Search

Background: In clinical studies, the EQ-5D-5L is often employed with disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. The questions in the former are more general than the latter; however, it is known that responses to general questions can be influenced by preceding specific questions. Thus, the responses to the EQ-5D-5L have the possibility of being influenced by the preceding disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. This may lead to bias in the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of the preceding cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments on the EQ-5D-5L responses. Methods: We prepared questionnaire booklets containing the EQ-5D-5L, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General with different orders. Using a quasi-randomized design, they were distributed to the patients undergoing drug therapy for advanced cancer, who were classified into three groups: Groups 1, 2, and 3 (the EQ-5D-5L placed first, second, and last, respectively). We compared the EQ-5D-5L index and the missingness of EQ-5D-5L among the groups. Results: The mean EQ-5D-5L index was 0.796, 0.760, and 0.789 for groups 1 (n = 300), 2 (n = 306), and 3 (n = 331), respectively. The difference between Groups 2 and 1 was − 0.036 (95% CI − 0.065 to − 0.007; p = 0.015). The proportion of patients with an incomplete EQ-5D-5L was 0.11, 0.11, and 0.05 for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The difference of the proportions between group 3 and 1 and between 3 and 2 was − 0.06 (95% CI − 0.10 to − 0.02; p = 0.003) and − 0.06 (95% CI − 0.10 to − 0.02; p = 0.003), respectively. Conclusions: Although the EQ-5D-5L index differed according to the instrument orders, the difference size would not be considerably larger than the minimally important difference. The patients tended to complete the EQ-5D-5L when they were placed at the end of the questionnaire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In clinical studies, the EQ-5D-5L is often employed with disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. The questions in the former are more general than the latter; however, it is known that responses to general questions can be influenced by preceding specific questions. Thus, the responses to the EQ-5D-5L have the possibility of being influenced by the preceding disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. This may lead to bias in the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of the preceding cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments on the EQ-5D-5L responses. Methods: We prepared questionnaire booklets containing the EQ-5D-5L, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General with different orders. Using a quasi-randomized design, they were distributed to the patients undergoing drug therapy for advanced cancer, who were classified into three groups: Groups 1, 2, and 3 (the EQ-5D-5L placed first, second, and last, respectively). We compared the EQ-5D-5L index and the missingness of EQ-5D-5L among the groups. Results: The mean EQ-5D-5L index was 0.796, 0.760, and 0.789 for groups 1 (n = 300), 2 (n = 306), and 3 (n = 331), respectively. The difference between Groups 2 and 1 was − 0.036 (95% CI − 0.065 to − 0.007; p = 0.015). The proportion of patients with an incomplete EQ-5D-5L was 0.11, 0.11, and 0.05 for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The difference of the proportions between group 3 and 1 and between 3 and 2 was − 0.06 (95% CI − 0.10 to − 0.02; p = 0.003) and − 0.06 (95% CI − 0.10 to − 0.02; p = 0.003), respectively. Conclusions: Although the EQ-5D-5L index differed according to the instrument orders, the difference size would not be considerably larger than the minimally important difference. The patients tended to complete the EQ-5D-5L when they were placed at the end of the questionnaire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 for resected pancreatic cancer demonstrated survival benefits compared with gemcitabine in the JASPAC 01 trial. We investigated the effect of these agents on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients in the JASPAC 01 trial. Methods Patients with resected pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 weekly for three of four weeks for up to six cycles) or S-1 (40, 50, or 60 mg twice daily for four of six weeks for up to four cycles). HRQOL was assessed using the EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D) questionnaire at baseline, months three and six, and every 6 months thereafter. HRQOL end-points included change in EQ-5D index from baseline, responses to five items in the EQ-5D, and quality-adjusted life months up to 24 months. Results Of randomised 385 patients, 354 patients were included in HRQOL analysis. Mean change in the EQ-5D index was similar in the S-1 and gemcitabine groups within 6 months from treatment initiation (difference, 0.024; P = 0.112), whereas corresponding mean from 12 to 24 months was better in the S-1 group than in the gemcitabine group (difference, 0.071; P < 0.001). Problems in mobility and pain/discomfort were also less frequent in the S-1 group than in the gemcitabine group in that period. Quality-adjusted life months were longer in the S-1 group than in the gemcitabine group ( P < 0.001). Conclusion Adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 does not improve HRQOL within 6 months from treatment initiation but does improve HRQOL thereafter and quality-adjusted life months. Clinical trial registration number UMIN000000655 at UMIN CTR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To establish minimal important differences (MIDs) for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Methods: The dataset was obtained from the SELECT BC-CONFIRM randomized clinical trial. Anchors obtained from patients (transition items) and clinicians (performance status) were used for anchor-based methods. Anchors obtained through 6 months after starting treatment were used for this analysis. Correlation coefficients of anchor and change in QLQ-C30 and effect size were used to qualify for estimating MIDs. Mean change method and generalized estimating equation were applied to estimate MIDs. Distribution-based methods were used for comparison. Results: We analyzed a dataset of 154 metastatic breast cancer patients. MIDs were estimated in 8 of 15 scales of QLQ-C30. Estimated MIDs for within-group improvement varied from 7 to 15 and those for deterioration varied from − 7 to − 17. Estimated MIDs for between-group improvement varied from 5 to 11 and those for deterioration varied from − 5 to − 8 across QLQ-C30 scales. Patient-reported anchors were more susceptible to early changes in health status than clinician-reported anchors. Conclusion: We provided the MIDs of the QLQ-C30 using both patient- and clinicians-reported anchors measured in a randomized trial of Japanese patients with metastatic breast cancer. We recommend patient-reported anchors for anchor-based estimation of MID. Our results can aid patients and clinicians, as well as researchers, in the interpretation of QLQ-C30. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the effects of S-1, an orally administered 5-FU agent, versus taxane on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the SELECT BC trial. Methods: Patients with HER2-negative and endocrine treatment-resistant breast cancer with metastasis or recurrence after surgery were randomly assigned to receive first-line taxane or S-1. PROs (secondary endpoint) were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and Patient Neurotoxicity Questionnaire (PNQ) at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. We conducted a responder analysis for the QLQ-C30 and PNQ and created cumulative distribution function (CDF) plots as a sensitivity analysis. Results: The questionnaire response rates were over 80% from 386 patients, who completed at least one baseline questionnaire. S-1 was significantly superior to taxane with respect to 6 scales (physical functioning [p = 0.03], role functioning [p = 0.04], social functioning [p < 0.01], financial difficulties [p = 0.01], global health status [p = 0.02], and constipation [p < 0.01]) and sensory neuropathy (p = 0.01). The CDF plots partially supported the conclusions and their robustness. Conclusion: First-line S-1 therapy has clinical benefits with respect to many aspects of health-related quality of life for metastatic breast cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]