Search

Background: The aim of the study was to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for interpreting group-level change over time, both within a group and between groups, for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with prostate cancer., Methods: We used data from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors were selected by strength of correlations with QLQ-C30 scales. In addition, clinicians' input was obtained with regard to plausibility of the selected anchors. The mean change method was applied for interpreting change over time within a group of patients and linear regression models were fitted to estimate MIDs for between-group differences in change over time. Distribution-based estimates were also evaluated., Results: Two clinical anchors were eligible for MID estimation; performance status and the CTCAE diarrhoea domain. MIDs were developed for 7 scales (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, pain, fatigue, global quality of life, diarrhoea) and varied by scale and direction (improvement vs deterioration). Within-group MIDs ranged from 4 to 14 points for improvement and - 13 to - 5 points for deterioration and MIDs for between-group differences in change scores ranged from 3 to 13 for improvement and - 10 to - 5 for deterioration., Conclusions: Our findings aid the meaningful interpretation of changes on a set of EORTC QLQ-C30 scale scores over time, both within and between groups, and for performing more accurate sample size calculations for clinical trials in prostate cancer., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To provide reference values for the European Organisation for Treatment and Research of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients and 5-year HL survivors. The QLQ-C30 is the most widely used cancer-specific questionnaire to assess Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL)., Methods: The EORTC database was searched to identify HL RCTs in which patients' and survivors' HRQoL was assessed by the QLQ-C30. HRQoL mean scores were calculated and stratified by age and gender. Minimal important differences were used to assess the clinical relevance of the findings. Data from one RCT with HRQoL scores available at baseline (n = 343) and four RCTs with HRQoL scores available at follow-up (n = 1665) were analyzed., Results: Patients reported worse HRQoL scores than survivors across most functioning scales and symptoms' scales. These scores varied as a function of gender but not age. Survivors' HRQoL reports were comparable to the ones of the general population., Conclusions: These values provide an assessment framework for the comparison and interpretation of QLQ-C30 scores in advanced-stage HL. Our findings suggest that although HL patients' HRQoL scores are worse than the general population, HRQoL scores may normalize over long-term survival., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In the EORTC 1410/INTELLANCE 2 randomised, phase II study (NCT02343406), with the antibody-drug conjugate depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M, ABT-414) in patients with recurrent EGFR-amplified glioblastoma, the primary end-point (overall survival) was not met, and the drug had ocular dose-limiting toxicity. This study reports results from the prespecified health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and neurological deterioration-free survival (NDFS) exploratory analysis., Patients and Methods: Patients (n = 260) were randomised 1:1:1 to receive either Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg or 1.0 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks with oral temozolomide (TMZ) 150 mg/m 2 , Depatux-M alone, or TMZ or oral lomustine (CCNU) 110 mg/m 2 (TMZ/CCNU). HRQoL outcomes were recorded using the EORTC core Quality of Life QLQ-C30, and brain cancer-specific QLQ-BN20 questionnaires. Questionnaires were completed at baseline, weeks 8 and 16, and month 6, and changes from baseline to each time point were calculated. NDFS was defined as time to first deterioration in World Health Organisation performance status., Results: Compliance with HRQoL was 88.1% at baseline and decreased to 37.9% at month 6. Differences from baseline between Depatux-M arms and TMZ/CCNU in global health/QoL status throughout treatment did not reach clinical relevance (≥10 points). Self-reported visual disorders deteriorated to a clinically relevant extent with Depatux-M arms versus TMZ/CCNU at all timepoints (mean differences range: 24.6-35.1 points). Changes from baseline for other HRQoL scales and NDFS were generally similar between treatment arms., Conclusions: Depatux-M had no impact on HRQoL and NDFS in patients with EGFR-amplified recurrent glioblastoma, except for more visual disorders, an expected side-effect of the study drug., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02343406., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Linda Dirven, Sarah Nuyens, Maarten Spruyt, Thierry Gorlia, Corneel Coens and Jaap C. Reijneveld have nothing to disclose. Paul M. J. Clement received study budget funds from AstraZeneca; was an advisory board member for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Leo Pharma, Merck Serono, MSD and Vifor Pharma. Marica Eoli received consulting fees from AbbVie. Juan M. Sepulveda-Sanchez reports personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie; a grant from Pfizer as principal investigator; personal fees and non-financial support from Celgene; non-financial support from Ipsen; and personal fees from Astellas. Annemiek M. E. Walenkamp received research grants from IPSEN and Novartis; was an advisory board member for IPSEN, Karyopharm, Novartis and Polyphor; and received study budget funds from AbbVie, BMS, Genzyme, Karyopharm Therapeutics and Roche. Jean Sebastien Frenel has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. Enrico Franceschi was an advisory board member for Celgene and Karyopharm. Michael Weller has received research grants from AbbVie, Adastra, Merck, Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck (EMD) and Novocure; and honoraria for lectures or advisory board participation or consulting from AbbVie, Basilea, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Celgene, Medac, Merck, Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck (EMD), Nerviano Medical Sciences, Novartis, Orbus, Philogen, Roche and Tocagen. Olivier Chinot reports personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from immatics, non-financial support from BMS, non-financial support from Servier, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, outside the submitted work. Filip Y. F. L. De Vos received research grants from Novartis. Nicholas Whenham has received consulting fees from Bayer and Janssen. Paul Sanghera was an advisory board member for AbbVie and Roche. Jim Looman, Madan G. Kundu and Jan Peter de Geus are AbbVie employees and may own stock. Vassilis Golfinopoulos received research funding from AbbVie during the conduct of the study. Martin J. van den Bent received consulting fees from AbbVie, Agios, Bayer, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Carthera, Genenta, Karyopharm and Nerviano., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Minimal important differences (MIDs) are useful for interpreting changes or differences in health-related quality of life scores in terms of clinical importance. There are currently no MID guidelines for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) specific to ovarian cancer. This study aims to estimate MIDs for interpreting group-level change of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in ovarian cancer., Methods: Data were derived from four EORTC published trials. Clinical anchors for each EORTC QLQ-C30 scale were selected using correlation strength and clinical plausibility. MIDs for within-group change and between-group differences in change over time were estimated via mean change method and linear regression respectively. For each EORTC QLQ-C30 scale, MID estimates from multiple anchors were summarized via weighted-correlation. Distribution-based MIDs were also examined as supportive evidence., Results: Anchor-based MIDs were determined for deterioration in 7 of the 14 EORTC QLQ-C30 scales assessed, and in 11 scales for improvement. Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change ranged from 4 to 19 (improvement) and - 9 to -4 (deterioration). Between-group MIDs ranged from 3 to 13 (improvement) and - 11 to -4 (deterioration). Generally, absolute anchor-based MIDs for most scales ranged from 4 to 10 points., Conclusions: Our findings will aid interpretation of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in ovarian cancer and inform sample size calculations in future ovarian cancer trials with endpoints that are based on EORTC QLQ-C30 scales., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bevacizumab is frequently used in the treatment of recurrent WHO grade II and III glioma, but without supporting evidence from randomised trials. Therefore, we assessed the use of bevacizumab in patients with first recurrence of grade II or III glioma who did not have 1p/19q co-deletion., Methods: The TAVAREC trial was a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial done at 32 centres across Europe in patients with locally diagnosed grade II or III glioma without 1p/19q co-deletion, with a first and contrast-enhancing recurrence after initial radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both. Previous chemotherapy must have been stopped at least 6 months before enrolment and radiotherapy must have been stopped at least 3 months before enrolment. Random group assignment was done electronically through the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer web-based system, stratified by a minimisation procedure using institution, initial histology (WHO grade II vs III), WHO performance status (0 or 1 vs 2), and previous treatment (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or both). Patients were assigned to receive either temozolomide (150-200 mg/m 2 , orally) monotherapy on days 1-5 every 4 weeks for a maximum of 12 cycles, or the same temozolomide regimen in combination with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, intravenously) every 2 weeks until progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 12 months in the per-protocol population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who started their allocated treatment. The study is registered at EudraCT (2009-017422-39) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01164189), and is complete., Findings: Between Feb 8, 2011, and July 31, 2015, 155 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either monotherapy (n=77) or combination therapy (n=78). Overall survival in the per-protocol population at 12 months was achieved by 44 (61% [80% CI 53-69]) of 72 patients in the temozolomide group and 38 (55% [47-69]) of 69 in the combination group. The most frequent toxicity was haematological: 17 (23%) of 75 patients in the monotherapy group and 25 (33%) of 76 in the combination group developed grade 3 or 4 haematological toxicity. Other than haematological toxicities, the most common adverse events were nervous system disorders (59 [79%] of 75 patients in the monotherapy group vs 65 [86%] of 76 in the combination group), fatigue (53 [70%] vs 61 [80%]), and nausea (39 [52%] vs 43 [56%]). Infections were more frequently reported in the combination group (29 [38%] of 76 patients) than in the monotherapy group (17 [23%] of 75). One treatment-related death was reported in the combination group (infection after intratumoral haemorrhage during a treatment-related grade 4 thrombocytopenia)., Interpretation: We found no evidence of improved overall survival with bevacizumab and temozolomide combination treatment versus temozolomide monotherapy. The findings from this study provide no support for further phase 3 studies on the role of bevacizumab in this disease., Funding: Roche Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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 Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: If treatment of the axilla is indicated in patients with breast cancer who have a positive sentinel node, axillary lymph node dissection is the present standard. Although axillary lymph node dissection provides excellent regional control, it is associated with harmful side-effects. We aimed to assess whether axillary radiotherapy provides comparable regional control with fewer side-effects., Methods: Patients with T1-2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy were enrolled in the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive either axillary lymph node dissection or axillary radiotherapy in case of a positive sentinel node, stratified by institution. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of 5-year axillary recurrence, considered to be not more than 4% for the axillary radiotherapy group compared with an expected 2% in the axillary lymph node dissection group. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. The AMAROS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00014612., Findings: Between Feb 19, 2001, and April 29, 2010, 4823 patients were enrolled at 34 centres from nine European countries, of whom 4806 were eligible for randomisation. 2402 patients were randomly assigned to receive axillary lymph node dissection and 2404 to receive axillary radiotherapy. Of the 1425 patients with a positive sentinel node, 744 had been randomly assigned to axillary lymph node dissection and 681 to axillary radiotherapy; these patients constituted the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·1-8·0) for the patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes. In the axillary lymph node dissection group, 220 (33%) of 672 patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection had additional positive nodes. Axillary recurrence occurred in four of 744 patients in the axillary lymph node dissection group and seven of 681 in the axillary radiotherapy group. 5-year axillary recurrence was 0·43% (95% CI 0·00-0·92) after axillary lymph node dissection versus 1·19% (0·31-2·08) after axillary radiotherapy. The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the low number of events. The one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority test on the hazard ratio was 0·00-5·27, with a non-inferiority margin of 2. Lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm was noted significantly more often after axillary lymph node dissection than after axillary radiotherapy at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years., Interpretation: Axillary lymph node dissection and axillary radiotherapy after a positive sentinel node provide excellent and comparable axillary control for patients with T1-2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy. Axillary radiotherapy results in significantly less morbidity., Funding: EORTC Charitable Trust., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This trial evaluated the efficacy of maintenance erlotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, after first-line chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had high-risk International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I or stage II to IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer and were not selected for EGFR expression. All patients underwent first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) and showed no signs of progression at the end of CT. Patients were randomly assigned to maintenance erlotinib 150 mg orally daily for 2 years or to observation. EGFR immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and mutation analyses were performed in 318 patients., Results: Between October 2005 and February 2008, 835 patients were randomly assigned (median follow-up, 51 months). Twenty-six percent of the patients stopped erlotinib as a result of adverse effects (of these, 67% were due to rash). For erlotinib and observation, respectively, the median progression-free survival was 12.7 and 12.4 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.23), and the median overall survival was 50.8 and 59.1 months (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.20 months), respectively. No subgroup could be identified with improved effect of erlotinib, based on IHC or FISH for EGFR, or mutations in genes related to the EGFR pathway, or on rash during erlotinib therapy. However, patients with a positive FISH EGFR score had a worse overall survival (46.1 months) than those with a negative score (67.0 months; HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.40; P = .044). Global health/quality-of-life scores showed a significant difference during the first year (P = .0102) in favor of the observation arm., Conclusion: Maintenance erlotinib after first-line treatment in ovarian cancer did not improve progression-free or overall 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.

Background: Serum CA125 concentration often rises several months before clinical or symptomatic relapse in women with ovarian cancer. In the MRC OV05/EORTC 55955 collaborative trial, we aimed to establish the benefits of early treatment on the basis of increased CA125 concentrations compared with delayed treatment on the basis of clinical recurrence., Methods: Women with ovarian cancer in complete remission after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and a normal CA125 concentration were registered for this randomised controlled trial. Clinical examination and CA125 measurement were done every 3 months. Patients and investigators were masked to CA125 results, which were monitored by coordinating centres. If CA125 concentration exceeded twice the upper limit of normal, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to early or delayed chemotherapy. Patients and clinical sites were informed of allocation to early treatment, and treatment was started as soon as possible within 28 days of the increased CA125 measurement. Patients assigned to delayed treatment continued masked CA125 measurements, with treatment commencing at clinical or symptomatic relapse. All patients were treated according to standard local practice. The primary outcome was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, ISRCTN87786644., Findings: 1442 patients were registered for the trial, of whom 529 were randomly assigned to treatment groups and were included in our analysis (265 early, 264 delayed). With a median follow-up of 56·9 months (IQR 37·4-81·8) from randomisation and 370 deaths (186 early, 184 delayed), there was no evidence of a difference in overall survival between early and delayed treatment (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·80-1·20, p=0·85). Median survival from randomisation was 25·7 months (95% CI 23·0-27·9) for patients on early treatment and 27·1 months (22·8-30·9) for those on delayed treatment., Interpretation: Our findings showed no evidence of a survival benefit with early treatment of relapse on the basis of a raised CA125 concentration alone, and therefore the value of routine measurement of CA125 in the follow-up of patients with ovarian cancer who attain a complete response after first-line treatment is not proven., Funding: UK Medical Research Council and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early ovarian cancer patients are often incompletely staged during initial surgery.(1-3) This omission can have serious adverse consequences for the prognosis of patients as the completeness of surgical staging has been identified as an independent prognostic parameter for survival.(4,5) The reasons for the problem of inadequate staging of early ovarian cancer are largely unknown. We have analysed the data of a large randomised trial in early ovarian cancer in which detailed information of the surgical staging procedure was monitored.(5), Methods: Data of the EORTC Adjuvant ChemoTherapy In Ovarian Neoplasm (ACTION) Trial were used in which 448 early ovarian cancer patients were randomised between postoperative chemotherapy in one arm and observation following surgery in the other. In this trial strict criteria for surgical staging were advised but optimal, complete staging was performed in only 1/3 of patients. Staging characteristics of the incompletely staged patients were analysed and factors that could explain the failure to perform a complete staging were studied., Results: Sampling of para-aortic nodes was omitted in 78% of the incompletely staged patients, while 52% of these patients had no pelvic lymph node dissection. Taking blind biopsies from different peritoneal sites was not performed in more than 1/3 of the incompletely staged group. Omission of the staging steps ranged from 3% (infracolic omentectomy) to 55% (biopsy of the right hemi-diaphragm). A significant difference (p=0.04) between the fraction of completely staged patients was found when comparing institutes who entered less than 5 patients (21%) versus those who included more than 20 patients (37%) in the trial., Conclusions: Even in a randomised trial in which comprehensive surgical staging was strongly advised in the study protocol the majority of patients (66%) were incompletely staged. Factors relating to a lack of surgical skills attributed most to the number of incompletely staged patients, but insufficient knowledge of the tumour behaviour and routes of spread of ovarian cancer also contributed substantially to this problem. Multicentre trials recruiting patients from many institutes with small volume contribution to the study, run the risk of inadequate adherence to the study protocol., (Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although individual studies show that baseline health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a prognostic factor for survival, contradictory results have been published and very few meta-analyses have confirmed the finding. We examined whether HRQOL scores are associated with survival when pooled across a large sample of patients with different disease sites., Methods: We selected 30 randomised controlled trials from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) started between 1986 and 2004, which included survival data for 10 108 patients with 11 different cancer sites. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had completed a baseline HRQOL assessment with the EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30; n=7417). Sociodemographic variables were age (60 years) and sex (men vs women), and clinical variables were WHO performance status (0-1 vs 2-3), distant metastases (no vs yes), and cancer site. We assessed prognostic significance of sociodemographic and clinical variables and the 15 QLQ-C30 scales with Cox proportional hazard models., Findings: In the stratified multivariate model including sociodemographic, clinical, and HRQOL data, the HRQOL parameters of physical functioning (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.92-0.96; p<0.0001), pain (1.04, 1.02-1.06; p<0.0001), and appetite loss (1.05, 1.03-1.06; p<0.0001) provided significant prognostic information in addition to the parameters age (1.17, 1.06-1.28; p=0.0001), sex (0.74, 0.67-0.82; p<0.0001), and distant metastases (1.70, 1.49-1.93; p<0.0001), but not for WHO performance status (1.07, 0.97-1.19; p=0.11). Consideration of the three HRQOL parameters and sociodemographic and clinical data increased the predictive accuracy of prognosis of overall survival by 6% relative to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics alone (C statistic for concordance between predicted and observed overall survival 0.68 for sociodemographic and clinical variables, and 0.72 for sociodemographic, clinical, and HRQOL variables)., Interpretation: The results suggest that HRQOL scales provide prognostic information in addition to that of sociodemographic and clinical measures. This study shows that HRQOL data can help to predict survival in patients with cancer., Funding: Merck KGaA, EORTC Charitable Trust, and National Cancer Institute.

Background: The aim of this prognostic factor analysis was to investigate if a patient's self-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) provided independent prognostic information for survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients., Patients and Methods: Pretreatment HRQOL was measured in 391 advanced NSCLC patients using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC Lung Cancer module (QLQ-LC13). The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for both univariate and multivariate analyses of survival. In addition, a bootstrap validation technique was used to assess the stability of the outcomes., Results: The final multivariate Cox regression model retained four parameters as independent prognostic factors for survival: male gender with a hazard ratio (HR) = 1.32 (95% CI 1.03-1.69; P = 0.03); performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) with HR = 1.63 (95% CI 1.04-2.54; P = 0.032); patient's self-reported score of pain with HR= 1.11 (95% CI 1.07-1.16; P < 0.001) and dysphagia with HR = 1.12 (95% CI 1.04-1.21; P = 0.003). A 10-point shift worse in the scale measuring pain and dysphagia translated into an 11% and 12% increased in the likelihood of death respectively. A risk group categorization was also developed., Conclusion: The results suggest that patients' self-reported HRQOL provide independent prognostic information for survival. This finding supports the collection of such data in routine clinical practice.

First-line intravenous chemotherapy (CT) following debulking surgery is associated with prolonged survival, in particular in patients who achieve a pathological complete remission (pCR) at second-look surgery but in whom a high rate of relapses still occurs. Between 1988 and 1997, 153 patients in pCR following platinum-based intravenous CT were randomized between four courses of intraperitoneal cisplatin (P) (90 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) or observation. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, while progression-free survival (PFS) was a secondary endpoint. This intent-to-treat analysis includes 16 patients who were not eligible and 17 patients who had protocol violations. The two groups were well balanced in terms of age (median = 55 years), performance status (78% P.S. O), FIGO stage (96% stage III), histology (serous in 66%), grade (2 or 3 in 80%), and residuum before intravenous CT (>1 cm in 40%). Intraperitoneal CT was delivered mainly through intraperitoneal catheters (Port-a-Cath 61% and Tenckhoff 25%). Side effects of intraperitoneal cisplatin included vomiting [> or =grade 2 (82%)], rise in serum creatinine [> or =grade 2 (14%)], abdominal pain [grade 1-2 (38%)], and neurotoxicity [grade 2-3 (15%)]. After a median follow-up of 8 years, 80 patients (52%) have progressed with no difference in the pattern of relapse between the two groups and 75 patients (49%) have died; the respective hazard ratios for PFS and OS with 95% CI are 0.89 (0.59-1.33) and 0.82 (0.52-1.29). These results are suggestive of a treatment benefit but do not support a change in clinical practice. Other randomized clinical trials of intraperitoneal CT are reviewed and briefly discussed.

Background: All randomized trials of adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage ovarian cancer have lacked the statistical power to show a difference in the effect on survival between adjuvant chemotherapy and no adjuvant chemotherapy. They have also not taken into account the adequacy of surgical staging. We performed a prospective unblinded, randomized phase III trial to test the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early-stage ovarian cancer, with emphasis on the extent of surgical staging., Methods: Between November 1990 and January 2000, 448 patients from 40 centers in nine European countries were randomly assigned to either adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 224) or observation (n = 224) following surgery. Endpoints were overall survival and recurrence-free survival, and the analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to perform time-to-event analysis, and the log-rank test was used to compare differences between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided., Results: After a median follow-up of 5.5 years, the difference in overall survival between the two trial arms was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.44 to 1.08; P =.10). Recurrence-free survival, however, was statistically significantly improved in the adjuvant chemotherapy arm (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.43 to 0.92; P =.02). Approximately one-third of patients (n = 151) had been optimally staged and two-thirds (n = 297) had not. Among patients in the observation arm, optimal staging was associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall and recurrence-free survival (HR = 2.31 [95% CI = 1.08 to 4.96]; P =.03 and HR = 1.82 [95% CI = 1.02 to 3.24] P =.04, respectively). No such association was observed in the chemotherapy arm. In the non-optimally staged patients, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with statistically significant improvements in overall and recurrence-free survival (HR = 1.75 [95% CI = 1.04 to 2.95]; P =.03 and HR = 1.78 [95% CI = 1.15 to 2.77]; P =.009, respectively). In the optimally staged patients, no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was seen., Conclusion: Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with statistically significantly improved recurrence-free survival in patients with early-stage ovarian cancer. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy appeared to be limited to patients with non-optimal staging, i.e., patients with more risk of unappreciated residual disease.