Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised. DESIGN: A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached. RESULTS: The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meet all four items.

Minimally important differences for interpreting the EORTC QLQ-C30 in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy.

AIM: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) assesses the health-related quality of life of patients in cancer trials. There are currently no minimally important difference (MID) guidelines for the EORTC QLQ-C30 for colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aims to estimate MIDs for the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales in patients with advanced CRC treated with chemotherapy and enrolled in clinical trials. METHOD: The data were obtained from three published EORTC trials that treated CRC patients using chemotherapy. Potential anchors were selected from clinical variables based on their correlation with EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change and between-group change were estimated via the mean change method and linear regression, respectively, and summarized using weighted correlation. Distribution-based MIDs were also examined. RESULTS: Anchor-based MIDs were determined for deterioration in 8 of the 14 EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and in 9 scales for improvement, and varied by scale, direction of change and anchor. MIDs for improvement (deterioration) ranged from 6 to 18 (-11 to -5) points for within-group change and 5 to 15 (-10 to -4) for between-group change. Summarized MIDs (in absolute values) per scale mostly ranged from 5 to 10 points. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have clinical relevance for the interpretation of treatment efficacy and the design of clinical trials by informing sample size requirements.

An international update of the EORTC questionnaire for assessing quality of life in breast cancer patients: EORTC QLQ-BR45.

BACKGROUND: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-BR23 was one of the first disease-specific questionnaires developed in 1996 to assess quality of life (QoL) in patients with breast cancer (BC). However, since 1996 major changes in BC treatment have occurred, requiring an update of the EORTC BC module. This study presents the results of the phase I-III update of the QLQ-BR23 questionnaire. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The update of the EORTC QLQ-BR23 module followed standard EORTC guidelines. A systematic literature review revealed 83 potential relevant QoL issues during phases I and II. After shortening the issues list and following interviews with patients and health care providers, 15 relevant issues were transformed into 27 items. The preliminary module was pretested in an international, multicentre phase III study to identify and solve potential problems with wording comprehensibility and acceptability of the items. Descriptive statistics are provided. Analyses were qualitative and quantitative. We provide a psychometric structure of the items. RESULTS: The phase I and II results indicated the need to supplement the original QLQ-BR23 with additional items related to newer therapeutic options. The phase III study recruited a total of 250 patients (from 12 countries). The final updated phase III module contains a total of 45 items: 23 items from the QLQ-BR23 and 22 new items. The new items contain two multi-item scales: a target symptom scale and a satisfaction scale. The target symptom scale can be divided into three subscales: endocrine therapy, endocrine sexual and skin/mucosa scale. CONCLUSION: Our work has led to the development of a new EORTC QLQ-BR45 module that provides a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the impact of new and scalable treatments on patients' QoL. The final version of the EORTC QLQ-BR45 is currently available for use in clinical practice. The final phase IV study is underway to confirm psychometric properties of the module.

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.

An international study to revise the EORTC questionnaire for assessing quality of life in lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-LC13 was the first module to be used in conjunction with the core questionnaire, the QLQ-C30. Since the publication of the LC13 in 1994, major advances have occurred in the treatment of lung cancer. Given this, an update of the EORTC QLQ-LC13 was undertaken. METHODS: The study followed phases I to III of the EORTC Module Development Guidelines. Phase I generated relevant quality-of-life issues using a mix of sources including the involvement of 108 lung cancer patients. Phase II transformed issues into questionnaire items. In an international multicenter study (phase III), patients completed both the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the 48-item provisional lung cancer module generated in phases I and II. Patients rated each of the items regarding relevance, comprehensibility, and acceptance. Patient ratings were assessed against a set of prespecified statistical criteria. Descriptive statistics and basic psychometric analyses were carried out. RESULTS: The phase III study enrolled 200 patients with histologically confirmed lung cancer from 12 centers in nine countries (Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Israel, Spain, Norway, Poland, Taiwan, and the UK). Mean age was 64 years (39 - 91), 59% of the patients were male, 82% had non-small-cell lung cancer, and 56% were treated with palliative intent. Twenty-nine of the 48 questions met the criteria for inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting module with 29 questions, thus currently named EORTC QLQ-LC29, retained 12 of the 13 original items, supplemented with 17 items that primarily assess treatment side-effects of traditional and newer therapies.

A large scale prospective clinical and psychometric validation of the EORTC colorectal (QLQ-CR29) module in Polish patients with colorectal cancer.

The purpose of our study was to assess if the Polish translation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Colorectal Cancer (CRC)-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-CR29) is an acceptable and psychometrically valid measure to collect quality of life (QoL) data in Polish patients with CRC for use in clinical trials and clinical practice. A total of 150 patients undergoing treatment for CRC were prospectively enrolled in the study. Psychometric assessment of the translated QLQ-CR29 structure, reliability, convergent and divergent validity, and clinical validity was subsequently performed. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranged from 0.70-0.89, indicating acceptable internal consistency. For test-retest reliability, the ICCs for each item ranged from 0.59-0.91, with exceptions for urinary incontinence and dysuria, indicating good to excellent reproducibility. In multi-trait scaling analyses, the criterion for item convergent and divergent validity was satisfied. The correlations between the EORTC QLQ-CR29 and QLQ-C30 scales were mostly low (r < .40), with a few items demonstrating higher correlations. The known group comparisons analyses demonstrated the ability of the questionnaire to distinguish between patients' differing age, stoma status, and treatment intent. The Polish translation of the QLQ-CR29 is a psychometrically reliable and valid tool. The results of this study are congruent with that of EORTC validation.

Longitudinal quality of life data: a comparison of continuous and ordinal approaches.

PURPOSE: In cancer clinical trials, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a major outcome measure. It is generally assessed at specified time intervals by filling out a questionnaire with ordered response categories. Despite recent advances in the statistical methodology for handling ordinal longitudinal outcome data, most users keep treating HRQoL scales as continuous rather than ordinal variables regardless of the number of categories. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of analyzing HRQoL longitudinal data under both approaches, continuous and ordinal. METHODS: The EORTC QLQ-C30 scores of two EORTC randomized brain cancer clinical trials (26951 and 26981) were analyzed using the two approaches. In the 26951 trial, a total of 368 patients were randomly assigned to receive either radiotherapy (RT) or the same RT plus procarbazine, CCNU, and vincristine. In the 26981 trial, 573 patients were randomly allocated to RT or RT plus temozolomide. Comparison of the two treatment arms was done using methods for longitudinal quantitative and longitudinal ordinal data. Both statistical methods were adapted to account for missing data and compared in terms of statistical significance of the results (p values) but also with respect to data interpretation. RESULTS: Three scales, i.e., appetite loss, insomnia, and drowsiness, presenting four response categories ("Not at all", "A little", "Quite a bite", and "Very much") were analyzed in each trial. Both statistical methods (continuous and ordinal) showed statistically significant differences between the two treatments, not only globally but also at the same assessment time points. The magnitude of the p values, however, varied at some time points and was less pronounced in the ordinal approach. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of the two clinical trials showed that treating the HRQoL scales by a quantitative or an ordinal method did not make much difference as far as statistical significance was concerned. The interpretation of results, however, was easier under the ordinal approach. Treatment effects may be more meaningful when expressed in terms of odds ratios than as mean values, particularly when the number categories is small.

Does change in health-related quality of life score predict survival? Analysis of EORTC 08975 lung cancer trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about whether changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores from baseline during treatment also predict survival, which we aim to investigate in this study. METHODS: We analysed data from 391 advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients enrolled in the EORTC 08975 study, which compared palliative chemotherapy regimens. HRQoL was assessed at baseline and after each chemotherapy cycle using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13. The prognostic significance of HRQoL scores at baseline and their changes over time was assessed with Cox regression, after adjusting for clinical and socio-demographic variables. RESULTS: After controlling for covariates, every 10-point increase in baseline pain and dysphagia was associated with 11% and 12% increased risk of death with hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.11 and 1.12, respectively. Every 10-point improvement of physical function at baseline (HR=0.93) was associated with 7% lower risk of death. Every 10-point increase in pain (HR=1.08) was associated with 8% increased risk of death at cycle 1. Every 10-point increase in social function (HR=0.91) at cycle 2 was associated with 9% lower risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that changes in HRQoL scores from baseline during treatment, as measured on subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13, are significant prognostic factors for survival.

Validation of the Polish version of the EORTC QLQ-CX24 module for the assessment of health-related quality of life in women with cervical cancer.

The aim of our study was to undertake a prospective validation study of the Polish version of the EORTC cervical cancer (EORTC QLQ-CX24) module used alongside the EORTC core measure. The translated module was pilot-tested according to the established EORTC guidelines. Patients with histological confirmation of cervical cancer were eligible for the study. All patients filled out the Polish version of the EORTC QLQ-CX24 module in addition to EORTC QLQ-C30 and a demographic questionnaire. Standardised validity and reliability analyses were performed. One hundred and seventy-one patients were enrolled into the study, mean age ± SD: 52.1 ± 9.6. Cronbach alpha coefficients, range 0.81-0.88, showed positive internal consistency. Re-test was undertaken with 40 patients (23.4%). Interclass correlations for the EORTC QLQ-CX24 ranged from 0.85 to 0.89 and proved appropriate test-retest reliability. Satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity in multi-trait scaling analyses was seen. Concluding, the Polish version of the EORTC QLQ-CX24 module is a reliable and valid tool for measuring HRQoL in patients with cervical cancer. It can be fully recommended for use in clinical and epidemiological settings in the Polish population.

Integrating cancer patients' perspectives into treatment decisions and treatment evaluation using patient-reported outcomes--a concept paper.

Patient-reported outcomes are an important tool in clinical research. In the setting of cancer treatments, benefit of therapy is essentially characterised by improvement of survival as well as quality of life (QoL). A standardised instrument to assess QoL is the standardised QoL questionnaire of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment (EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire). QoL instruments provide data on different aspects (domains) of the framework of QoL. Using these questionnaires in studies provides data on how a treatment affects QoL in a group of patients. The goal of our concept is to individualise QoL and to use validated instruments in order to integrate patients' perspectives and aims into treatment assessment, planning and control. We propose to use the domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and to ask the patient to determine which objectives besides survival are relevant for him and should be achieved by treatment. These individual goals can be used in a process of shared decision-making to choose and monitor treatment. In clinical studies, this approach would allow to recruit more patients who would most probably benefit from the therapy. In addition, supportive data could be gathered in correlation to treatment goals and actual benefits.

Effect of completion-time windows in the analysis of health-related quality of life outcomes in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: We examined if cancer patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 are affected by the specific time point, before or during treatment, at which the questionnaire is completed, and whether this could bias the overall treatment comparison analyses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 'completion-time window' variable was created on three closed EORTC randomised control trials in lung (non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) to indicate when the QLQ-30 was completed relative to chemotherapy cycle dates, defined as 'before', 'on' and 'after'. HRQoL mean scores were calculated using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (P<0.05) were observed on 6 and 5 scales for 'on' and 'after' comparisons in the NSCLC and two-group CRC trial, respectively. As for the three-group CRC trial, several statistical differences were observed in the 'before' to 'on' and the 'on' to 'after' comparisons. For all three trials, including the 'completion-time window' variable in the model resulted in a better fit, but no substantial changes in the treatment effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that considering the exact timing of completion within specified windows resulted in statistical and potentially clinically significant differences, but it did not alter the conclusions of treatment comparison in these studies.

Plasmon-enhanced refractometry using silver nanowire coatings on tilted fibre Bragg gratings.

A novel technique for increasing the sensitivity of tilted fibre Bragg grating (TFBG) based refractometers is presented. The TFBG sensor was coated with chemically synthesized silver nanowires ~100 nm in diameter and several micrometres in length. A 3.5-fold increase in sensor sensitivity was obtained relative to the uncoated TFBG sensor. This increase is associated with the excitation of surface plasmons by orthogonally polarized fibre cladding modes at wavelengths near 1.5 µm. Refractometric information is extracted from the sensor via the strong polarization dependence of the grating resonances using a Jones matrix analysis of the transmission spectrum of the fibre.

Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the smallest changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 and the Brain Cancer Module (QLQ-BN20), which could be considered as clinically meaningful in brain cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: World Health Organisation performance status (PS) and mini-mental state examination (MMSE) were used as clinical anchors appropriate to related subscales to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in HRQoL change scores (range 0-100) in the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20. A threshold of 0.2 standard deviation (SD) (small effect) was used to exclude anchor-based MCID estimates considered too small to inform interpretation. RESULTS: Based on PS, our findings support the following integer estimates of the MCID for improvement and deterioration, respectively: physical (6, 9), role (14, 12), and cognitive functioning (8, 8); global health status (7, 4*), fatigue (12, 9), and motor dysfunction (4*, 5). Anchoring with MMSE, cognitive functioning MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were (11, 2*) and for communication deficit were (9, 7). Estimates with asterisks were <0.2 SD and were excluded from our MCID range of 5-14. CONCLUSION: These estimates can help clinicians evaluate changes in HRQoL over time, assess the value of a health care intervention and can be useful in determining sample sizes in designing future clinical trials.

Short-term health-related quality of life and symptom control with docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (TPF), 5-fluorouracil (PF) for induction in unresectable locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer patients (EORTC 24971/TAX 323).

BACKGROUND: The EORTC 24971/TAX 323, a phase III study of 358 patients with unresectable locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, showed an improved progression-free and overall survival (OS) with less toxicity when docetaxel (T) was added to cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF) for induction and given before radiotherapy (RT). The impact of the addition of docetaxel on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms was investigated. METHODS: HRQOL was assessed at baseline, at end of cycle 2, and 4, 6, and 9 months after completion of RT using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (QLQ-C30) and the EORTC QLQ Head and Neck Cancer-Specific Module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35). The primary HRQOL scale was global HRQOL per protocol. RESULTS: Compliance to HRQOL assessments was 97% at baseline, but dropped to 54% by 6 months. Data were analysed up to 6 months. There was a trend towards improved global HRQOL during the treatment period. At 6 months after the end of RT, global HRQOL was higher in the TPF arm than in the PF arm, but the low compliance does not allow to draw definitive conclusions. Swallowing and coughing problems decreased more in the TPF arm than in the PF arm at the end of cycle 2, but to a limited extent. CONCLUSION: Induction chemotherapy with TPF before RT not only improves survival and reduces toxicity compared with PF but also seems to improve global HRQOL in a more sustainable manner.

Understanding the reliability and validity of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in Turkish cancer patients.

Quality of life (QOL) has become an important area to address. The most commonly used QOL tool in oncology is the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL measure (EORTC QLQ-C30). The aim of this study is to examine the reliability and validity of this widely used questionnaire in Turkish language. A total of 114 cancer patients were recruited in this study. The internal consistency of the subscales, concurrent validity between EORTC QLQ-C30 version 3.0 and Short Form-36 (SF-36), the correlations between the subscales of EORTC QLQ-C30 and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale-Anxiety (HADS-A), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale-Depression (HADS-D) were also evaluated. Cronbach's alpha-coefficient for multi-item scales ranged from 0.56 to 0.85, with emotional functioning having the highest Cronbach's alpha-coefficient. General health/QOL subscale was correlated significantly with all other subscales. Modest correlations were found between relevant subscales of SF-36 and EORTC QLQ-C30 scales indicating good convergent validity. Although score of emotional functioning subscale was significantly correlated with HADS-A, no correlation was found with HADS-D. The correlations between general health/QOL and HADS-A and HADS-D were significant though Pearson's coefficients were below 0.4. The EORTC QLQ-C30 version 3.0 is a reliable and valid instrument and suitable for measuring the QOL in cancer patients in Turkey.

Prognostic factor analysis of health-related quality of life data in cancer: a statistical methodological evaluation.

A significant body of research exists in oncology to identify and evaluate prognostic factors, historically focused on histology, clinical stage and laboratory parameters. Recent evidence suggests that patient self-reported health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) data provide additional prognostic information. A review by Gotay et al. of published prognostic analyses reports on the usefulness of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including HRQOL, in predicting survival in cancer patients in clinical trials. An impressive number of studies have found a positive relationship that supports an independent association between HRQOL and survival. However, due to the considerable diversity in, for example, patient groups, types of HRQOL measures used and analytical strategies, current evidence is far from conclusive. This paper examines the statistical research methods employed, discusses key issues for HRQOL prognostic factor-analysis parameters and proposes recommendations for future outcome research.

The prognostic value of health-related quality-of-life data in predicting survival in glioblastoma cancer patients: results from an international randomised phase III EORTC Brain Tumour and Radiation Oncology Groups, and NCIC Clinical Trials Group study.

This is one of the few studies that have explored the value of baseline symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in predicting survival in brain cancer patients. Baseline HRQOL scores (from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Brain Cancer Module (BN 20)) were examined in 490 newly diagnosed glioblastoma cancer patients for the relationship with overall survival by using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Refined techniques as the bootstrap re-sampling procedure and the computation of C-indexes and R(2)-coefficients were used to try and validate the model. Classical analysis controlled for major clinical prognostic factors selected cognitive functioning (P=0.0001), global health status (P=0.0055) and social functioning (P<0.0001) as statistically significant prognostic factors of survival. However, several issues question the validity of these findings. C-indexes and R(2)-coefficients, which are measures of the predictive ability of the models, did not exhibit major improvements when adding selected or all HRQOL scores to clinical factors. While classical techniques lead to positive results, more refined analyses suggest that baseline HRQOL scores add relatively little to clinical factors to predict survival. These results may have implications for future use of HRQOL as a prognostic factor in cancer patients.

Has the quality of health-related quality of life reporting in cancer clinical trials improved over time? Towards bridging the gap with clinical decision making.

BACKGROUND: Previous work highlighted a number of methodological constraints when reporting health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Given this, the objective of this study was to investigate whether the quality of such HRQOL reports has improved over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On the basis of a predefined set of criteria, 159 RCTs with a HRQOL end point, published between 1990 and 2004 were identified and analyzed. Each study was evaluated by a number of issues (e.g. sample size and industry sponsorship) and by the "minimum standard checklist for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials". RESULTS: The quality of HRQOL reports, as measured by the overall checklist score, was independently related to more recently published studies (P < 0.0001). This relationship was independent of industry funded, HRQOL end point (primary versus secondary), cancer disease site, size of the study and HRQOL difference between treatment arms. While only 39.3% of studies published between 1990 and 2000 (89/159 RCTs) were identified as being probably robust, thus likely to support clinical decision making, this percentage was 64.3% for studies published after 2000 (70/159 RCTs). CONCLUSION: Since we found a significant learning curve in HRQOL trial reporting since 1990, it can be expected that HRQOL data will increasingly impact on clinical decision making and treatment policies in the near future.