Baseline measure of health-related quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophagus) is associated with overall survival in patients with esophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophagus is a health-related quality of life instrument validated in patients with esophageal cancer. It is composed of a general component and an esophageal cancer subscale. Our objective was to determine whether the baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophagus and esophageal cancer subscale scores are associated with survival in patients with stage II and III cancer of the gastroesophageal junction or thoracic esophagus. METHODS: Data from 4 prospective studies in Canadian academic hospitals were combined. These included consecutive patients with stage II and III esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery or chemoradiation/radiation alone. All patients completed baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophagus. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophagus and esophageal cancer subscale scores were dichotomized on the basis of median scores. Cox regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: There were 207 patients treated between 1996 and 2014. Mean age was 61 ± 10.6 years. Approximately 69.6% of patients (n = 144) had adenocarcinoma. All patients had more than 9 months of follow-up. In patients with stage II and III, 93 deaths were observed. When treated as continuous variables, baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophagus and esophageal cancer subscale were associated with survival with hazard ratios of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.96; P = .005) and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001), respectively. When dichotomized, they were also associated with survival with a hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.38-0.89; P = .01) and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28-0.67; P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stage II and III esophageal cancer being considered for therapy, higher baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophagus and esophageal cancer subscale were independently associated with longer survival, even after adjusting for age, stage, histology, and therapy received. Further study is needed, but Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophagus may be useful as a prognostic tool to inform patient decision-making and patient selection criteria for studies.

Comparison of Health State Utility Measures in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Accurate measurement of health state utilities (HU) is the cornerstone for cost-utility analyses and the valuation of quality of life for given health states. Current indirect methods of HU derivation lack face validity for patients with head and neck cancer. The appropriateness of these measures compared with direct methods, such as the standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), and visual analog scale (VAS), have not been assessed in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: To assess the convergent and construct validities of 5 different HU derivation methods in patients with head and neck cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a cross-sectional study, we recruited 100 consecutive patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract treated in the outpatient surgical oncology clinics of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from August 1 through October 31, 2014. We enrolled patients with a minimum of 3 months of follow-up after completion of treatment and no evidence of recurrent or metastatic disease. Participants completed SG, TTO, and VAS exercises, the EuroQoL instrument (EQ-5D), and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) questionnaire. Data analysis was performed November 1 through December 15, 2014. EXPOSURES: Head and neck cancer and HU measures. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We assessed convergent validity of the 5 HU instruments through Spearman rank order correlation assessment. We determined construct validity through a priori hypotheses relating HU scores with clinical indexes of disease severity. RESULTS: The SG and TTO measures generated higher mean (SD) utility scores (0.91 [0.17] and 0.94 [0.14], respectively) than the VAS, EQ-5D, and HUI3 (0.76 [0.19], 0.82 [0.18], and 0.75 [025], respectively) (P < .001). The maximum score of 1.0 was reported in 60 of 99 cases (61%) for the SG and 75 of 99 cases (76%) for the TTO (a significant ceiling effect), in contrast to 5 of 99 cases (5%) for the VAS, 29 of 99 cases (29%) for the EQ-5D, and 6 of 99 cases (6%) for the HUI3. The VAS showed strong correlations with the EQ-5D (ρ = 0.63 [P < .001]) and HUI3 (ρ = 0.50 [P < .001]), and the HUI3 strongly correlated with the EQ-5D (ρ = 0.67 [P < .001]), whereas the SG and TTO generally correlated poorly with other HU measures (ρ range, 0.19-0.29) and with one another (ρ = 0.21 [P < .001]). The VAS, EQ-5D, and HUI3 were able to discriminate between participants who underwent salvage surgery compared with those who underwent primary surgery (mean [SD] utility scores, 0.48 [0.13] vs 0.76 [0.20] [P = .006], 0.62 [0.17] vs 0.83 [0.19] [P = .004], and 0.37 [0.29] vs 0.78 [0.22] [P = .004], respectively). Mean EQ-5D utility scores monotonically increased over time since completion of treatment (0.26 [P = .01]). The HUI3 yielded lower utility values for participants with laryngeal cancer (mean [SD], 0.59 [0.29]). The SG and TTO measures frequently generated utility scores that contradicted our hypothesized expectations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Indirect HU measures may be more reflective of the health status of patients with head and neck cancer than direct measures. Current instruments lack face validity for attributes germane to this population.