Establishing the European Norm for the health-related quality of life domains of the computer-adaptive test EORTC CAT Core.

OBJECTIVE: The computer-adaptive test (CAT) of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the EORTC CAT Core, assesses the same 15 domains as the EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire but with increased precision, efficiency, measurement range and flexibility. CAT parameters for estimating scores have been established based on clinical data from cancer patients. This study aimed at establishing the European Norm for each CAT domain based on general population data. METHODS: We collected representative general population data across 11 European Union (EU) countries, Russia, Turkey, Canada and the United States (n ≥ 1000/country; stratified by sex and age). We selected item subsets from each CAT domain for data collection (totalling 86 items). Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses were conducted to investigate cross-cultural measurement invariance. For each domain, means and standard deviations from the EU countries (weighted by country population, sex and age) were used to establish a T-metric with a European general population mean = 50 (standard deviation = 10). RESULTS: A total of 15,386 respondents completed the online survey (n = 11,343 from EU countries). EORTC CAT Core norm scores for all 15 countries were calculated. DIF had negligible impact on scoring. Domain-specific T-scores differed significantly across countries with small to medium effect sizes. CONCLUSION: This study establishes the official European Norm for the EORTC CAT Core. The European CAT Norm can be used globally and allows for meaningful interpretation of scores. Furthermore, CAT scores can be compared with sex- and age-adjusted norm scores at a national level within each of the 15 countries.

General population normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire based on 15,386 persons across 13 European countries, Canada and the Unites States.

OBJECTIVE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire is one of the most widely used cancer-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires worldwide. General population norm data can facilitate the interpretation of QLQ-C30 data obtained from cancer patients. This study aimed at systematically collecting norm data from the general population to develop European QLQ-C30 norm scores and to generate comparable norm data for individual countries in Europe and North America. METHODS: We collected QLQ-C30 data from the general population across 11 European Union (EU) countries, Russia, Turkey, Canada and United States (n ≥ 1000/country). Representative samples were stratified by sex and age groups (18-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and ≥ 70 years). After applying weights based on the United Nations population distribution statistics, we calculated QLQ-C30 domain scores to generate a 'European QLQ-C30 Norm' based on the EU countries. Further, we calculated QLQ-C30 norm scores for all 15 individual countries. RESULTS: A total of 15,386 respondents completed the online survey. For the EU sample, most QLQ-C30 domains showed differences by sex/age, with men scoring somewhat better health than women, while age effects varied across domains. Substantially larger differences were seen in inter-country comparisons, with Austrian and Dutch respondents reporting consistently better health compared with British and Polish respondents. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to systematically collect EORTC QLQ-C30 general population norm data across Europe and North America applying a consistent data collection method across 15 countries. These new norm data facilitate valid intra-country as well as inter-country comparisons and QLQ-C30 score interpretation.

QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30.

PURPOSE: To derive a health state classification system (HSCS) from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, the EORTC QLQ-C30, as the basis for a multi-attribute utility instrument. METHODS: The conceptual model for the HSCS was based on the established domain structure of the QLQ-C30. Several criteria were considered to select a subset of dimensions and items for the HSCS. Expert opinion and patient input informed a priori selection of key dimensions. Psychometric criteria were assessed via secondary analysis of a pooled dataset comprising HRQOL and clinical data from 2616 patients from eight countries and a range of primary cancer sites, disease stages, and treatments. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the conceptual model's robustness and generalisability. We assessed item floor effects (>75 % observations at lowest score), disordered item response thresholds, coverage of the latent variable and differential item function using Rasch analysis. We calculated effect sizes for known group comparisons based on disease stage and responsiveness to change. Seventy-nine cancer patients assessed the relative importance of items within dimensions. RESULTS: CFA supported the conceptual model and its generalisability across primary cancer sites. After considering all criteria, 12 items were selected representing 10 dimensions: physical functioning (mobility), role functioning, social functioning, emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep, appetite, nausea, bowel problems. CONCLUSIONS: The HSCS created from QLQ-C30 items is known as the EORTC Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D). The next phase of the QLU-C10D's development involves valuation studies, currently planned or being conducted across the globe.

Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to value health states within the QLU-C10D, a utility instrument derived from the QLQ-C30, and to assess clarity, difficulty, and respondent preference between two presentation formats. METHODS: We ran a DCE valuation task in an online panel (N = 430). Respondents answered 16 choice pairs; in half of these, differences between dimensions were highlighted, and in the remainder, common dimensions were described in text and differing attributes were tabulated. To simplify the cognitive task, only four of the QLU-C10D's ten dimensions differed per choice set. We assessed difficulty and clarity of the valuation task with Likert-type scales, and respondents were asked which format they preferred. We analysed the DCE data by format with a conditional logit model and used Chi-squared tests to compare other responses by format. Semi-structured telephone interviews (N = 8) explored respondents' cognitive approaches to the valuation task. RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-nine individuals were recruited, 430 completed at least one choice set, and 422/449 (94 %) completed all 16 choice sets. Interviews revealed that respondents found ten domains difficult but manageable, many adopting simplifying heuristics. Results for clarity and difficulty were identical between formats, but the "highlight" format was preferred by 68 % of respondents. Conditional logit parameter estimates were monotonic within domains, suggesting respondents were able to complete the DCE sensibly, yielding valid results. CONCLUSION: A DCE valuation task in which only four of the QLU-C10D's ten dimensions differed in any choice set is feasible for deriving utility weights for the QLU-C10D.

Depression in advanced cancer--assessment challenges and associations with disease load.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer commonly experience multiple somatic symptoms and declining functioning. Some highly prevalent symptoms also overlap with diagnostic symptom-criteria of depression. Thus, assessing depression in these patients can be challenging. We therefore investigated 1) the effect of different scoring-methods of depressive symptoms on detecting depression, and 2) the relationship between disease load and depression amongst patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: The sample included 969 patients in the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative-Computer Symptom Assessment Study (EPCRC-CSA). Inclusion criteria were: incurable metastatic/locally advanced cancer and ≥ 18 years. Biomarkers and length of survival were registered from patient-records. Depression was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and applying three scoring-methods: inclusive (algorithm scoring including the somatic symptom-criteria), exclusive (algorithm scoring excluding the somatic symptom-criteria) and sum-score (sum of all symptoms with a cut-off ≥ 8). RESULTS: Depression prevalence rates varied according to scoring-method: inclusive 13.7%, exclusive 14.9% and sum-score 45.3%. Agreement between the algorithm scoring-methods was excellent (Kappa = 0.81), but low between the inclusive and sum scoring-methods (Kappa = 0.32). Depression was significantly associated with more pain (OR-range: 1.09-1.19, p < 0.001-0.04) and lower performance status (KPS-score, OR-range = 0.68-0.72, p < 0.001) irrespective of scoring-method. LIMITATIONS: Depression was assessed using self-report, not clinical interviews. CONCLUSIONS: The scoring-method, not excluding somatic symptoms, had the greatest effect on assessment outcomes. Increasing pain and poorer than expected physical condition should alert clinicians to possible co-morbid depression. The large discrepancy in prevalence rates between scoring-methods reinforces the need for consensus and validation of depression definitions and assessment in populations with high disease load.

Testing the measurement invariance of the EORTC QLQ-C30 across primary cancer sites using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis.

PURPOSE: The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire is a widely used cancer-specific quality of life instrument comprising a core set of 30 items (QLQ-C30) supplemented by cancer site-specific modules. The purpose of this paper was to examine the extent to which the conventional multi-item domain structure of the QLQ-C30 holds across patients with seven different primary cancer sites. METHODS: Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was used to test whether a measurement model of the QLQ-C30 was invariant across cancer sites. Configural (same patterns of factor loadings), metric (equivalence of factor loadings) and scalar (equivalence of thresholds) invariance amongst the cancer site groups were assessed (N = 1,906) by comparing the fit of a model with these parameters freely estimated to a model where estimates were constrained to be equal for the corresponding items in each group. RESULTS: All groups exhibited good model fit except for the prostate group, which was excluded. Only 1 of 576 parameters was found to differ between primary sites: specifically, the first threshold of Item 1 in the breast cancer group exhibited non-invariance. In a post hoc analysis, several instances of non-invariance by treatment status (baseline, on-treatment, off-treatment) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Given only one instance of non-invariance between cancer sites, there is a reason to be confident in the validity of conclusions drawn when comparing QLQ-C30 domain scores between different sites and when interpreting the scores of heterogeneous samples, although future research should assess the potential impact of confounding variables such as treatment and gender.

Validation of the Consensus-Definition for Cancer Cachexia and evaluation of a classification model--a study based on data from an international multicentre project (EPCRC-CSA).

BACKGROUND: Weight loss limits cancer therapy, quality of life and survival. Common diagnostic criteria and a framework for a classification system for cancer cachexia were recently agreed upon by international consensus. Specific assessment domains (stores, intake, catabolism and function) were proposed. The aim of this study is to validate this diagnostic criteria (two groups: model 1) and examine a four-group (model 2) classification system regarding these domains as well as survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from an international patient sample with advanced cancer (N = 1070) were analysed. In model 1, the diagnostic criteria for cancer cachexia [weight loss/body mass index (BMI)] were used. Model 2 classified patients into four groups 0-III, according to weight loss/BMI as a framework for cachexia stages. The cachexia domains, survival and sociodemographic/medical variables were compared across models. RESULTS: Eight hundred and sixty-one patients were included. Model 1 consisted of 399 cachectic and 462 non-cachectic patients. Cachectic patients had significantly higher levels of inflammation, lower nutritional intake and performance status and shorter survival. In model 2, differences were not consistent; appetite loss did not differ between group III and IV, and performance status not between group 0 and I. Survival was shorter in group II and III compared with other groups. By adding other cachexia domains to the model, survival differences were demonstrated. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic criteria based on weight loss and BMI distinguish between cachectic and non-cachectic patients concerning all domains (intake, catabolism and function) and is associated with survival. In order to guide cachexia treatment a four-group classification model needs additional domains to discriminate between cachexia stages.

Can individual patients assess differences in quality of life between groups of patients?

This qualitative study piloted a method for eliciting patient opinion on the size of group differences in quality of life (QOL) scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Using scenarios from published studies, patients were asked the differences in QOL they would expect between two groups of patients or a group of patients over time. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis used. Eleven breast cancer patients were interviewed. The final thematic framework consisted of three major themes: (1) their ability to use published data to judge the size of differences in QOL scores, (2) their ability to gain familiarity and understanding of the QLQ-C30 questionnaire in an interview situation and (3) their ability to understand and assess differences from a group of patients rather than on an individual basis. Patients felt able to understand the questionnaire and scoring. They provided an opinion on whether differences in QOL scores were trivial, small, medium or large. Patient perspectives were often based on their own experience of the disease and treatments and their opinions were varied. In order to estimate clinically meaningful differences from published literature, a larger number of patients with varied experiences would be required and a consensus process used to align opinions where possible.

International validation of the EORTC QLQ-ELD14 questionnaire for assessment of health-related quality of life elderly patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Older people represent the majority of cancer patients but their specific needs are often ignored in the development of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-ELD15 was developed to supplement the EORTC's core questionnaire, the QLQ-C30, for measuring HRQOL in patients aged >70 years in oncology studies. METHODS: Patients (n=518) from 10 countries completed the QLQ-C30, QLQ-ELD15 and a debriefing interview. Eighty two clinically stable patients repeated the questionnaires 1 week later (test-retest analysis) and 107 others, with an expected change in clinical status, repeated the questionnaires 3 months later (response to change analysis, RCA). RESULTS: Information from the debriefing interview, factor analysis and item response theory analysis resulted in the removal of one item (QLQ-ELD15QLQ-ELD14) and revision of the proposed scale structure to five scales (mobility, worries about others, future worries, maintaining purpose and illness burden) and two single items (joint stiffness and family support). Convergent validity was good. In known-group comparisons, the QLQ-ELD14 differentiated between patients with different disease stage, treatment intention, number of comorbidities, performance status and geriatric screening scores. Test-retest and RCA analyses were equivocal. CONCLUSION: The QLQ-ELD14 is a validated HRQOL questionnaire for cancer patients aged 70 years. Changes in elderly patients' self-reported HRQOL may be related to both cancer evolution and non-clinical events.

Evidence-based guidelines for interpreting change scores for the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30.

AIM: To use published literature and experts' opinion to investigate the clinical meaning and magnitude of changes in the Quality of Life (QOL) of groups of patients measured with the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). METHODS: An innovative method combining systematic review of published studies, expert opinions and meta-analysis was used to estimate large, medium, and small mean changes over time for QLQ-C30 scores. RESULTS: Nine hundred and eleven papers were identified, leading to 118 relevant papers. One thousand two hundred and thirty two mean changes in QOL over time were combined in the meta-analysis, with timescales ranging from four days to five years. Guidelines were produced for trivial, small, and medium size classes, for each subscale and for improving and declining scores separately. Estimates for improvements were smaller than respective estimates for declines. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines can be used to aid sample size calculations and interpretation of mean changes over time from groups of patients. Observed mean changes in the QLQ-C30 scores are generally small in most clinical situations, possibly due to response shift. Careful consideration is needed when planning studies where QOL changes over time are of primary interest; the timing of follow up, sample attrition, direction of QOL changes, and subscales of primary interest are key considerations.

Is there a genetic cause for cancer cachexia? - a clinical validation study in 1797 patients.

BACKGROUND: Cachexia has major impact on cancer patients' morbidity and mortality. Future development of cachexia treatment needs methods for early identification of patients at risk. The aim of the study was to validate nine single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously associated with cachexia, and to explore 182 other candidate SNPs with the potential to be involved in the pathophysiology. METHOD: A total of 1797 cancer patients, classified as either having severe cachexia, mild cachexia or no cachexia, were genotyped. RESULTS: After allowing for multiple testing, there was no statistically significant association between any of the SNPs analysed and the cachexia groups. However, consistent with prior reports, two SNPs from the acylpeptide hydrolase (APEH) gene showed suggestive statistical significance (P=0.02; OR, 0.78). CONCLUSION: This study failed to detect any significant association between any of the SNPs analysed and cachexia; although two SNPs from the APEH gene had a trend towards significance. The APEH gene encodes the enzyme APEH, postulated to be important in the endpoint of the ubiquitin system and thus the breakdown of proteins into free amino acids. In cachexia, there is an extensive breakdown of muscle proteins and an increase in the production of acute phase proteins in the liver.

Influence from genetic variability on opioid use for cancer pain: a European genetic association study of 2294 cancer pain patients.

Cancer pain patients need variable opioid doses. Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that opioid efficacy is related to genetic variability. However, the studies have small samples, findings are not replicated, and several candidate genes have not been studied. Therefore, a study of genetic variability with opioid doses in a large population using a confirmatory validation population was warranted. We recruited 2294 adult European patients using a World Health Organization (WHO) step III opioid and analyzed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes with a putative influence on opioid mechanisms. The patients' mean age was 62.5 years, and the average pain intensity was 3.5. The patients' primary opioids were morphine (n=830), oxycodone (n=446), fentanyl (n=699), or other opioids (n=234). Pain intensity, time on opioids, age, gender, performance status, and bone or CNS metastases predicted opioid dose and were included as covariates. The patients were randomly divided into 1 development sample and 1 validation sample. None of 112 SNPs in the 25 candidate genes OPRM1, OPRD1, OPRK1, ARRB2, GNAZ, HINT1, Stat6, ABCB1, COMT, HRH1, ADRA2A, MC1R, TACR1, GCH1, DRD2, DRD3, HTR3A, HTR3B, HTR2A, HTR3C, HTR3D, HTR3E, HTR1, or CNR1 showed significant associations with opioid dose in both the development and the validation analyzes. These findings do not support the use of pharmacogenetic analyses for the assessed SNPs to guide opioid treatment. The study also demonstrates the importance of validating findings obtained in genetic association studies to avoid reporting spurious associations as valid findings. To elicit knowledge about new genes that influence pain and the need for opioids, strategies other than the candidate gene approach is needed.

Clinical and psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaire module to assess health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer.

This international study aimed to test the measurement properties of the updated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire module for colorectal cancer, the QLQ-CR29. The QLQ-CR29 was administered with the QLQ-C30, core questionnaire, to 351 patients from seven countries. Questionnaire scaling and reliability were established and clinical and psychometric validity examined. Patient acceptability and understanding were assessed with a debriefing questionnaire. Multi-trait scaling analyses and face validity refined the module to four scales assessing urinary frequency, faecal seepage, stool consistency and body image and single items assessing other common problems following treatment for colorectal cancer. Scales distinguished between clinically distinct groups of patients and did not correlate with QLQ-C30 scales, demonstrating construct validity. The QLQ-CR29 scores were reproducible over time in stable health. The EORTC QLQ-CR29 demonstrates sufficient validity and reliability to support its use to supplement the EORTC QLQ-C30 to assess patient-reported outcomes during treatment for colorectal cancer in clinical trials and other settings.

Validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-LMC21 questionnaire for assessment of patient-reported outcomes during treatment of colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of valid patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for hepatectomy or palliative treatment of colorectal hepatic metastases. This study examined the validity and reliability of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire liver module (QLQ-LMC21) in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer. METHODS: Some 356 patients completed the core questionnaire (QLQ-C30), QLQ-LMC21 and a debriefing questionnaire before and 3 months after hepatectomy or palliative treatment. Construct, criterion and clinical validity were evaluated before and after treatment. RESULTS: Questionnaire compliance was high; less than 1 per cent of data were missing from individual items. Modifications to the hypothesized scale structure produced four scales and nine single items with good reliability, clinical, criterion and construct validity. The QLQ-LMC21 distinguished between patients selected for surgery or palliative treatment in nine of these 13. Significant changes in PROs were observed before and after treatment. The new module discriminated between clinically distinct groups of patients and measured aspects of quality of life not covered in the core questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The EORTC QLQ-LMC21 is a valid and reliable questionnaire module to use with the QLQ-C30 in assessing PROs in hepatectomy or palliative treatment for colorectal liver metastases.

Chronic non-malignant pain patients report as poor health-related quality of life as palliative cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) conditions are known to report reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The objective of this exploratory study was to compare HRQoL between patients admitted to a multidisciplinary pain centre, palliative cancer (PC) patients and national norms. METHODS: HRQoL data from 288 patients with CNMP admitted to the multidisciplinary pain centre at Trondheim University Hospital were compared with 434 patients with advanced cancer included in a trial of comprehensive palliative care in the hospital palliative medicine unit and national norms. HRQoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Age- and gender-adjusted norm data were calculated and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Scores from both groups deviated from adjusted norm data on all scales, with poorer functioning and more symptoms. Compared with PC patients, CNMP patients reported a larger deviation (worse scores) on global quality of life, cognitive functioning, pain, sleep disturbances and financial difficulties. Deviations from norm data were similar for physical, social and emotional functioning, diarrhoea, dyspnoea and fatigue. PC patients reported worse scores on role functioning, nausea/vomiting, loss of appetite and constipation. CONCLUSION: CNMP patients admitted to multidisciplinary pain centres report significantly reduced HRQoL, in addition to severe pain. They consider their HRQoL to be as poor as HRQoL reported from dying cancer patients and substantially poorer than national norms. Factors other than the biological severity of the disease seem to be of major importance for self-reported HRQoL.