Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI): stakeholder views, objectives, and procedures.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

A Review of Causal Inference for External Comparator Arm Studies.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard design to establish the efficacy of new drugs and to support regulatory decision making. However, a marked increase in the submission of single-arm trials (SATs) has been observed in recent years, especially in the field of oncology due to the trend towards precision medicine contributing to the rise of new therapeutic interventions for rare diseases. SATs lack results for control patients, and information from external sources can be compiled to provide context for better interpretability of study results. External comparator arm (ECA) studies are defined as a clinical trial (most commonly a SAT) and an ECA of a comparable cohort of patients-commonly derived from real-world settings including registries, natural history studies, or medical records of routine care. This publication aims to provide a methodological overview, to sketch emergent best practice recommendations and to identify future methodological research topics. Specifically, existing scientific and regulatory guidance for ECA studies is reviewed and appropriate causal inference methods are discussed. Further topics include sample size considerations, use of estimands, handling of different data sources regarding differential baseline covariate definitions, differential endpoint measurements and timings. In addition, unique features of ECA studies are highlighted, specifically the opportunity to address bias caused by unmeasured ECA covariates, which are available in the SAT.

Mortality from liver diseases attributable to hepatitis B and C in the EU/EEA - descriptive analysis and estimation of 2015 baseline.

Background: WHO has set target to reduce mortality attributable to hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV) by 65% by 2030, with 2015 as baseline. We aimed to describe the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) baseline mortality from liver diseases, as defined by WHO Core-10 indicator through ICD-10 codes, and estimate mortality attributable to HBV and HCV.Methods: Age-standardised mortality rates per 100,000 for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, ICD-10 C22.0), chronic liver disease (CLD, ICD-10 K72-K75) and chronic viral hepatitis B and C (CHB/CHC, ICD-10 B18.1-B18.3) were calculated by gender, age-group and country using 2015 Eurostat data. Because aetiology fraction (AF) estimates were lacking for HCC and CLD as defined by C10, number of deaths in EU/EEA countries in 2015 from liver cancer (ICD-10 C22) and 'cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases' (ICD-10 B18-B18.9, I85-I85.9, I98.2, K70-K70.3, K71.7, K74-K74.9, K75.2, K75.4-K76.2, K76.4-K76.9 and K77.8) were adjusted by corresponding AF estimates from Global Burden of Disease publications.Results: In 2015, there were wide variations across countries in mortality rates from HCC, CLD and CHB/CHC. A 2015 mortality baseline of 63,927 deaths attributable to HBV and HCV is proposed, that includes 55% of liver cancer and 45% of 'cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases' deaths.Conclusions: The HBV and HCV attributable mortality in the EU/EEA is high. Greater efforts are needed to identify HBV and HCV infections at an early stage and link cases to care to reduce mortality from liver diseases. Country-specific AF estimates are needed to accurately estimate HBV, HCV associated mortality.

The added value of geriatric assessment in evaluating a patient's Health-Related Quality-of-Life: A study in ≥70-year-old early-stage invasive breast cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between geriatric assessment (GA) and health-related Quality-of-Life (HRQOL) in older patients with breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were assigned either to adjuvant chemotherapy (CTG) or to a control group (CG). Spearman rank coefficients (ρ) calculated correlations between HRQOL and GA at baseline, 3 months and 1 year. Multivariate regressions modelled the prognostic value of GA in evaluating of a patient's HRQOL and the accuracy of baseline GA in predicting HRQOL decline (change of ≥10 points). RESULTS: The analysis included 57 patients in the CTG and 52 in the CG. Strong correlations (ρ ≥ 0.5) were reported between the EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Scale and Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Instrumental ADL (iADL) and Leuven Oncogeriatric Frailty Score Scale (LOFS). Multivariate models demonstrated that poor iADL, ADL and LOFS (CG) and ADL and iADL (CTG) contributed to a statistically (all p < .05) worse HRQOL. The relative gain in predicting 3-month and 1-year HRQOL decline was 24.1% and 4.7% (CG) and 6.1% and 18.3% (CTG). CONCLUSION: Our results show that the functional measures in the GA are strongly correlated with patient self-reported functioning. Poor baseline GA has a modest probability of predicting HRQOL deterioration.

The prognostic value of patient-reported Health-Related Quality of Life and Geriatric Assessment in predicting early death in 6769 older (≥70 years) patients with different cancer tumors.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the prognostic value of baseline Health-Related Quality Of Life (HRQOL) and geriatric assessment (GA) to predict three-month mortality in older patients with cancer undergoing treatment. METHODS: Logistic regressions analysed HRQOL, as measured with the EORTC Global Health Status (GHS) scale, and geriatric information prognostic for early mortality controlling for oncology variables. The assessment was established with the odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and level of significance set at p < 0.05. Discriminative power was evaluated with area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: In total, 6769 patients were included in the study, of whom 1259 (18.60%) died at three months. Our model showed higher odds of early death for patients with lower HRQOL (GHS, OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.98-0.99; p < 0.001), a geriatric risk profile (G8 Screening Tool, 1.94, 1.14-3.29; p = 0.014), cognitive decline (Mini Mental State Examination, 1.41, 1.15-1.72; p = 0.001), being at risk for malnutrition (Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form, 1.54, 1.21-1.98; p = 0.001), fatigue (Visual Analogue Scale for Fatigue, 1.45, 1.16-1.82; p = 0.012) and comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity index, 1.23, 1.02-1.49; p = 0.033). Additionally, older age, poor ECOG PS and being male increased the odds of early death, although the magnitude differed depending on tumor site and stage, and treatment (all p < 0.05). Predictive accuracy increased with 3.7% when including HRQOL and GA in the model. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that, in addition to traditional clinical measures, HRQOL and GA provide additional prognostic information for early death, but the odds differ by patient and tumor characteristics.

International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

Health related quality of life in older patients with solid tumors and prognostic factors for decline.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at baseline and at follow-up in older patients with cancer and to determine prognostic factors for HRQOL decline. METHODS: A prospective Belgian multicentre (n = 22) study was performed. Patients ≥70 years with a malignant tumor and abnormal G8 (≤14/17) screening tool were included. Patients underwent geriatric assessment (GA) and HRQOL evaluation with follow up at three months. Uni- and multivariate regression models were performed to determine factors associated (p < .05) with baseline HRQOL and HRQOL decline at follow-up. RESULTS: Results reflect data collected from 3673 patients. A multivariate analysis showed that younger patients, and those with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group - Performance Status (ECOG-PS), specific tumor types (gastrointestinal, gynaecological and thorax) and higher stage had lower baseline HRQOL. In addition worse functional status and presence of pain, fatigue, depression and malnutrition were associated with lower baseline HRQOL. During treatment (n = 2972), improvement in HRQOL was observed in 1037 patients (35%) and a decline in 838 patients (28.2%). In multivariate analysis, stage and presence of baseline comorbidities, pain, fatigue or malnutrition were associated with HRQOL evolution. CONCLUSION: Baseline HRQOL in older patients with cancer and an abnormal G8 depends on tumor and age related parameters. During follow-up, HRQOL improved in one third of patients, indicating that they may benefit from cancer treatment while one quarter demonstrated a HRQOL decline for which prognostic factors were identified.

Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review.

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, are important endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there is little consensus about the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of these data. We did a systematic review to assess the variability, quality, and standards of PRO data analyses in advanced breast cancer RCTs. We searched PubMed for English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2017. Eligible articles were those that reported PRO results from RCTs of adult patients with advanced breast cancer receiving anti-cancer treatments with reported sample sizes of at least 50 patients-66 RCTs met the selection criteria. Only eight (12%) RCTs reported a specific PRO research hypothesis. Heterogeneity in the statistical methods used to assess PRO data was observed, with a mixture of longitudinal and cross-sectional techniques. Not all articles addressed the problem of multiple testing. Fewer than half of RCTs (28 [42%]) reported the clinical significance of their findings. 48 (73%) did not report how missing data were handled. Our systematic review shows a need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs. Lack of standardisation makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions and compare findings across trials. The Setting International Standards in the Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data Consortium was set up to address this need and develop recommendations on the analysis of PRO data in RCTs.

Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including "missing data,""health-related quality of life," and "patient-reported outcome." Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. CONCLUSION: The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

Quality of life as a prognostic indicator of survival: A pooled analysis of individual patient data from canadian cancer trials group clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to externally validate an established association between baseline health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores and survival and to assess the added prognostic value of HRQOL with respect to demographic and clinical indicators. METHODS: Pooled data were analyzed from 17 randomized controlled trials opened by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group between 1991 and 2004; they included survival and baseline HRQOL data from 3606 patients with 8 different cancer sites. The models included sex, age (≤60 vs >60 years), World Health Organization performance status (0 or 1 vs 2-4), distant metastases (no vs yes), and 15 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) scales. Analyses were conducted with multivariate Cox proportional hazards models and were stratified by cancer site. Harrell's discrimination C-index was used to calculate the predictive accuracy of the model when HRQOL parameters were added to clinical and demographic variables. The added value of adding HRQOL scales to clinical and demographic variables was illustrated with Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: In the stratified, multivariate model, HRQOL parameters-global health status (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.00; P < . 0001), dyspnea (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06; P < . 0002), and appetite loss (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08; P < . 0001)-were independent prognostic factors in addition to the demographic and clinical variables (all P values < .05). Adding these HRQOL variables to the clinical variables resulted in an added relative prognostic value for survival of 5%. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm previous findings showing that baseline HRQOL scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 provide prognostic information in addition to information from clinical measures. However, the impact of specific domains may differ across studies. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Potential adjustment methodology for missing data and reporting delay in the HIV Surveillance System, European Union/European Economic Area, 2015.

Accurate case-based surveillance data remain the key data source for estimating HIV burden and monitoring prevention efforts in Europe. We carried out a literature review and exploratory analysis of surveillance data regarding two crucial issues affecting European surveillance for HIV: missing data and reporting delay. Initial screening showed substantial variability of these data issues, both in time and across countries. In terms of missing data, the CD4+ cell count is the most problematic variable because of the high proportion of missing values. In 20 of 31 countries of the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA), CD4+ counts are systematically missing for all or some years. One of the key challenges related to reporting delays is that countries undertake specific one-off actions in effort to capture previously unreported cases, and that these cases are subsequently reported with excessive delays. Slightly different underlying assumptions and effectively different models may be required for individual countries to adjust for missing data and reporting delays. However, using a similar methodology is recommended to foster harmonisation and to improve the accuracy and usability of HIV surveillance data at national and EU/EEA levels.

The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on symptom burden and quality of life over time; a preliminary prospective observational study using individual data of patients aged ≥70 with early stage invasive breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to assess short and long term effects of chemotherapy on patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and patient versus clinician symptom reporting in older patients with breast cancer adjusted for tumour and aging parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, non-interventional, observational study, women aged ≥70years were enrolled after surgery and assigned to a TC chemotherapy (docetaxel and cyclophosphamide) group or a control group depending on their planned adjuvant treatment. Longitudinal multivariate models were used to assess the statistical and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the impact of TC chemotherapy over time on QOL and symptom burden adjusted for baseline aging and tumour parameters. Statistical significance was set at 5% and MCID at 10 points. RESULTS: In total, 57 patients were enrolled in the chemotherapy and 52 patients in the control group. Within the chemotherapy group, clinical deterioration was reported at 3months for Fatigue (17.73), Dyspnoea (17.05), Diarrhoea (12.06) and Appetite Loss (17.05) scores (all p<0.001). However, the scores had returned to baseline (or even better for Role Functioning) at year 1. No clinical deterioration was reported in the control group. Symptom scores as reported by patients were significantly (p<0.05) higher than those reported by the clinicians, even more so for Fatigue, Dyspnoea, and Pain. CONCLUSION: Our results show that symptom burden and diminished QOL in an older breast cancer population receiving adjuvant TC chemotherapy are short-lived and disappear after a while with no long-term differences compared to a similar population not receiving chemotherapy.

Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards.

Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes generate important data in cancer randomised trials to assist in assessing the risks and benefits of cancer therapies and fostering patient-centred cancer care. However, the various ways these measures are analysed and interpreted make it difficult to compare results across trials, and hinders the application of research findings to inform publications, product labelling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. To address these problems, the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data (SISAQOL) initiative has been established. This consortium, directed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was convened to provide recommendations on how to standardise the analysis of HRQOL and other patient-reported outcomes data in cancer randomised trials. This Personal View discusses the reasons why this project was initiated, the rationale for the planned work, and the expected benefits to cancer research, patient and provider decision making, care delivery, and policy making.

Health-related quality of life in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: methodological and clinical issues in randomised controlled trials.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide, and increasingly, randomised controlled trials of this disease are measuring the health-related quality of life of these patients. In this systematic Review, we assess the adequacy of methods used to report health-related quality of life (HRQOL) from 49 eligible randomised controlled trials of advanced breast cancer. We compare our findings with those from the literature to investigate whether the standard of HRQOL reporting in this field has changed. We conclude that the overall reporting of HRQOL has improved, but some crucial aspects remain problematic, such as the absence of HRQOL research hypotheses and the overemphasis on statistical rather than clinical significance. Additionally, new challenges are arising with the emergence of novel treatments and the advent of personalised medicine, and improved HRQOL tools are required to cover the range of side-effects of newer therapies.

The Added Value of Analyzing Pooled Health-Related Quality of Life Data: A Review of the EORTC PROBE Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Patient-Reported Outcomes and Behavioural Evidence (PROBE) initiative was established to investigate critical topics to better understand health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of cancer patients and to educate clinicians, policy makers, and healthcare providers. METHODS: The aim of this paper is to review the major research outcomes of the pooled analysis of HRQOL data along with the clinical data. We identified 30 pooled EORTC randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 18 NCIC-Clinical Trials Group RCTs, and two German Ovarian Cancer Study Group RCTs, all using the EORTC QLQ-C30. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Evidence was found that HRQOL data can offer prognostic information beyond clinical measures and improve prognostic accuracy in cancer RCTs (by 5.9%-8.3%). Moreover, models that considered both patient- and clinician-reported scores gained more prognostic overall survival accuracy for fatigue (P < .001), vomiting (P = .01), nausea (P < .001), and constipation (P = .01). Greater understanding of the association between symptom and/or functioning scales was developed by identifying physical, psychological, and gastrointestinal clusters. Additionally, minimally important differences in interpreting HRQOL changes for improvement and deterioration were found to vary across different patient populations and disease stages. Finally, HRQOL scores are statistically significantly affected by deviations from the intended time point at which the questionnaire is completed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of existing pooled data shows that it is possible to learn about general aspects of cancer HRQOL and methodology. Our work shows that setting up international pooled datasets holds great promise for understanding patients' unmet psychosocial needs and calls for additional empirical investigation to improve clinical care and understand cancer through retrospective HRQOL analyses.

The effects of age on health-related quality of life in cancer populations: A pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 involving 6024 cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence increases exponentially with advancing age, cancer patients live longer than in the past, and many new treatments focus on stabilizing disease and HRQOL. The objective of this study is to examine how cancer affects patients' HRQOL and whether their HRQOL is age-dependent. METHODS: Data from 25 EORTC randomized controlled trials was pooled. EORTC QLQ-C30 mean scores for the cancer cohort and five general population cohorts were compared to assess the impact of cancer on patients' HRQOL. Within the cancer cohort, multiple linear regressions (two-sided level P-value = 0.05 adjusted for multiple testing.) were used to investigate the association between age and HRQOL, adjusted for gender, WHO performance status (PS), distant metastasis and stratified by cancer site. A difference of 10 points on the 0-100 scale was considered clinically important. RESULTS: Cancer patients generally have worse HRQOL compared to the general population, but the specific HRQOL domains impaired vary with age. When comparing the cancer versus the general population, young cancer patients had worse financial problems, social and role functioning, while the older cancer groups had more appetite loss. Within the cancer cohort, HRQOL was worse with increasing age for physical functioning and constipation, and better with increasing age for social functioning, insomnia and financial problems (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: HRQOL is impaired in cancer patients compared to the general population, but the impact on specific HRQOL domains varies by age. Within the cancer population, some HRQOL components improve with age while others deteriorate. Optimal care for older cancer patients should target HRQOL domains most relevant to this population.

Health-related quality of life in small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review on reporting of methods and clinical issues in randomised controlled trials.

Small-cell lung cancer represents about 15% of all lung cancers; increasingly, randomised controlled trials of this disease measure the health-related quality of life of patients. In this Systematic Review we assess the adequacy of reporting of health-related quality-of-life methods in randomised controlled trials of small-cell lung cancer, and the potential effect of this reporting on clinical decision making. Although overall reporting of health-related quality of life was acceptable, improvements are needed to optimise the use of health-related quality of life in randomised controlled trials.

A global analysis of multitrial data investigating quality of life and symptoms as prognostic factors for survival in different tumor sites.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine the prognostic value of baseline health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for survival with regard to different cancer sites using 1 standardized and validated patient self-assessment tool. METHODS: In total, 11 different cancer sites pooled from 30 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) randomized controlled trials were selected for this study. For each cancer site, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to assess the prognostic value (P< .05) of 15 HRQOL parameters using the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Models were adjusted for age, sex, and World Health Organization performance status and were stratified by distant metastasis. RESULTS: In total, 7417 patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 before randomization. In brain cancer, cognitive functioning was predictive for survival; in breast cancer, physical functioning, emotional functioning, global health status, and nausea and vomiting were predictive for survival; in colorectal cancer, physical functioning, nausea and vomiting, pain, and appetite loss were predictive for survival; in esophageal cancer, physical functioning and social functioning were predictive for survival; in head and neck cancer, emotional functioning, nausea and vomiting, and dyspnea were predictive for survival; in lung cancer, physical functioning and pain were predictive for survival; in melanoma, physical functioning was predictive for survival; in ovarian cancer, nausea and vomiting were predictive for survival; in pancreatic cancer, global health status was predictive for survival; in prostate cancer, role functioning and appetite loss were predictive for survival; and, in testis cancer, role functioning was predictive for survival. CONCLUSIONS: The current results demonstrated that, for each cancer site, at least 1 HRQOL domain provided prognostic information that was additive over and above clinical and sociodemographic variables.

Patient self-reports of symptoms and clinician ratings as predictors of overall cancer survival.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) reporting system is widely used by clinicians to measure patient symptoms in clinical trials. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Quality of Life core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) enables cancer patients to rate their symptoms related to their quality of life. We examined the extent to which patient and clinician symptom scoring and their agreement could contribute to the estimation of overall survival among cancer patients. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data regarding six cancer symptoms (pain, fatigue, vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, and constipation) from a total of 2279 cancer patients from 14 closed EORTC randomized controlled trials. In each trial that was selected for retrospective pooled analysis, both clinician and patient symptom scoring were reported simultaneously at study entry. We assessed the extent of agreement between clinician vs patient symptom scoring using the Spearman and kappa correlation statistics. After adjusting for age, sex, performance status, cancer severity, and cancer site, we used Harrell concordance index (C-index) to compare the potential for clinician-reported and/or patient-reported symptom scores to improve the accuracy of Cox models to predict overall survival. All P values are from two-sided tests. RESULTS: Patient-reported scores for some symptoms, particularly fatigue, did differ from clinician-reported scores. For each of the six symptoms that we assessed at baseline, both clinician and patient scorings contributed independently and positively to the predictive accuracy of survival prognostication. Cox models of overall survival that considered both patient and clinician scores gained more predictive accuracy than models that considered clinician scores alone for each of four symptoms: fatigue (C-index = .67 with both patient and clinician data vs C-index = .63 with clinician data only; P <.001), vomiting (C-index = .64 vs .62; P = .01), nausea (C-index = .65 vs .62; P < .001), and constipation (C-index = .62 vs .61; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Patients provide a subjective measure of symptom severity that complements clinician scoring in predicting overall survival.

Examining the relationships among health-related quality-of-life indicators in cancer patients participating in clinical trials: a pooled study of baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 data.

AIMS: Cancer patients experience multiple and concurrent health-related problems and symptoms due to their illness and therapies. The first objective of this analysis was to identify how health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) indicators cluster among cancer patients and how possible clusters change across patients with different sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. The second objective of this study was to identify which HRQoL indicators are linked to patients' perception of overall quality of life. METHODS: Retrospective pooling of 30 closed randomized European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) clinical trials yielded baseline EORTC Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) HRQoL data for a total of 7417 patients. A cluster analysis was performed to determine how the 15 HRQoL indicators obtained with the QLQ-C30 cluster overall and by patient characteristics. RESULTS: Three main clusters emerged from the overall dataset: a physical cluster, a psychological cluster and a gastrointestinal cluster. The same clusters were found in subgroups defined according to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, while some differences emerged among cancer sites. The Global Health scale was found to be part of the physical cluster in the overall dataset. This result was consistent across different levels of disease severity, while divergent results were seen across some cancer sites. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that HRQoL indicators are interrelated. Understanding these relationships may aid clinicians in managing the symptom burden experienced by patients, as well as policy-makers, in defining psychosocial support plans.