Chronic fatigue in long-term survivors of head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: There is lack of evidence on chronic fatigue (CF) following radiotherapy (RT) in survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC). We aimed to compare CF in HNC survivors > 5 years post-RT with a reference population and investigate factors associated with CF and the possible impact of CF on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study we included HNC survivors treated in 2007-2013. Participants filled in patient-reported outcome measures and attended a one-day examination. CF was measured with the Fatigue Questionnaire and compared with a matched reference population using t-tests and Cohen's effect size. Associations between CF, clinical and RT-related factors were investigated using logistic regression. HRQoL was measured with the EORTC Quality of Life core questionnaire. RESULTS: The median age of the 227 HNC survivors was 65 years and median time to follow-up was 8.5 years post-RT. CF was twice more prevalent in HNC survivors compared to a reference population. In multivariable analyses, female sex (OR 3.39, 95 % CI 1.82-6.31), comorbidity (OR 2.17, 95 % CI 1.20-3.94) and treatment with intensity-modulated RT (OR 2.13, 95 % CI 1.16-3.91) were associated with CF, while RT dose parameters were not. Survivors with CF compared to those without, had significantly worse HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: CF in HNC survivors is particularly important for female patients, while specific factors associated with RT appear not to play a role. The high CF prevalence in long-term HNC survivors associated with impaired HRQoL is important information beneficial for clinicians and patients to improve patient follow-up.

Long-term health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors: A large multinational study.

Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients suffer from a range of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues, but little is known about their long-term HRQoL. This study explored associations between treatment group and HRQoL at least 5 years' post-diagnosis in HNC survivors. In an international cross-sectional study, HNC survivors completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life core questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30) and its HNC module (EORTC-QLQ-H&N35). Meaningful HRQoL differences were examined between five treatment groups: (a) surgery, (b) radiotherapy, (c) chemo-radiotherapy, (d) radiotherapy ± chemotherapy and neck dissection and (e) any other surgery (meaning any tumour surgery that is not a neck dissection) and radiotherapy ± chemotherapy. Twenty-six sites in 11 countries enrolled 1105 survivors. They had a median time since diagnosis of 8 years, a mean age of 66 years and 71% were male. After adjusting for age, sex, tumour site and UICC stage, there was evidence for meaningful differences (10 points or more) in HRQoL between treatment groups in seven domains (Fatigue, Mouth Pain, Swallowing, Senses, Opening Mouth, Dry Mouth and Sticky Saliva). Survivors who had single-modality treatment had better or equal HRQoL in every domain compared to survivors with multimodal treatment, with the largest differences for Dry Mouth and Sticky Saliva. For Global Quality of Life, Physical and Social Functioning, Constipation, Dyspnoea and Financial Difficulties, at least some treatment groups had better outcomes compared to a general population. Our data suggest that multimodal treatment is associated with worse HRQoL in the long-term compared to single modality.

Radiation-induced long-term dysphagia in survivors of head and neck cancer and association with dose-volume parameters.

BACKGROUND: Although dysphagia is a common side effect after radiotherapy (RT) of head and neck cancer (HNC), data on long-term dysphagia is scarce. We aimed to 1) compare radiation dose parameters in HNC survivors with and without dysphagia, 2) investigate factors associated with long-term dysphagia and its possible impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and 3) investigate how our data agree with existing NTCP models. METHODS: This cross-sectional study conducted in 2018-2020, included HNC survivors treated in 2007-2013. Participants attended a one-day examination in hospital and filled in patient questionnaires. Dysphagia was measured with the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 swallowing scale. Toxicity was scored with CTCAE v.4. We contoured swallowing organs at risk (SWOAR) on RT plans, calculated dose-volume histograms (DVHs), performed logistic regression analyses and tested our data in established NTCP models. RESULTS: Of the 239 participants, 75 (31%) reported dysphagia. Compared to survivors without dysphagia, this group had reduced HRQoL and the DVHs for infrahyoid SWOAR were significantly shifted to the right. Long-term dysphagia was associated with age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.10), female sex (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.45-5.21), and mean dose to middle pharyngeal constrictor muscle (MD-MPCM) (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09). NTCP models overall underestimated the risk of long-term dysphagia. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term dysphagia was associated with higher age, being female, and high MD-MPCM. Doses to distally located SWOAR seemed to be risk factors. Existing NTCP models do not sufficiently predict long-term dysphagia. Further efforts are needed to reduce the prevalence and consequences of this late effect.

Impact of hyperfractionated re-irradiation on quality of life in patients with recurrent or second primary head and neck cancer, a prospective single institutional study.

Purpose: Describe the clinical outcome of hyperfractionated re-irradiation (HFRT) in patients with recurrent or second primary (SP) head and neck cancer (HNC). Methods: This prospective observational study included HNC patients eligible for HFRT. Inclusion criteria: age ≥18 years, recurrent or SP HNC, planned re-irradiation and ability to respond to questionnaires. Patients received 1.5 Gy twice daily, five days a week for three (palliative) or four (curative/local control) weeks, total dose 45/60 Gy. Toxicity was scored with CTCAE v3 at baseline, end of treatment, at three, six, 12 and 36 months follow-up. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured with EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-H&N35, pre-treatment and eight times until 36 months. In the main outcome (Global quality of life and H&N Pain), a change score of ≥10 was considered clinically significant, and p-values < 0.05 (two-sided) statistically significant. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analyses. Results: Over four years from 2015, 58 patients were enrolled (37 recurrent and 21 SP). All, but two patients completed treatment as planned. Toxicity (≥grade 3) increased from pre-treatment to end of treatment with improvement in the follow-up period. The mean Global quality of life (QoL) and H&N Pain scores were stable from pre-treatment to three months. Maintained/ improved Global QoL was reported by 60% of patients at three months and 56% of patients at 12 months. For patients with curative, local control and palliative intent, the median survival (range) was 23 (2-53), 10 (1-66) and 14 (3-41) months respectively. Of those alive, the proportion of disease-free patients at 12 and 36 months, were 58% and 48%, respectively. Conclusion: Most HNC patients reported maintained HRQoL at three and 12 months after HFRT despite serious toxicity observed in many patients. Long-term survival can be achieved in a limited proportion of the patients.

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.

Serious Long-Term Effects of Head and Neck Cancer from the Survivors' Point of View.

The long-term problems of head and neck cancer survivors (HNCS) are not well known. In a cross-sectional international study aimed at exploring the long-term quality of life in this population, 1114 HNCS were asked to state their two most serious long-term effects. A clinician recorded the responses during face-to-face appointments. A list of 15 example problems was provided, but a free text field was also available. A total of 1033 survivors responded to the question. The most frequent problems were 'dry mouth' (DM) (n = 476; 46%), 'difficulty swallowing/eating' (DSE) (n = 408; 40%), 'hoarseness/difficulty speaking' (HDS) (n = 169; 16%), and 'pain in the head and neck' (PHN) (n = 142; 14%). A total of 5% reported no problems. Logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, treatment, and tumor stage and site showed increased odds of reporting DM and DSE for chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) alone compared to surgery alone (odds ratio (OR): 4.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.5-9.0; OR: 2.1, CI: 1.1-3.9), but decreased odds for HDS and PHN (OR: 0.3, CI: 0.1-0.6; OR: 0.2, CI: 0.1-0.5). Survivors with UICC stage IV at diagnosis compared to stage I had increased odds of reporting HDS (OR: 1.9, CI: 1.2-3.0). Laryngeal cancer survivors had reduced odds compared to oropharynx cancer survivors of reporting DM (OR: 0.4, CI: 0.3-0.6) but increased odds of HDS (OR: 7.2, CI: 4.3-12.3). This study provides evidence of the serious long-term problems among HNCS.

A multicenter international prospective study of the validity and reliability of a COVID-19-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate a health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaire for patients with current or previous coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in an international setting. METHODS: This multicenter international methodology study followed standardized guidelines for a four-phase questionnaire development. Here, we report on the pretesting and validation of our international questionnaire. Adults with current or previous COVID-19, in institutions or at home were eligible. In the pretesting, 54 participants completed the questionnaire followed by interviews to identify administration problems and evaluate content validity. Thereafter, 371 participants completed the revised questionnaire and a debriefing form to allow preliminary psychometric analysis. Validity and reliability were assessed (correlation-based methods, Cronbach's α, and intra-class correlation coefficient). RESULTS: Eleven countries within and outside Europe enrolled patients. From the pretesting, 71 of the 80 original items fulfilled the criteria for item-retention. Most participants (80%) completed the revised 71-item questionnaire within 15 min, on paper (n = 175) or digitally (n = 196). The final questionnaire included 61 items that fulfilled criteria for item retention or were important to subgroups. Item-scale correlations were > 0.7 for all but nine items. Internal consistency (range 0.68-0.92) and test-retest results (all but one scale > 0.7) were acceptable. The instrument consists of 15 multi-item scales and six single items. CONCLUSION: The Oslo COVID-19 QLQ-W61© is an international, stand-alone, multidimensional HRQoL questionnaire that can assess the symptoms, functioning, and overall quality of life in COVID-19 patients. It is available for use in research and clinical practice. Further psychometric validation in larger patient samples will be performed.

Health-related quality of life in patients with COVID-19; international development of a patient-reported outcome measure.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to create a questionnaire to assess the health-related quality of life including functioning, symptoms, and general health status of adult patients with current or previous COVID-19. Here, we report on Phase I and II of the development. METHODS: Internationally recognized methodology for questionnaire development was followed. In Phase I, a comprehensive literature review was performed to identify relevant COVID-19 issues. Decisions for inclusion, exclusion, and data extraction were completed independently in teams of two and then compared. The resulting issues were discussed with health care professionals (HCPs) and current and former COVID-19 patients. The input of HCPs and patients was carefully considered, and the list of issues updated. In Phase II, this updated list was operationalized into items/questions. RESULTS: The literature review yielded 3342 publications, 339 of which were selected for full-text review, and 75 issues were identified. Discussions with 44 HCPs from seven countries and 52 patients from six countries showed that psychological symptoms, worries, and reduced functioning lasted the longest for patients, and there were considerable discrepancies between HCPs and patients concerning the importance of some of the symptoms. The final list included 73 issues, which were operationalized into an 80-item questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The resulting COVID-19 questionnaire covers health-related quality of life issues relevant to COVID-19 patients and is available in several languages. The next steps include testing of the applicability and patients' acceptability of the questionnaire (Phase IIIA) and preliminary psychometric testing (Phase IIIB).

Methodological approach for determining the Minimal Important Difference and Minimal Important Change scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-HN43) exemplified by the Swallowing scale.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore what methods should be used to determine the minimal important difference (MID) and minimal important change (MIC) in scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module, the EORTC QLQ-HN43. METHODS: In an international multi-centre study, patients with head and neck cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-HN43 before the onset of treatment (t1), three months after baseline (t2), and six months after baseline (t3). The methods explored for determining the MID were: (1) group comparisons based on performance status; (2) 0.5 and 0.3 standard deviation and standard error of the mean. The methods examined for the MIC were patients' subjective change ratings and receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves, predictive modelling, standard deviation, and standard error of the mean. The EORTC QLQ-HN43 Swallowing scale was used to investigate these methods. RESULTS: From 28 hospitals in 18 countries, 503 patients participated. Correlations with the performance status were |r|< 0.4 in 17 out of 19 scales; hence, performance status was regarded as an unsuitable anchor. The ROC approach yielded an implausible MIC and was also discarded. The remaining approaches worked well and delivered MID values ranging from 10 to 14; the MIC for deterioration ranged from 8 to 16 and the MIC for improvement from - 3 to - 14. CONCLUSIONS: For determining MIDs of the remaining scales of the EORTC QLQ-HN43, we will omit comparisons of groups based on the Karnofsky Performance Score. Other external anchors are needed instead. Distribution-based methods worked well and will be applied as a starting strategy for analyses. For the calculation of MICs, subjective change ratings, predictive modelling, and standard-deviation based approaches are suitable methods whereas ROC analyses seem to be inappropriate.

Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review.

PURPOSE: Several guidelines for the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical studies have been published in the past decade. This review primarily aimed to compare the number and compliance with selected PRO-specific criteria for reporting of clinical studies in Europe using PROs published in 2008 and 2018. Secondarily, to describe the study designs, PRO instruments used, patient groups studied, and countries where the clinical studies were conducted. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE to identify eligible publications. To assess the number of publications, all abstracts were screened for eligibility by pairs of reviewers. Compliance with PRO-specific criteria and other key characteristics was assessed in a random sample of 150 eligible full-text publications from each year. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed according to the full CONSORT-PRO checklist. RESULTS: The search identified 1692 publications in 2008 and 4290 in 2018. After screening of abstracts, 1240 from 2008 and 2869 from 2018 were clinical studies using PROs. By full-text review, the proportion of studies discussing PRO-specific limitations and implications was higher in 2018 than in 2008, but there were no differences in the other selected PRO-specific criteria. In 2018, a higher proportion of studies were longitudinal/cohort studies, included ≥ 300 patients, and used electronic administration of PRO than in 2008. The most common patient groups studied were those with cancer or diseases of the musculoskeletal system or connective tissue. CONCLUSION: The number of clinical studies from Europe using PROs was higher in 2018 than in 2008, but there was little difference in compliance with the PRO-specific criteria. The studies varied in terms of study design and PRO instruments used in both publication years.

Health-related quality of life issues, including symptoms, in patients with active COVID-19 or post COVID-19; a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: This systematic review was performed to identify all relevant health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues associated with COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken in April 2020. In four teams of three reviewers each, all abstracts were independently reviewed for inclusion by two reviewers. Using a pre-defined checklist of 93 criteria for each publication, data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers and subsequently compared and discussed. If necessary, a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. The search was updated in February 2021 to retrieve new publications on HRQoL issues including issues related to the long-term consequences of COVID-19. RESULTS: The search in April 2020 identified 3342 potentially relevant publications, and 339 publications were selected for full-text review and data extraction. We identified 75 distinct symptoms and other HRQoL issues categorized into 12 thematic areas; from general symptoms such as fever, myalgia, and fatigue, to neurological and psychological issues. The updated search revealed three extra issues experienced during active disease and long-term problems with fatigue, psychological issues and impaired cognitive function. CONCLUSION: This first comprehensive systematic review provides a detailed overview of the wide range of HRQoL issues experienced by patients with COVID-19 throughout the course of the disease. It demonstrates the devastating impact of the disease and provides critically important information for clinicians, to enable them to better recognize the disease and to provide knowledge important for treatment and follow-up. The results provided the foundation for the international development of a COVID-19 specific patient-reported HRQoL questionnaire.

Cancer patients' diagnosis and symptoms and their family caregivers' self-efficacy and social support are associated with different caregiver reactions.

OBJECTIVE: To describe caregiver and patient characteristics that are associated with negative and positive reactions in family caregivers (FCs) of cancer outpatients. METHODS: A total of 194 FCs completed the Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA) scale 6 months after start of new treatment in patients with breast, ovarian, colorectal, or head and neck cancer. Linear regression models were used to examine which caregiver characteristics (i.e. demographic, self-efficacy and social support) and patient characteristics (i.e. clinical, symptoms) were associated with each of the CRA subscales (caregiver esteem, lack of family support, and impact on health, schedule and finances). RESULTS: Less social support was significantly associated with poorer scores on all subscales (B -0.01/0.01). Also, poorer scores on one or more of the CRA subscales were reported by FCs who had lower self-efficacy (B -0.02), a higher level of education (primary B 0.42, secondary B 0.22), more medical conditions (B 0.06), and were female (B 0.20), and by FCs of patients with colorectal (B 0.45) or head and neck cancer (B 0.27), and those who reported a higher symptom burden (B 0.28/0.49). CONCLUSION: Both caregiver and patient factors were associated with reactions in FCs of cancer outpatients. This information can be used by healthcare personnel to identify FCs who need additional support (e.g. counselling), and to increase focus on strengths and assets within the caregivers (e.g. support groups).

Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes from international randomised clinical trials on cancer: a systematic review.

A previous review published in 2008 highlighted the prognostic significance of baseline patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as independent predictors of the overall survival of patients with cancer in clinical studies. In response to the methodological limitations of studies included in the previous review, recommendations were subsequently published in the same year to promote a higher level of methodological rigour in studies of prognostic factors. Our systematic review aimed to provide an update on progress with the implementation of these recommendations and to assess whether the methodological quality of prognostic factor analyses has changed over time. Of the 44 studies published between 2006 and 2018 that were included in our review, more standardisation and rigour of the methods used for prognostic factor analysis was found compared with the previous review. 41 (93%) of the trials reported at least one PRO domain as independently prognostic. The most common significant prognostic factors reported were physical functioning (17 [39%] studies) and global health or quality of life (15 [34%] studies). These findings highlight the value of PROs as prognostic or stratification factors in research across most types of cancer.

International validation of the revised European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module, the EORTC QLQ-HN43: Phase IV.

BACKGROUND: We validated the new European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Head and Neck Module (EORTC QLQ-HN43). METHODS: We enrolled 812 patients with head and neck cancer from 18 countries. Group 1 completed the questionnaire before therapy, and 3 and 6 months later. In group 2 (survivors), we determined test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha, the scale structure with confirmatory factor analysis, and discriminant validity with known-group comparisons. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha was >0.70 in 10 of the 12 multi-item scales. All standardized factor loadings exceeded 0.40. The ICC was >0.70 in all but two scales. Differences in scale scores between known-groups were >10 points in 17 of the 19 scales. Sensitivity to change was found to be sufficient in 18 scales. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the reliability and validity of the EORTC QLQ-HN43 as a measure of quality of life.

Symptom burden and patient characteristics: Association with quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) experience diminished quality of life (QOL) during and after treatment. This study examined which characteristics were associated with QOL over time. METHODS: One hundred thirty-three patients with HNC from a study of 534 oncology patients rated physical and mental QOL using the Short Form-12 5 times from the initiation of radiotherapy (RT) through the following 6 months. Linear mixed model analyses examined changes over time and associated characteristics. RESULTS: The QOL deteriorated during RT and gradually improved after completion. Less social support was negatively associated with both physical and mental QOL. Older age, more comorbidities, more psychological symptoms, and concomitant chemotherapy (CTX) were negatively associated with physical QOL. Male sex, less physical symptoms, surgery before RT, and concomitant chemotherapy were positively associated with mental QOL. CONCLUSION: Clinicians can use knowledge on time course and associated characteristics to identify and inform patients at higher risk for diminished QOL.

Improved treatment decisions in patients with esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with esophageal cancer seldom achieve long-term survival. This prospective cohort study investigated the selection of patients likely to benefit from curative treatment and whether information on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL) would assist treatment decisions in the multidisciplinary team. METHODS: Consecutive patients completed HRQL assessments and clinical data were collected before start of treatment. Logistic regression analyses identified clinical factors associated with treatment intent in patients with stage-III disease. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analyses and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the impact of clinical factors and HRQL on survival in patients planned for curative treatment. RESULTS: Patients with curative treatment intent (n = 90) were younger, had better WHO performance status and less fatigue than patients with palliative treatment intent (n = 89). Median survival for the total cohort (n = 179) and patients with palliative or curative treatment intent was nine, five and 19 months, respectively. In multivariate Cox regression analyses, performance status (0-1 favorable) and comorbidity (ASA I favorable) were factors of importance for survival, whereas measures of HRQL were not. CONCLUSIONS: Patients performance status and comorbidity must be considered in addition to stage of disease to avoid extensive curative treatment in patients with short life expectancy. This study did not provide evidence to support that information on patients HRQL adds value to the multidisciplinary team's treatment decision process.

Patient factors and quality of life outcomes differ among four subgroups of oncology patients based on symptom occurrence.

CONTEXT: Reviews of the literature on symptoms in oncology patients undergoing curative treatment, as well as patients receiving palliative care, suggest that they experience multiple, co-occurring symptoms and side effects. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to determine if subgroups of oncology patients could be identified based on symptom occurrence rates and if these subgroups differed on a number of demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as on quality of life (QoL) outcomes. METHODS: Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify subgroups (i.e. latent classes) of patients with distinct symptom experiences based on the occurrence rates for the 13 most common symptoms from the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. RESULTS: In total, 534 patients with breast, head and neck, colorectal, or ovarian cancer participated. Four latent classes of patients were identified based on probability of symptom occurrence: all low class [i.e. low probability for all symptoms (n = 152)], all high class (n = 149), high psychological class (n = 121), and low psychological class (n = 112). Patients in the all high class were significantly younger compared with patients in the all low class. Furthermore, compared to the other three classes, patients in the all high class had lower functional status and higher comorbidity scores, and reported poorer QoL scores. Patients in the high and low psychological classes had a moderate probability of reporting physical symptoms. Patients in the low psychological class reported a higher number of symptoms, a lower functional status, and poorer physical and total QoL scores. CONCLUSION: Distinct subgroups of oncology patients can be identified based on symptom occurrence rates. Patient characteristics that are associated with these subgroups can be used to identify patients who are at greater risk for multiple co-occurring symptoms and diminished QoL, so that these patients can be offered appropriate symptom management interventions.

International field testing of the psychometric properties of an EORTC quality of life module for oral health: the EORTC QLQ-OH15.

PURPOSE: This international EORTC validation study (phase IV) is aimed at testing the psychometric properties of a quality of life (QoL) module related to oral health problems in cancer patients. METHODS: The phase III module comprised 17 items with four hypothesized multi-item scales and three single items. In phase IV, patients with mixed cancers, in different treatment phases from 10 countries completed the EORTC QLQ-C30, the QLQ-OH module, and a debriefing interview. The hypothesized structure was tested using combinations of classical test theory and item response theory, following EORTC guidelines. Test-retest assessments and responsiveness to change analysis (RCA) were performed after 2 weeks. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-two patients (median age 60.3, 54 % females) were analyzed. Completion took <10 min for 84 %, 40 % expressed satisfaction that these issues were addressed. Analyses suggested a revision of the phase III hypothesized scale structure. Two items were deleted based on a high degree of item misfit, together with negative patient feedback. The remaining 15 items formed one eight-item scale named OH-QoL score, a two-item information scale, a two-item scale regarding dentures, and three single items (sticky saliva/mouth soreness/sensitivity to food/drink). Face and convergent validity and internal consistency were confirmed. Test-retest reliability (n = 60) was demonstrated as was RCA for patients undergoing chemotherapy (n = 117; p = 0.06). The resulting QLQ-OH15 discriminated between clinically distinct patient groups, e.g., low performance status vs. higher (p < 000.1), and head-and-neck cancer versus other cancers (p < 0.03). CONCLUSION: The EORTC module QLQ-OH15 is a short, well-accepted assessment tool focusing on oral problems and QoL to improve clinical management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01724333.

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.