Quality of life as a prognostic indicator of survival: A pooled analysis of individual patient data from canadian cancer trials group clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to externally validate an established association between baseline health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores and survival and to assess the added prognostic value of HRQOL with respect to demographic and clinical indicators. METHODS: Pooled data were analyzed from 17 randomized controlled trials opened by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group between 1991 and 2004; they included survival and baseline HRQOL data from 3606 patients with 8 different cancer sites. The models included sex, age (≤60 vs >60 years), World Health Organization performance status (0 or 1 vs 2-4), distant metastases (no vs yes), and 15 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) scales. Analyses were conducted with multivariate Cox proportional hazards models and were stratified by cancer site. Harrell's discrimination C-index was used to calculate the predictive accuracy of the model when HRQOL parameters were added to clinical and demographic variables. The added value of adding HRQOL scales to clinical and demographic variables was illustrated with Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: In the stratified, multivariate model, HRQOL parameters-global health status (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.00; P < . 0001), dyspnea (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06; P < . 0002), and appetite loss (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08; P < . 0001)-were independent prognostic factors in addition to the demographic and clinical variables (all P values < .05). Adding these HRQOL variables to the clinical variables resulted in an added relative prognostic value for survival of 5%. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm previous findings showing that baseline HRQOL scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 provide prognostic information in addition to information from clinical measures. However, the impact of specific domains may differ across studies. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including "missing data,""health-related quality of life," and "patient-reported outcome." Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. CONCLUSION: The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

EORTC QLQ-COMU26: a questionnaire for the assessment of communication between patients and professionals. Phase III of the module development in ten countries.

PURPOSE: Communication between patients and professionals is one major aspect of the support offered to cancer patients. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group (QLG) has developed a cancer-specific instrument for the measurement of different issues related to the communication between cancer patients and their health care professionals. METHODS: Questionnaire development followed the EORTC QLG Module Development Guidelines. A provisional questionnaire was pre-tested (phase III) in a multicenter study within ten countries from five cultural areas (Northern and South Europe, UK, Poland and Taiwan). Patients from seven subgroups (before, during and after treatment, for localized and advanced disease each, plus palliative patients) were recruited. Structured interviews were conducted. Qualitative and quantitative analyses have been performed. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients were interviewed. Nine items were deleted and one shortened. Patients' comments had a key role in item selection. No item was deleted due to just quantitative criteria. Consistency was observed in patients' answers across cultural areas. The revised version of the module EORTC QLQ-COMU26 has 26 items, organized in 6 scales and 4 individual items. CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC COMU26 questionnaire can be used in daily clinical practice and research, in various patient groups from different cultures. The next step will be an international field test with a large heterogeneous group of cancer patients.

Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards.

Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes generate important data in cancer randomised trials to assist in assessing the risks and benefits of cancer therapies and fostering patient-centred cancer care. However, the various ways these measures are analysed and interpreted make it difficult to compare results across trials, and hinders the application of research findings to inform publications, product labelling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. To address these problems, the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data (SISAQOL) initiative has been established. This consortium, directed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was convened to provide recommendations on how to standardise the analysis of HRQOL and other patient-reported outcomes data in cancer randomised trials. This Personal View discusses the reasons why this project was initiated, the rationale for the planned work, and the expected benefits to cancer research, patient and provider decision making, care delivery, and policy making.

A global analysis of multitrial data investigating quality of life and symptoms as prognostic factors for survival in different tumor sites.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine the prognostic value of baseline health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for survival with regard to different cancer sites using 1 standardized and validated patient self-assessment tool. METHODS: In total, 11 different cancer sites pooled from 30 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) randomized controlled trials were selected for this study. For each cancer site, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to assess the prognostic value (P< .05) of 15 HRQOL parameters using the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Models were adjusted for age, sex, and World Health Organization performance status and were stratified by distant metastasis. RESULTS: In total, 7417 patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 before randomization. In brain cancer, cognitive functioning was predictive for survival; in breast cancer, physical functioning, emotional functioning, global health status, and nausea and vomiting were predictive for survival; in colorectal cancer, physical functioning, nausea and vomiting, pain, and appetite loss were predictive for survival; in esophageal cancer, physical functioning and social functioning were predictive for survival; in head and neck cancer, emotional functioning, nausea and vomiting, and dyspnea were predictive for survival; in lung cancer, physical functioning and pain were predictive for survival; in melanoma, physical functioning was predictive for survival; in ovarian cancer, nausea and vomiting were predictive for survival; in pancreatic cancer, global health status was predictive for survival; in prostate cancer, role functioning and appetite loss were predictive for survival; and, in testis cancer, role functioning was predictive for survival. CONCLUSIONS: The current results demonstrated that, for each cancer site, at least 1 HRQOL domain provided prognostic information that was additive over and above clinical and sociodemographic variables.

Cross-cultural differences in information disclosure evaluated through the EORTC questionnaires.

OBJECTIVE: Informational needs among cancer patients are similar, but the degree of information disclosure in different cultural areas varies. In this paper, we present the results of a cross-cultural study on information received. METHODS: The EORTC information questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-INFO25, was administered during the treatment process. This questionnaire evaluates the information that patients report they have received. Cross-cultural differences in information have been evaluated using statistical tests such as Kruskall-Wallis and multivariate models with covariates to account for differences in clinical and demographic characteristics across areas. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-one patients from three cultural areas, North-Middle Europe, South Europe, and Taiwan, were included in the study. Significant differences among the three cultural areas appeared in eight QLQ-INFO25 dimensions: information about the disease; medical tests; places of care; written information; information on CD/tape/video; satisfaction; wish for more information; and information helpfulness. North-Middle Europe patients received more written information (mean = 67.2 (North) and 33.8 (South)) and South Europe patients received more information on different places of care (mean = 24.7 (North) and 35.0 (South)). Patients from North-Middle Europe and South Europe received more information than patients from Taiwan about the disease (mean = 57.9, 60.6, and 47.1, respectively) and medical tests (70.9, 70.4, and 54.5), showed more satisfaction (64.8, 70.2, and 35.0), and considered the information more helpful (71.9, 73.9, and 50.4). These results were confirmed when adjusting for age, education, and disease stage. CONCLUSION: There are cross-cultural differences in information received. Some of these differences are based on the characteristics of each culture.

Minimal important differences for interpreting health-related quality of life scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 in lung cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the smallest changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores in a subset of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scales, which could be considered as clinically meaningful in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: WHO performance status (PS) and weight change were used as clinical anchors to determine minimal important differences (MIDs) in HRQOL change scores (range, 0-100) in the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Selected distribution-based methods were used for comparison. FINDINGS: In a pooled dataset of 812 NSCLC patients undergoing treatment, the values determined to represent the MID depended on whether patients were improving or deteriorating. MID estimates for improvement (based on a one-category change in PS, 5 - <20% weight gain) were physical functioning (9, 5); role functioning (14, 7); social functioning (5, 7); global health status (9, 4); fatigue (14, 5); and pain (16, 2). The respective MID estimates for deterioration (based on PS, weight loss) were physical (4, 6); role (5, 5); social (7, 9); global health status (4, 4); fatigue (6, 11); and pain (3, 7). INTERPRETATION: Based on the selected QLQ-C30 scales, the MID may depend upon whether the patients' PS is improving or worsening, but our results are not definitive. The MID estimates for the specified scales can help clinicians and researchers evaluate the significance of changes in HRQOL and assess the value of a health care intervention or compare treatments. The estimates also can be useful in determining sample sizes in the design of future clinical trials.

Current state of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes research.

The 5th EORTC Quality of Life in Cancer Clinical Trials Conference presented the current state of quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) research from the perspectives of researchers, regulators, industry representatives, patients and patient advocates and health care professionals. A major theme was the assessment of the burden of cancer treatments, and this was discussed in terms of regulatory challenges in using PRO assessments in clinical trials, patients' experiences in cancer clinical trials, innovative methods and standardisation in cancer research, innovative methods across the disease sites or populations and cancer survivorship. Conferees demonstrated that PROs are becoming more accepted and major efforts are ongoing internationally to standardise PROs measurement, analysis and reporting in trials. Regulators are keen to collaborate with all stakeholders to ensure that the right questions are asked and the right answers are communicated. Improved technology and increased flexibility of measurement instruments are making PROs data more robust. Patients are being encouraged to be patient partners. International collaborations are essential, because this work cannot be accomplished on a national level.

Reviewing back translation reports of questionnaires: the EORTC conceptual framework and experience.

INTRODUCTION: In the process of translating patient-reported outcomes measures (forward translation(s), reconciliation, back translation(s), review, pilot-testing, review, final translation), there is a general consensus amongst the key players in the field that the back translation review is an important step. Despite this, there has been little guidance published on how to perform it. Areas covered: Having assessed the most recent back translation reports reviewed by the Translation Unit at the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) in Brussels, we have identified two concepts to help guide the back translation review process: the underlying issue (the problem that the item measures) and the structure (the linguistic and formal construction of the item). This paper presents these concepts and how they are used in the review process. Expert commentary: Despite certain difficulties it might pose, back translation review remains one of the standard steps to assure concept equivalence. This paper aims at starting a much-needed exchange of experience and knowledge among people who perform reviews as part of the process of translating patient-reported outcomes measures.

Depressive symptoms following herpes simplex encephalitis--an underestimated phenomenon?

OBJECTIVE: In view of the herpes simplex virus' neurotropism for the limbic system and the temporal lobe, little is known about potential negative effects of this necrotizing encephalitis on affective functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after recovery. We therefore set out to explore an association between herpes simplex virus encephalitis (HSE) and both depressive symptoms and HRQoL. METHODS: A structured telephone interview was conducted in 26 subjects (F/M=10/16; age at follow-up, 49.3+/-15.0 years; range, 29-80) at a mean time interval of 5.2+/-3.1 years (range, 1-11) after their initial diagnosis of HSE. WHO-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5) was used as screening instrument for depression, and Short Form-12 was used as HRQoL instrument. We also determined the spatial extent of morphologic abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RESULTS: Ten of the interviewees (38.5%) had a WHO-5 score below 13, which is considered indicative of a depressive disorder. Accordingly, concerning their HRQoL, patients felt more impaired by affective than by physical symptoms. MRI ratings and WHO-5 score were not correlated. CONCLUSIONS: While this pilot study does not allow to establish a causal relationship with focal brain damage, findings suggest both a high frequency of depressive symptoms and a low quality of life with respect to mental health following HSE. These results should be confirmed by a prospective trial.

The Added Value of Analyzing Pooled Health-Related Quality of Life Data: A Review of the EORTC PROBE Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Patient-Reported Outcomes and Behavioural Evidence (PROBE) initiative was established to investigate critical topics to better understand health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of cancer patients and to educate clinicians, policy makers, and healthcare providers. METHODS: The aim of this paper is to review the major research outcomes of the pooled analysis of HRQOL data along with the clinical data. We identified 30 pooled EORTC randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 18 NCIC-Clinical Trials Group RCTs, and two German Ovarian Cancer Study Group RCTs, all using the EORTC QLQ-C30. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Evidence was found that HRQOL data can offer prognostic information beyond clinical measures and improve prognostic accuracy in cancer RCTs (by 5.9%-8.3%). Moreover, models that considered both patient- and clinician-reported scores gained more prognostic overall survival accuracy for fatigue (P < .001), vomiting (P = .01), nausea (P < .001), and constipation (P = .01). Greater understanding of the association between symptom and/or functioning scales was developed by identifying physical, psychological, and gastrointestinal clusters. Additionally, minimally important differences in interpreting HRQOL changes for improvement and deterioration were found to vary across different patient populations and disease stages. Finally, HRQOL scores are statistically significantly affected by deviations from the intended time point at which the questionnaire is completed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of existing pooled data shows that it is possible to learn about general aspects of cancer HRQOL and methodology. Our work shows that setting up international pooled datasets holds great promise for understanding patients' unmet psychosocial needs and calls for additional empirical investigation to improve clinical care and understand cancer through retrospective HRQOL analyses.

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.

Development of a questionnaire to evaluate the information needs of cancer patients: the EORTC questionnaire.

Information disclosure is one of the key areas of support that patients may receive. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group has a group working on the development of a questionnaire that evaluates information received by cancer patients at different stages of their disease--EORTC QLQ-INFO30. This instrument is being developed by professionals from most European regions. The questionnaire aims to evaluate the information received by cancer patients on different areas of the disease, diagnosis, treatment and care. Besides, the instrument also assesses qualitative aspects of the information they have received. The present paper presents the first two phases of the module development process that include literature review, interviews with patients and professionals, and formulation of the items. All these steps have been carried out in different countries and have been approved by the EORTC QLG.

The process of reconciliation: evaluation of guidelines for translating quality-of-life questionnaires.

Reconciliation refers to the process through which two or more independent forward translations are merged into one single translation. This critical step in the translation process is difficult to formalize. The purpose of this review is to analyze how reconciliation is specified in leading guidelines for the translation of quality-of-life questionnaires and other patient-reported outcome forms with regard to the number and qualifications of individuals involved, the processes followed, as well as the criteria applied. In general, relatively little attention has been paid to characterizing the process in detail. Based on these findings, we specify criteria to be followed.

Information disclosure to cancer patients: EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire.

Information is one of the main interventions given to cancer patients. Important research into information disclosure has been conducted and major advances have been made. We present the main theoretical models used to understand the information field and describe the current situation regarding the principal factors related to information: patients' needs, coping strategies, illness representations, cross-cultural differences, the role of the family, and strategies to enhance information giving, such as professional training and patient-targeted interventions. We highlight the need to assess patients' characteristics and desires through questionnaires and interviews and present the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group information questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-INFO 25). This instrument evaluates the level of information patients have received in different areas of their disease, treatment and care, and evaluates qualitative aspects. Finally, we describe the key areas of the information field and discuss how these areas could change in the future.

Patient self-reports of symptoms and clinician ratings as predictors of overall cancer survival.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) reporting system is widely used by clinicians to measure patient symptoms in clinical trials. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Quality of Life core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) enables cancer patients to rate their symptoms related to their quality of life. We examined the extent to which patient and clinician symptom scoring and their agreement could contribute to the estimation of overall survival among cancer patients. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data regarding six cancer symptoms (pain, fatigue, vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, and constipation) from a total of 2279 cancer patients from 14 closed EORTC randomized controlled trials. In each trial that was selected for retrospective pooled analysis, both clinician and patient symptom scoring were reported simultaneously at study entry. We assessed the extent of agreement between clinician vs patient symptom scoring using the Spearman and kappa correlation statistics. After adjusting for age, sex, performance status, cancer severity, and cancer site, we used Harrell concordance index (C-index) to compare the potential for clinician-reported and/or patient-reported symptom scores to improve the accuracy of Cox models to predict overall survival. All P values are from two-sided tests. RESULTS: Patient-reported scores for some symptoms, particularly fatigue, did differ from clinician-reported scores. For each of the six symptoms that we assessed at baseline, both clinician and patient scorings contributed independently and positively to the predictive accuracy of survival prognostication. Cox models of overall survival that considered both patient and clinician scores gained more predictive accuracy than models that considered clinician scores alone for each of four symptoms: fatigue (C-index = .67 with both patient and clinician data vs C-index = .63 with clinician data only; P <.001), vomiting (C-index = .64 vs .62; P = .01), nausea (C-index = .65 vs .62; P < .001), and constipation (C-index = .62 vs .61; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Patients provide a subjective measure of symptom severity that complements clinician scoring in predicting overall survival.