Comparing comorbidity scales: Attending physician score versus the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing comorbidity using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G) and its comprehensive manual is time consuming. We investigated if similar information could be obtained by a simpler assessment based on the original CIRS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from a randomized chemotherapy trial (RCT) on advanced NSCLC (non-small cell lung cancer) were analyzed. Baseline comorbidity was assessed by 1) trained oncologists using hospital records and the CIRS-G manual (CIRS-G), 2) by patients' oncologists/pulmonologists (local investigators=LI-score) using a brief set of instructions. By both methods, the severity of comorbidity in 14 organ systems was graded 0 (no problem) to 4 (extremely severe). The agreement between methods was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and weighted kappa statistics. The impact of comorbidity on survival was analyzed by Cox regression. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 375/446 (84%) patients enrolled in the RCT. Median age was 65years (25-85). Overall, more comorbidities and higher severity were registered by the CIRS-G compared to the LI-score. Severe comorbidity was registered for 184 (49%) and 94 (25%) patients according to the CIRS-G and LI-scores, respectively. Mean total score was 7.0 (0-17) (CIRS-G) versus 4.2 (0-16) (LI-score), and mean severity index (total score/number of categories with score >0) was 1.73 (SD 0.46) versus 1.43 (SD 0.78). Neither the CIRS-G scores nor the LI-scores were prognostic for survival. CONCLUSION: The CIRS-G scores and LI-scores had poor agreement, indicating that assessment method affects the registration of comorbidity. Thorough descriptions of comorbidity registrations in trials are paramount due to lack of a standardized assessment.

Measuring quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer: Update of the EORTC QLQ-H&N Module, Phase III.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to pilot test an updated version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Head and Neck Module (EORTC QLQ-H&N60). METHODS: Patients with head and neck cancer were asked to complete a list of 60 head and neck cancer-specific items comprising the updated EORTC head and neck module and the core questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30. Debriefing interviews were conducted to identify any irrelevant items and confusing or upsetting wording. RESULTS: Interviews were performed with 330 patients from 17 countries, representing different head and neck cancer sites and treatments. Forty-one of the 60 items were retained according to the predefined EORTC criteria for module development, for another 2 items the wording was refined, and 17 items were removed. CONCLUSION: The preliminary EORTC QLQ-H&N43 can now be used in academic research. Psychometrics will be tested in a larger field study.