueen CA. Gandolfi AJ. Comprehensive Toxicology. Vol 4. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Inc; 1997:363–379.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Levine JG, Szarfman A. Standardised data structures and visualisation tools: A way to accelerate the regulatory review of the integrated summary of safety of new drug applications. Biopharma Rep. 1996:4(3):12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Szarfman A. Discussion: a report on the activities of the adverse events working groups: focus on improving the detection of rare but serious events. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section. Alexandria (VA): American Statistical Association: 1999:12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 66 Federal Register 63712/Vol. 66, No. 237/ Monday, December 10, 2001/Patient Profile Viewer; Notice of Pilot Project.

  14. Reid J. Buckner JC, Novotny P. Wright K, Kimmel DW. Schaaf L, Miller L, Wiesenfeld M, Pfeifle DM, Hatfield A. Pharmacokinetics of Irinotecan (CPT-11) in recurrent glioma patients: Results of an NCCTG phase II trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1999;18:141 (A540).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1996;11:570–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sloan JA. Loprinzi C, Kuross SA, et al. Randomized comparison of four tools measuring overall quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:3662–3673.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality of life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998; 16(1): 139–144.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jaeschke R. Singer J, Guyatt G. Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the meaning of a change in quality-of-life questionnaire score. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cella DF, Tulsky DS. Gray G, Sarafian B, Lloyd S, Linn E, Bonomi A. Silberman M, Yellen SB, Winicour P, Brannon J, Eckberg K, Purl S. Blendowski C, Goodman M, Barnicle M, Stewart I, McHale M, Bonomi P, Kaplan E, Taylor S, Thomas C, Harris J. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scale: Development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(3): 570–579.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Colon-Otero G, Krook JE, Sloan JA. Windschitl HE, Niedringhaus RD, Al-Khatib HS, Hauge MD, Marks RS, Geyer S, Hillman S, Knowlton L, Jett J. A phase II trial of edatrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, cisplatin and filgrastim (EVAC/ G-CSF) in patients with advanced non-small cell carcinoma of the lungs: a north central cancer center treatment group trial. Am J Clin Oncol. 2002; 26(6):551–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kugler JW, Hobday TJ, Mahoney MM, Sargent DS, Sloan JA, Fitch TR, Krook JE, O’Connell MJ, Mailliard JA, Tirona MT, Tschetter LK, Cobau CD, Goldberg RM. A phase II trial and quality of life analysis of a five day regimen of oral 5-fluorouracil(5-FU) bracketed by a seven day regimen of oral eniluracil in untreated patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. December 2002.

  22. Sloan JA, Varricchio C. Quality of life endpoints in prostate chemoprevention trials. Urology. 2001;57(supplement 4A):235–240.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pepe MS. Inference for events with dependent risks in multiple endpoint studies. J Am Stat Assoc. 1991;86:770–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/GRAPH® Software: Reference. Version 6. First Edition, Volume 1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 1990.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN, United States

    Pamela J. Atherton MS, Britta Jasperson BS, Andrea Nibbe BS, Kate A. Clement-Brown, Cristine Allmer BS, Paul Novotny MS, Charles Erlichman MD & Jeff A. Sloan PhD

  2. Mayo Clinic, Kahler 1A-9B, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, United States

    Pamela J. Atherton MS

Authors
  1. Pamela J. Atherton MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Britta Jasperson BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Nibbe BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kate A. Clement-Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cristine Allmer BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul Novotny MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Charles Erlichman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jeff A. Sloan PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pamela J. Atherton MS.

Additional information

Presented at the DIA “Quality of Life Workshop.” March 25–27, 2001, Hilton Head, South Carolina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Atherton, P.J., Jasperson, B., Nibbe, A. et al. What Happened to All the Patients? Event Charts for Summarizing Individual Patient Data and Displaying Clinically Significant Changes in Quality of Life Data. Ther Innov Regul Sci 37, 11–21 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150303700104

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150303700104

Key Words

Search

Navigation