Skip to main content
Download PDF

Patient-reported outcomes in individuals with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated with ripretinib in the fourth-line setting: analysis from the phase 3 INVICTUS trial

BMC Cancer volume 22, Article number: 1302 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Ripretinib is a novel switch-control kinase inhibitor that inhibits KIT and PDGFRA signaling. In the INVICTUS phase 3 trial, ripretinib increased median progression-free survival and prolonged overall survival vs. placebo in ≥ fourth-line advanced GIST. Here, we report prespecified analysis of quality of life (QoL) as assessed by patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and an exploratory analysis evaluating the impact of alopecia on QoL.

Methods

In the INVICTUS trial (NCT03353753), QoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30; physical function, role function, overall health, and overall QoL) and the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5 L; visual analogue scale). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models compared changes in scores from baseline to treatment cycle 2, day 1 within and between ripretinib and placebo. Within the ripretinib arm, repeated measures models assessed the impact of alopecia on QoL.

Results

Patients receiving ripretinib maintained QoL (as assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5 L PRO measures) from baseline to cycle 2, day 1 whereas QoL declined with placebo, resulting in clinically significant differences between treatments (nominal P < 0.01). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event with ripretinib was alopecia; however, QoL was similarly maintained out to treatment cycle 10, day 1 in patients receiving ripretinib who developed alopecia and those who did not.

Conclusion

PRO assessments in the INVICTUS trial suggest that patients on ripretinib maintain their QoL out to C2D1, unlike patients receiving placebo. Longitudinal QoL was maintained for patients receiving ripretinib out to cycle 10, day 1 (approximately 8 months; past the point of median progression-free survival with ripretinib [6.3 months]), even if the patients developed alopecia.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03353753; first posted: November 27, 2017.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common sarcoma of the gastrointestinal tract, with an estimated incidence of 10–15 cases per million [1, 2]. Activating mutations in KIT or platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) occur in approximately 82–87% of patients with GIST [3], making these tumors amenable to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). There are currently five approved TKIs (imatinib, sunitinib, regorafenib, ripretinib and avapritinib) for the treatment of patients with GIST.

While these TKIs have a more tolerable safety profile relative to traditional chemotherapy, they are associated with specific treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with potential quality of life (QoL) implications, such as various skin toxicities [4,5,6,7,8]. Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (PPES), as well as stomatitis, are common with TKI therapy, especially with sunitinib and regorafenib; even Grade 2 severity of these common TEAEs can have significant impact on activities of daily living [4, 8,9,10]. Therefore, it is critical to evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in patients with GIST receiving TKI therapy. In a systematic review of the current literature on TKI therapy in GIST, only 13 of 104 studies evaluated health-related QoL; common issues negatively affecting QoL were severe fatigue and fear of recurrence or progression of disease [11,12,13]. Most patients treated with sunitinib reported a decrease in health-related QoL whereas patients reported mostly stable QoL while receiving other TKIs [13].

Ripretinib, a novel switch-control TKI designed to broadly inhibit KIT and PDGFRA kinase signaling through a dual mechanism of action [14], is approved for the treatment of adult patients with advanced GIST who have received prior treatment with three or more TKIs, including imatinib, based on the results of the phase 3 INVICTUS study (NCT03353753) [15, 16]. In INVICTUS, ripretinib demonstrated a significant improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, vs. placebo (6.3 vs. 1.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09‒0.25; P < 0.0001), with clinically meaningful prolongation of median overall survival ([OS], 15.1 vs. 6.6 months; HR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21–0.62) and an acceptable safety profile. Alopecia was the most common drug-related TEAE reported in patients taking ripretinib (49%) [16].

Here, we further describe the prespecified PRO assessments from patients receiving ripretinib or placebo from the INVICTUS trial and additional exploratory analyses of the impact of alopecia on self-reported functioning, health status, and QoL.

Materials and methods

Study design and participants

INVICTUS is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 129 patients who received at least three prior TKIs for advanced GIST (Fig. S1). The study design has been previously described [16]. Key inclusion criteria included age ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of GIST with at least one measurable lesion according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (mRECIST) version 1.1 and prior progression on at least imatinib, sunitinib, and regorafenib or intolerance despite dose modifications. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ripretinib 150 mg once daily (n = 85) or placebo (n = 44) until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. PD was determined by blinded independent central review using mRECIST version 1.1. Patients randomized to placebo could cross over to ripretinib 150 mg once daily at the time of confirmed PD and patients who progressed on ripretinib 150 mg once daily could dose-escalate to ripretinib 150 mg twice daily, continue treatment at the same dose, or discontinue treatment [17, 18]. Treatment cycles were 28 days. The protocol for the INVICTUS study is published online [19]. This analysis only includes PRO assessments from patients conducted during the placebo-controlled, double-blind portion of the trial (data cutoff: May 31, 2019).

PRO assessments

PRO assessments consisted of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5 L). These were completed using an electronic PRO (ePRO) system before dosing on days 1 (baseline) and 15 of cycle 1, day 1 of subsequent cycles, and within 7 days of the last dose (end-of-treatment visit).

The EQ-5D-5 L [20] and EORTC QLQ-C30 [21] are both validated, standardized, patient-completed questionnaires used extensively in cancer clinical studies, for which validated translations were provided for sites in non-English-speaking countries (Table 1). The EQ-5D-5 L was developed by the EuroQoL group to provide a measure of patient utility for clinical and economic appraisals [20] and includes the EQ-5D-5 L visual analogue scale (VAS). Patients used the EQ-5D-5 L VAS to rate their health on that specific day on a vertical scale. The EORTC QLQ-C30, developed to assess health-related QoL in patients with cancer, is composed of multi-item and single-item scales, including functioning scales (physical functioning and role functioning), and a global health status/QoL scale [21]. The physical functioning and role functioning scales are two of the PROs identified by the US Food and Drug Administration as existing tools that measure core PROs that are clinically relevant and important to patients [22]. The functioning scales asked the patients to rate their experiences for seven items during the previous week on a four-point scale. Two items comprising the global health status scale also evaluated the patient’s experience over the past week. The two functional scales (EORTC QLQ-C30 physical and role function) and the self-reported health status (EQ-5D-5 L VAS) were prespecified because they illuminate critical aspects of the patient experience not covered otherwise. The additional function and symptom scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 were not prespecified analyses to avoid alpha-split issues. Additional data from the PRO questionnaires (including symptom items) are presented in the Supplementary information (Tables S1 and S2). In scoring the EORTC QLQ-C30, the overall health and QoL scales may be combined into a single score [23]. However, since the scales measure fundamentally different aspects of the patient experience, one could improve while the other deteriorates. Thus, reporting the average of the two scores would be problematic and is not done in the prespecified analysis.

Table 1 Patient-reported outcome assessments
Full size table

Changes from baseline in PRO measures were assessed using minimal clinically important difference (MCID) as identified in a review of MCID values for GI-related cancers [24]. For the EQ-5D-5 L VAS, MCID ranged from 7–8 points for anchor-based estimates and 9–11 points for distribution-based estimates from a retrospective analysis of patients with various types of cancers [25]. For the EORTC QLQ-C30 functioning scales and health-related QoL, there have been no empirically drawn MCIDs for GI-related cancers; however, an analysis encompassing several different conditions found that the MCID was approximately 0.5 times the standard deviation of the baseline value [26].

Safety assessments

TEAEs were monitored throughout the study from informed consent to safety follow-up, occurring 30 days after the last dose, with their severity rated by investigators using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) version 4.03 [16]. Time to first appearance and time to worst grade of the TEAE were recorded.

Statistical analyses

The EORTC QLQ-C30 was summarized by scale. In the scales used in the current manuscript, a higher score reflects better functioning or perceptions of overall health/QoL. The scoring for this questionnaire was done in two steps, with initial calculation of the average of the items that contribute to the scale. This was used as the raw score for the scale, to which a linear transformation was applied to standardize it, so that scores ranged from 0 to 100. The EQ-5D-5 L VAS was summarized using continuous descriptive statistics.

Statistical comparisons between treatment arms were carried out on cycle 2, day 1 (C2D1; prespecified endpoint) for two functioning scales and the EQ-5D-5 L VAS. The number of patients in the placebo arm was low after this point due to attrition. The PRO-evaluable population includes patients with available baseline and C2D1 assessments; patients who did not have both a baseline and a C2D1 value were dropped from the analysis and no imputation of missing values was done. For selected domains from the EORTC QLQ-C30 (physical function, role function, overall health, overall QoL), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models were built for change from baseline to C2D1, with the stratification factors as factors. Fixed effects were treatment, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score at baseline, and the number of prior anticancer treatments. For the EQ-5D-5 L VAS, a t-test was performed between the ripretinib and placebo group for their change from baseline to C2D1 scores.

In exploratory analyses, generalized estimating equation models were created to compare patients with and without alopecia. Models were built for each of the five PROs for ripretinib patients using repeated measures models across visits. For patients with alopecia, cycles 1 and 2 were excluded to account for the median time of alopecia onset. Covariates were sex, alopecia (yes/no), and ECOG score at baseline. When there was no end date available for the TEAE, the event was coded conservatively as having extended to the last visit of the double-blind period. Due to the placement of PROs in the hierarchy of testing, all P-values reported in this article are nominal.

Results

Patient population

Of 84 patients who received ripretinib during the double-blind period, the PRO-evaluable population included 73 patients with an available baseline assessment and 71 patients with an available C2D1 assessment. Of the 43 patients who received placebo during the double-blind period, the PRO-evaluable population included 42 patients with an available baseline assessment and 32 patients with an available C2D1 assessment (Fig. 1). The declining number of patients with PRO data over time reflects the number of patients who remained progression-free as previously reported [16].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Number of patients with PRO assessment over time. At C1D1, 73 patients were evaluable in the ripretinib arm, and 42 patients were evaluable in the placebo arm. C, cycle; D, day; PRO, patient-reported outcome

Full size image

Changes in EQ-5D-5 L VAS and EORTC QLQ-C30 PRO measures

Changes from baseline to C2D1 in EQ-5D-5 L VAS and EORTC QLQ-C30 PRO measures are presented in Fig. 2. Patients receiving ripretinib maintained their daily self-reported health on the EQ-5D-5 L VAS, while placebo treatment was associated with a decline (nominal P = 0.004 for the difference between arms). Patients receiving ripretinib reported stable physical and role functioning relative to baseline, and the same measures deteriorated in patients receiving placebo (nominal P = 0.004 and nominal P = 0.001, respectively). Patients also maintained stable perceptions of their overall health and QoL compared with the placebo arm (both nominal P = 0.001). All differences between treatment arms exceeded the MCID. Scores at baseline and C2D1 for all items that were not part of the prespecified analysis are presented in the Supplementary information (Tables S1 and S2). Longitudinal changes in PRO scores from baseline in the ripretinib arm (Fig. 3) show that patients receiving ripretinib reported stable role and physical function, health status, and health QoL out to cycle 10, day 1 (approximately 8 months), which exceeds the previously reported median progression-free survival (6.3 months) [16].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Change from baseline to cycle 2, day 1 in EQ-5D-5 L VAS and EORTC QLQ-C30 measures. Mean change from baseline to C2D1 in the EQ-5D-5 L VAS (A), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function (A), EORTC QLQ-C30 role function (A), EORTC QLQ-C30 overall health (B), and EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life (B). P-values are nominal, and no statistical significance is being claimed. The Physical and Role Function questions were rolled up to a score out of 100; questions C29 and C30 are based on 7-point scales. C2D1, cycle 2, day 1; EORTC QLQ-C30, European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; EQ-5D-5 L, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level; VAS, visual analogue scale

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Longitudinal changes from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 measures and EQ-5D-5 L VAS in the ripretinib arm. Longitudinal change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function (A), role function (B), overall health (C), overall quality of life (D), and EQ-5D-5 L VAS (E). EORTC QLQ-C30, European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; EQ-5D-5 L, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level; QD, once daily; SD, standard deviation; VAS, visual analogue scale

Full size image

Safety

TEAEs (all causality) reported in > 20% of patients receiving ripretinib are summarized in Table 2 (data cut: May 31, 2019); the most common TEAE in the ripretinib arm was alopecia (n = 44, 52%). The incidence of alopecia was 57% in females and 43% in males. NCI-CTCAE grading for alopecia consists of two severity options: Grade 1 (< 50% hair loss) or Grade 2 (≥ 50% hair loss). The majority (34/44; 77%) of patients receiving ripretinib who developed alopecia had a severity of Grade 1 (data not shown).

Table 2 TEAEs in > 20% of patients receiving ripretiniba
Full size table

Emergence of alopecia and the association with QoL

In patients receiving ripretinib, the median times to first appearance and to worst grade alopecia were 1.9 and 2.1 months, respectively. Repeated measures analysis (Table 3) showed that overall health and physical and role function were similarly maintained in patients receiving ripretinib with and without alopecia over time. A trend toward better self-reported overall QoL was observed for patients who experienced alopecia (compared with no alopecia; nominal P = 0.03); however, the difference did not exceed the threshold for meaningful change. Longitudinal graphs from cycle 1, day 1 out to cycle 10, day 1 demonstrate that responses for overall health, physical and role functioning, and overall QoL (average mean change from baseline) are generally maintained for patients receiving ripretinib who developed alopecia and those who did not (Fig. 4).

Table 3 General estimating equation analysis summary of the association between alopecia and the 5 PRO measures in patients taking ripretinib
Full size table
Fig. 4
figure 4

Longitudinal changes from baseline in PRO measures in patients with or without alopecia who received ripretinib. EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function (A), EORTC QLQ-C30 role function (B), EORTC QLQ-C30 overall health (C), EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life (D), and EQ-5D-5 L VAS (E). EORTC QLQ-C30, European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; EQ-5D-5 L, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level; SD, standard deviation; VAS, visual analogue scale

Full size image

Discussion

In the INVICTUS phase 3 study, ripretinib demonstrated a statistically and clinically significant improvement in PFS and a clinically meaningful OS benefit compared with placebo that has led to the approval of ripretinib in the US, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, the UK, and the EU [16, 27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. Here, we show that all five key PRO measures were maintained out to C2D1 in patients with advanced GIST receiving ripretinib compared with declining measures reported with placebo. The differences between the two arms in physical function, role function, health, and QoL as rated by patients receiving ripretinib and those receiving placebo were clinically significant using a previously defined MCID [24], and the P-values were significant. Patients receiving ripretinib had consistently stable self-reported functioning, health status, and QoL. Also, the longitudinal measures suggest these patients were able to maintain QoL, while these same measures declined sharply with placebo after just 1 month.

The importance of evaluating PROs reflective of QoL and function during oncology trials has been increasingly recognized over the past two decades. Whereas TEAEs are determined per investigator assessment, PRO assessments capture the perspectives of patients and can provide insight into the clinical relevance of investigator-determined TEAEs and other AEs that may go undetected during traditional TEAE monitoring. Notably, most of the pivotal trials of imatinib, sunitinib, or regorafenib for the treatment of advanced GIST did not report PROs [35,36,37,38]. PRO data are limited for imatinib despite its approval in GIST in 2002, but results derived from phase 3 trials support relatively stable QoL over the course of treatment [39, 40]. In the phase 3 registration trial of regorafenib, PROs were assessed via the EQ-5D 3 Level (EQ-5D-3 L) as an exploratory endpoint and published separately [41]. However, the intent of that analysis was to estimate the health status of patients who were progression-free relative to clinically progressing patients to inform economic models. The study compared baseline and first post-progression scores for both treatment arms combined without providing any insight into changes in EQ-5D-3 L scores with regorafenib relative to placebo or the impact of TEAEs on QoL.

Ripretinib was generally well tolerated in the primary analysis and only 4 patients (4.7%) discontinued study treatment due to a treatment-related TEAE [16]. However, in the INVICTUS study, about 50% of the ripretinib recipients developed some level of alopecia, making it the most common TEAE [16]. Our analyses showed a median time to onset of about 2 months for first detection and worst grade occurrences of alopecia. When stratified by alopecia, patient-reported function, overall health, and overall QoL were generally stable; because patients had already progressed on other therapies and were at risk of fatal progression, perhaps alopecia was not as important to these patients. The impact of hair loss on QoL may depend on many factors, including the proportion of hair lost, the amount of hair the patient had prior to starting treatment, sex, social status, and employment status [42,43,44]. It is possible that alopecia is not permanent in these patients, but further analysis is necessary.

A limitation of this study was that responses on PRO assessments were not collected from all patients. However, the response rate of approximately 80% in this study is relatively high. Additionally, because these were secondary outcomes, the study arms were not specifically powered for statistical analysis. The number of patients in the placebo group declined quickly due to disease progression, making it difficult to make intergroup comparisons beyond cycle 2. Additional research in real-world patients would be helpful in further establishing the association of alopecia and other symptoms with QoL.

Conclusion

In conclusion, PRO assessments in the INVICTUS trial demonstrate that patients with advanced GIST on fourth-line or greater therapy maintain QoL and function while receiving ripretinib out to C2D1 compared with patients receiving placebo. Similarly, patients receiving ripretinib were not negatively impacted by alopecia as related to longitudinal QoL and function.

Availability of data and materials

Qualified scientific and medical researchers can make requests for individual participant data that underlie the results reported in this article, after de-identification, at info@deciphera.com. Proposals for data will be evaluated and approved by Deciphera in its sole discretion. All approved researchers must sign a data access agreement before accessing the data. Data will be available as soon as possible but no later than within 1 year of the acceptance of the article for publication, and for 3 years after article publication. Deciphera will not share data from identified participants or a data dictionary.

Abbreviations

ANCOVA:

analysis of covariance

C:

cycle

CI:

confidence interval

D:

day

ECOG:

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

EORTC QLQ-C30:

European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire

ePRO:

electronic PRO

EQ-5D-3L:

EuroQoL 5-Dimension 3-Level

EQ-5D-5L:

EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level

GIST:

gastrointestinal stromal tumor

HR:

hazard ratio

MCID:

minimal clinically important difference

mRECIST:

modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors

NCI-CTCAE:

National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events

OS:

overall survival

PD:

progressive disease

PDGFRA:

platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha

PFS:

progression-free survival

PRO:

patient-reported outcome

QoL:

quality of life

TEAE:

treatment-emergent adverse event

TKI:

tyrosine kinase inhibitor

VAS:

visual analogue scale

References

  1. Rubin BP, Heinrich MC, Corless CL. Gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Lancet. 2007;369(9574):1731–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Soreide K, Sandvik OM, Soreide JA, Giljaca V, Jureckova A, Bulusu VR. Global epidemiology of gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST): a systematic review of population-based cohort studies. Cancer Epidemiol. 2016;40:39–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Szucs Z, Thway K, Fisher C, Bulusu R, Constantinidou A, Benson C, van der Graaf WT, Jones RL. Molecular subtypes of gastrointestinal stromal tumors and their prognostic and therapeutic implications. Future Oncol. 2017;13(1):93–107.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Demetri GD, Reichardt P, Kang YK, Blay JY, Rutkowski P, Gelderblom H, Hohenberger P, Leahy M, von Mehren M, Joensuu H, et al. Efficacy and safety of regorafenib for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours after failure of imatinib and sunitinib (GRID): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9863):295–302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ben-Ami E, Barysauskas CM, von Mehren M, Heinrich MC, Corless CL, Butrynski JE, Morgan JA, Wagner AJ, Choy E, Yap JT, et al. Long-term follow-up results of the multicenter phase II trial of regorafenib in patients with metastatic and/or unresectable GI stromal tumor after failure of standard tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(9):1794–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Yeh CN, Chen MH, Chen YY, Yang CY, Yen CC, Tzen CY, Chen LT, Chen JS. A phase II trial of regorafenib in patients with metastatic and/or a unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumor harboring secondary mutations of exon 17. Oncotarget. 2017;8(27):44121–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Reichardt P, Kang YK, Rutkowski P, Schuette J, Rosen LS, Seddon B, Yalcin S, Gelderblom H, Williams CC Jr, Fumagalli E, et al. Clinical outcomes of patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors: safety and efficacy in a worldwide treatment-use trial of sunitinib. Cancer. 2015;121(9):1405–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fauske L, Hompland I, Lorem G, Bondevik H, Bruland OS. Perspectives on treatment side effects in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour: a qualitative study. Clin Sarcoma Res. 2019;9:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. George S, Blay JY, Casali PG, Le Cesne A, Stephenson P, Deprimo SE, Harmon CS, Law CN, Morgan JA, Ray-Coquard I, et al. Clinical evaluation of continuous daily dosing of sunitinib malate in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour after imatinib failure. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(11):1959–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. 2017. Available at: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_8.5x11.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2021.

  11. Custers JA, Tielen R, Prins JB, de Wilt JH, Gielissen MF, van der Graaf WT. Fear of progression in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST): Is extended lifetime related to the Sword of Damocles? Acta Oncol. 2015;54(8):1202–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Poort H, van der Graaf WT, Tielen R, Vlenterie M, Custers JA, Prins JB, Verhagen CA, Gielissen MF, Knoop H. Prevalence, impact, and correlates of severe fatigue in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016;52(2):265–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van de Wal D, Elie M, Le Cesne A, Fumagalli E, den Hollander D, Jones RL, Marquina G, Steeghs N, van der Graaf WTA, Husson O. Health-Related Quality of Life and Side Effects in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a systematic review of the literature. Cancers (Basel) 2022, 14(7):1832.

  14. Smith BD, Kaufman MD, Lu WP, Gupta A, Leary CB, Wise SC, Rutkoski TJ, Ahn YM, Al-Ani G, Bulfer SL, et al. Ripretinib (DCC-2618) is a switch control kinase inhibitor of a broad spectrum of oncogenic and drug-resistant KIT and PDGFRA variants. Cancer Cell. 2019;35(5):738–51.e739.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Qinlock. Prescribing information. In. Waltham, MA: Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, LLC; 2020.

  16. Blay JY, Serrano C, Heinrich MC, Zalcberg J, Bauer S, Gelderblom H, Schöffski P, Jones RL, Attia S, D’Amato G, et al. Ripretinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (INVICTUS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(7):923–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. George S, Chi P, Heinrich MC, von Mehren M, Jones RL, Ganjoo K, Trent J, Gelderblom H, Razak AA, Gordon MS, et al. Ripretinib intrapatient dose escalation after disease progression provides clinically meaningful outcomes in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Eur J Cancer. 2021;155:236–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Zalcberg JR, Heinrich MC, George S, Bauer S, Schoffski P, Serrano C, Gelderblom H, Jones RL, Attia S, D’Amato G, et al: Clinical benefit of ripretinib dose escalation after disease progression in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor: An analysis of the INVICTUS study. Oncologist 2021.

  19. Phase 3 study of DCC-2618 vs placebo in advanced GIST patients who have been treated with prior anticancer therapies (INVICTUS). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03353753.

  20. van Reenen M, Janssen B: EQ-5D-5L User Guide. Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. 2015. https://apersu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/EQ-5D-5L_User-Guide.pdf. Accessed 29 Sept 2021.

  21. EORTC QLQ-C30 https://qol.eortc.org/questionnaire/eortc-qlq-c30/.

  22. U.S. Department of Human Services Food and Drug Administration: Core Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials, Guidance for Industry. June. 2021. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/149994/download. Accessed 3 Feb 2022.

  23. Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A, Group obotEQoL: EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual (3rd edition). Brussels: EORTC; 2001.

  24. McHorney C, Cha E, Becker C: Thresholds for meaningful change for the EQ-5D VAS and EORTC QLQ-C30 physical and role functioning scale in gastrointestional-related cancers. In: ISPOR: 2020; Orlando, FL, USA 2020.

  25. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Deciphera Pharmaceuticals LLC: QINLOCK® (ripretinib) tablets: US prescribing information. Last revised June 2021. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/213973s000lbl.pdf. Accessed 29 Sept 2021.

  28. Deciphera Pharmaceuticals LLC: QINLOCK® ripretinib tablets: Canadian product monograph. 2020. https://pdf.hres.ca/dpd_pm/00056679.PDF. Accessed 29 Sept 2021.

  29. Specialised Therapeutics PM. Pty Ltd: QINLOCK® (ripretinib) tablets. Australian product information. 2020. https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/pdf?OpenAgent&=CP-2020-PI-02677-1&d=20210924172310101. Accessed 29 Sept 2021.

  30. Zai Lab Limited: China NMPA Approves QINLOCK® (Ripretinib) for Treatment of Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST). 2021. https://zailab.gcs-web.com/node/8936/pdf. Accessed 29 Sept 2021.

  31. Zai Lab Limited: QINLOCK® (Ripretinib) Approved in Taiwan for Treatment of Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST). 2021. http://ir.zailaboratory.com/news-releases/news-release-details/qinlockr-ripretinib-approved-taiwan-treatment-advanced. Accessed 29 Sept 2021.

  32. Deciphera Pharmaceuticals (Switzerland) AG Zug: QINLOCK® (Ripretinib) Prescribing information. Updated October. 2021. https://www.swissmedicinfo.ch/ShowText.aspx?textType=FI&lang=DE&authNr=68199. Accessed 19 Jan 2022.

  33. Deciphera, Pharmaceuticals (Netherlands) B.V. NL: QINLOCK® (ripretinib). Summary of Product Characteristics. Last revised December 2021. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/qinlock-epar-product-information_en.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2022.

  34. Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency: Public Assessment Report National Procedure QINLOCK 50 mg tablets ripretinib. Last revised February. 2022. https://mhraproducts4853.blob.core.windows.net/docs/0d4b34210f1a10b98e56b08d5fa53b27a65ca8ab. Accessed 1 Nov 2022.

  35. Blanke CD, Rankin C, Demetri GD, Ryan CW, von Mehren M, Benjamin RS, Raymond AK, Bramwell VH, Baker LH, Maki RG, et al. Phase III randomized, intergroup trial assessing imatinib mesylate at two dose levels in patients with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors expressing the kit receptor tyrosine kinase: S0033. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(4):626–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Demetri GD, von Mehren M, Blanke CD, Van den Abbeele AD, Eisenberg B, Roberts PJ, Heinrich MC, Tuveson DA, Singer S, Janicek M, et al. Efficacy and safety of imatinib mesylate in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(7):472–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. George S, Wang Q, Heinrich MC, Corless CL, Zhu M, Butrynski JE, Morgan JA, Wagner AJ, Choy E, Tap WD, et al. Efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with metastatic and/or unresectable GI stromal tumor after failure of imatinib and sunitinib: a multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(19):2401–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Demetri GD, van Oosterom AT, Garrett CR, Blackstein ME, Shah MH, Verweij J, McArthur G, Judson IR, Heinrich MC, Morgan JA, et al. Efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour after failure of imatinib: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368(9544):1329–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Blay JY, Le Cesne A, Ray-Coquard I, Bui B, Duffaud F, Delbaldo C, Adenis A, Viens P, Rios M, Bompas E, et al. Prospective multicentric randomized phase III study of imatinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors comparing interruption versus continuation of treatment beyond 1 year: the french Sarcoma Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(9):1107–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Yoo C, Ryu MH, Nam BH, Ryoo BY, Demetri GD, Kang YK. Impact of imatinib rechallenge on health-related quality of life in patients with TKI-refractory gastrointestinal stromal tumours: sub-analysis of the placebo-controlled, randomised phase III trial (RIGHT). Eur J Cancer. 2016;52:201–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Poole CD, Connolly MP, Chang J, Currie CJ. Health utility of patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) after failure of imatinib and sunitinib: findings from GRID, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study of regorafenib versus placebo. Gastric Cancer. 2015;18(3):627–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Lemieux J, Maunsell E, Provencher L. Chemotherapy-induced alopecia and effects on quality of life among women with breast cancer: a literature review. Psychooncology. 2008;17(4):317–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Quesada S, Guichard A, Fiteni F. Cancer-Related Alopecia: from etiologies to Global Management. Cancers (Basel) 2021, 13(21):5556.

  44. Ozusaglam E, Can G. The impact of the perception of Chemotherapy-Induced Alopecia on Psychosocial Life. Florence Nightingale J Nurs. 2021;29(3):361–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the patients, their families and caregivers, the investigators, and the site staff. The authors would also like to thank Elva Cha, DVM, PhD for her input on the analysis and outline review. Medical writing support was provided by Lauren Hanlon, PhD, CMPP of AlphaBioCom, LLC, and was funded by Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, LLC. MCH received partial salary support from a VA Merit Award Grant (2I01BX000338-05).

Funding

This study and writing support were sponsored by Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Waltham, MA, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Medical Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Patrick Schöffski

  2. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, 02215, Boston, MA, USA

    Suzanne George

  3. VA Portland Veterans Health Care System, 3710 SW US Veterans Hospital Rd., 97239, Portland, OR, USA

    Michael C. Heinrich

  4. OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, 3161 SW Pavilion Loop, 97239, Portland, OR, USA

    Michael C. Heinrich

  5. Monash University and Alfred Health, 553 St Kilda Road, VIC, 3004, Melbourne, Australia

    John R. Zalcberg

  6. Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Essen, Sarcoma Center/West German Cancer Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, D – 45147, Essen, Germany

    Sebastian Bauer

  7. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner site University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

    Sebastian Bauer

  8. Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, Netherlands

    Hans Gelderblom

  9. Centro Cellex, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Carrer de Natzaret, 115-117, 08035, Barcelona, Spain

    César Serrano

  10. Royal Marsden and Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Rd, SM2 5NG, London, UK

    Robin L. Jones

  11. Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road S, 32224, Jacksonville, FL, USA

    Steven Attia

  12. Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, 1475 NW 12th Ave, 33136, Miami, FL, USA

    Gina D’Amato

  13. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, 10065, New York, NY, USA

    Ping Chi

  14. Sarcoma Center, Helios Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Schwanebecker Ch 50, 13125, Berlin, Germany

    Peter Reichardt

  15. Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 200 Smith St., 02451, Waltham, MA, USA

    Claus Becker, Kelvin Shi, Julie Meade & Rodrigo Ruiz-Soto

  16. Centre Leon Berard, 28 Prom. Léa et Napoléon Bullukian, 69008, Lyon, France

    Jean-Yves Blay

  17. Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Ave, 19111, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Margaret von Mehren

Authors
  1. Patrick Schöffski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suzanne George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael C. Heinrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John R. Zalcberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sebastian Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hans Gelderblom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. César Serrano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Robin L. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Steven Attia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Gina D’Amato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ping Chi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Peter Reichardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Claus Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Kelvin Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Julie Meade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Rodrigo Ruiz-Soto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Jean-Yves Blay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Margaret von Mehren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: Conceptualization: PS and RRS. Investigation and resources: PS, SG, MCH, JRZ, SB, HG, CS, RLJ, SA, GD, PC, PR, JYB, and MvM. Data curation and formal analysis: PS, SG, MCH, JRZ, SB, HG, CS, RLJ, SA, GD, PC, PR, JYB, MvM, CB, KS, JM, and RRS. Writing-original draft: PS, CB, KS, JM, and RRS. Writing-review and editing: all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Schöffski.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was done in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Council for Harmonisation Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice. Patients had to provide written, informed consent to participate in this study. The protocol, protocol amendments, and informed-consent documents were approved by the Western Institutional Review Board-Copernicus Group (Puyallup, WA, USA). A local institutional review board or ethics committee at each site approved the protocol, protocol amendments, and informed-consent documents before the start of the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

PS has received honoraria from Deciphera, Blueprint, and Boehringer Ingelheim; serves in an advisory/consultancy role for Deciphera, Ellipses Pharma, Blueprint, Transgene, Exelixis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medscape, Guided Clarity, Adaptimmune, Inteillisphere, and Advanced Medical; his institution has received research funding from CoBioRes NV, Eisai, G1 Therapeutics, Novartis, and PharmaMar; and has received travel, accommodations, expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, and his institution has received them from MSD and Ipsen. SG serves in an advisory/consultancy role for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, and Exelixis; has a leadership role in Alliance Foundation; receives licensing royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health; is a shareholder/stockholder of Abbott Labs and her institution receives research support from Bayer, Blueprint, Deciphera, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Springworks, Merck, Eisai, and Pfizer. MCH serves in a consultancy role for Novartis, Deciphera, Blueprint, Molecular MD, and Novartis; receives royalties from Novartis; receives research funding from Blueprint and Deciphera; had an equity interest in Molecular MD, and has received travel, accommodations, expenses from Blueprint and Deciphera. JZ serves in an advisory/consultancy role for Merck Serono, Targovax, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Halozyme, Lipotek, Specialised Therapeutics, CEND, Deciphera; owns stock in GW Pharmaceuticals, Aimmune, Vertex, Alnylam, Biomarin, Opthea, Amarin, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Frequency Therapeutics, Global Blood Therapeutics, Gilead, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Sangamo Biosciences, Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, Zogenix, Myovant Sciences, Orphazyme, Moderna Therapeutics, and TWST; has received honoraria from Specialised Therapeutics, Merck Serono, Targovax, Halozyme, Gilead Sciences, and Deciphera; and his institution has received research funding from Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, IQvia, Mylan, Ipsen, Eisai, Medtronic, and MSD Oncology; and has received travel, accommodations, expenses from Merck Serano, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. SB serves in an advisory/consultancy role for Blueprint, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Deciphera, Nanobiotix, Daiichi Sankyo, Exelixis, Janssen-Cilag, ADC Therapeutics, Mundipharma, and GSK; has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, PharmaMar, and GlaxoSmithKline; has received research funding from Blueprint, and Novartis, and his institution has received research funding from Incyte. HG institution has received research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Five Prime, Novartis, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Roche, Eisai, Debio, Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd, Pfizer, Amgen, and TEVA. CS serves in an advisory/consultancy role for Deciphera, Blueprint, and Immunicum; is a member of the speaker’s bureau for Blueprint, and his institution has received research funding from Pfizer, and Karyopharm Therapeutics. RLJ has received honoraria and serves in an advisory role for Adapimmune Therapeutics Plc, Athenex Inc, Bayer, Blueprint, Clinigen Group Plc, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Epizyme, Immunedesign, Eli Lilly, Merck, PharmaMar, UpToDate; and serves in an advisory role for Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd and Tracon Pharma; and has received research funding from MSD. SA has received research funding from Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation; and his institution has received research funding from AB Science, TRACON Pharma, Bayer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Immune Design, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Epizyme, Blueprint, Genmab, CBA Pharma, Merck, Philogen, Gradalis, Deciphera, Takeda, Incyte, Springworks, Adaptimmune, Advenchen Laboratories, Barvarian Nordic, BTG, GlaxoSmithKline, and FORMA Therapeutics. GD serves in an advisory/consultancy role for Deciphera. PC serves in an advisory role for Deciphera, Exelixis, Zailab; has received grant funding from Deciphera, Exelixis, Novartis, and Array; and has licensing royalties and owns stock in ORIC. PR serves in an advisory/consultancy role for Clinigen Group, Roche, Bayer, Deciphera, MSD, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Eli Lilly, and Amgen; and his institution has received research funding from Novartis. CB is employed by Deciphera. KS is employed by Deciphera, and owns stock in Alnylam, Immunogen, Karyopharm, Deciphera, Spectrum, AstraZeneca and Alberio. JM was employed by Deciphera at the time this analysis was conducted and owns stock in Deciphera. RR-S is employed by Deciphera, and owns stock in Deciphera, and Immunogen. J-YB serves in an advisory/consultancy role and has received honoraria from Novartis, Bayer, Pfizer, Deciphera, PharmaMar, Ignyta, and Roche. MvM serves in an advisory/consultancy role for Deciphera, Blueprint, Exelexis, and GSK; has received travel/accommodation expenses from Deciphera and NCCN; and her institution has received funding from Arog, ASCO, Blueprint, Deciphera, Garadalis, GenMab, Novartis, and Solarius.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file

1: Table S1. EORTC QLQ-C30 change from baseline to C2D1. Table S2. EQ-5D-5L scores at baseline and C2D1. Figure S1. INVICTUS trial design.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schöffski, P., George, S., Heinrich, M.C. et al. Patient-reported outcomes in individuals with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated with ripretinib in the fourth-line setting: analysis from the phase 3 INVICTUS trial. BMC Cancer 22, 1302 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10379-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10379-9

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us