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).)

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.)

This report summarizes the presentations and discussion in the first Japan Clinical Oncology Group-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome workshop funded by the National Cancer Center Hospital that was held on Saturday, 1 September 2018 in Tokyo, Japan. The infrastructure and understanding regarding the Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome assessment of cancer patients in Japan is still immature, in spite of the increased demand for oncological Patient-Reported Outcome research felt not only by researchers but also by patients or other stakeholders of cancer drug development. The workshop aimed to share each perspective, common issues to be considered and future perspectives regarding the strong alliance between the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group and the Japan Clinical Oncology Group for Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome research as well as explore the possibility of conducting collaborative research. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer is a leading international cancer clinical trials organization, and its Quality of Life Group is a global leader in the implementation of Quality of Life research in cancer patients. The three invited speakers from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group presented their perspective, latest methodology and ongoing projects. The three speakers from the Japan Clinical Oncology Group presented their current status, experience and some issues regarding data management or interpretation of the Patient-Reported Outcome data. The two patient advocates also shared their expectations in terms of advances in cancer research based on the Patient-Reported Outcome assessment. As the next steps after this workshop, the Japan Clinical Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer have decided to cooperate more closely to facilitate Patient-Reported Outcome research in both the groups, and the Japan Clinical Oncology Group has approved the establishment of a new committee for Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome research in Japan., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Postmastectomy radiotherapy in patients with four or more positive axillary nodes reduces breast cancer mortality, but its role in patients with one to three involved nodes is controversial. We assessed the effects of postmastectomy radiotherapy on quality of life (QOL) in women with intermediate-risk breast cancer., Methods: SUPREMO is an open-label, international, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial. Women aged 18 years or older with intermediate-risk breast cancer (defined as pT1-2N1; pT3N0; or pT2N0 if also grade III or with lymphovascular invasion) who had undergone mastectomy and, if node positive, axillary surgery, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chest wall radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions or a radiobiologically equivalent dose of 45 Gy in 20 fractions or 40 Gy in 15 fractions) or no radiotherapy. Randomisation was done with permuted blocks of varying block length, and stratified by centre, without masking of patients or investigators. The primary endpoint is 10-year overall survival. Here, we present 2-year results of QOL (a prespecified secondary endpoint). The QOL substudy, open to all UK patients, consists of questionnaires (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23, Body Image Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS], and EQ-5D-3L) completed before randomisation, and at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years. The prespecified primary outcomes within this QOL substudy were global QOL, fatigue, physical function, chest wall symptoms, shoulder and arm symptoms, body image, and anxiety and depression. Data were analysed by intention to treat, using repeated mixed-effects methods. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN61145589., Findings: Between Aug 4, 2006, and April 29, 2013, 1688 patients were enrolled internationally and randomly assigned to receive chest wall radiotherapy (n=853) or not (n=835). 989 (79%) of 1258 patients from 111 UK centres consented to participate in the QOL substudy (487 in the radiotherapy group and 502 in the no radiotherapy group), of whom 947 (96%) returned the baseline questionnaires and were included in the analysis (radiotherapy, n=471; no radiotherapy, n=476). At up to 2 years, chest wall symptoms were worse in the radiotherapy group than in the no radiotherapy group (mean score 14·1 [SD 15·8] in the radiotherapy group vs 11·6 [14·6] in the no radiotherapy group; effect estimate 2·17, 95% CI 0·40-3·94; p=0·016); however, there was an improvement in both groups between years 1 and 2 (visit effect -1·34, 95% CI -2·36 to -0·31; p=0·010). No differences were seen between treatment groups in arm and shoulder symptoms, body image, fatigue, overall QOL, physical function, or anxiety or depression scores., Interpretation: Postmastectomy radiotherapy led to more local (chest wall) symptoms up to 2 years postrandomisation compared with no radiotherapy, but the difference between groups was small. These data will inform shared decision making while we await survival (trial primary endpoint) results., Funding: Medical Research Council, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Cancer Australia, Dutch Cancer Society, Trustees of Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Context: Clinical studies have over the past decade paid increasing attention to health-related quality of life data. Multiple questionnaires are often administered resulting in overlapping questions increasing patient burden., Objectives: To examine the correlations between the commonly used European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™) on six coinciding items to determine consistency between overlapping items., Methods: Data were prospectively collected from patients attending two cancer centers in the U.K. Participants completed the QLQ-C30 version 3.0 every four weeks and the PRO-CTCAE at least once a week for 12 weeks. Data were collected via the Internet or an interactive voice response. For the six coinciding items in QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE: pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, and fatigue, comparisons were made between all possible related responses by aligning the four responses in the QLQ-C30 with two condensed versions of the five responses in the PRO-CTCAE. Consistency and reliability was determined with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach's α., Results: About 247 patients completed 785 QLQ-C30 and 2501 PRO-CTCAE questionnaires. Moderate (ICC >0.5) to good (ICC >0.75) reliability and Cronbach's α >0.7 were found on all coinciding questions except for questions concerning the severity of nausea and vomiting as a result of relatively few patients responding to these questions. Items on frequency showed better correlations than the severity and interference items., Conclusion: The good reliability and consistency between the QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE support future attempts to minimize patient burden by shortening health-related quality of life questionnaires., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Background: To optimise measurement precision, relevance to patients and flexibility, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should ideally be adapted to the individual patient/study while retaining direct comparability of scores across patients/studies. This is achievable using item banks and computerised adaptive tests (CATs). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) is one of the most widely used PROMs in cancer research and clinical practice. Here we provide an overview of the research program to develop CAT versions of the QLQ-C30's 14 functional and symptom domains., Methods: The EORTC Quality of Life Group's strategy for developing CAT item banks consists of: literature search to identify potential candidate items; formulation of new items compatible with the QLQ-C30 item style; expert evaluations and patient interviews; field-testing and psychometric analyses, including factor analysis, item response theory calibration and simulation of measurement properties. In addition, software for setting up, running and scoring CAT has been developed., Results: Across eight rounds of data collections, 9782 patients were recruited from 12 countries for the field-testing. The four phases of development resulted in a total of 260 unique items across the 14 domains. Each item bank consists of 7-34 items. Psychometric evaluations indicated higher measurement precision and increased statistical power of the CAT measures compared to the QLQ-C30 scales. Using CAT, sample size requirements may be reduced by approximately 20-35% on average without loss of power., Conclusions: The EORTC CAT Core represents a more precise, powerful and flexible measurement system than the QLQ-C30. It is currently being validated in a large independent, international sample of cancer patients., (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.)

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., (Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Aim: The aim of this study was to develop a bone metastases module to supplement the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) or the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL for patients with bone metastases., Methods: Phases 1-2 of module development were conducted in Canada, Australia and Germany according to EORTC QOL group guidelines. Phase 3 was conducted in nine countries in seven languages., Results: Sixty-one health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues were generated from health care professionals (n=152) and patients (n=413). This resulted in a 22-item provisional module. Further testing in 170 patients from nine countries resulted in the EORTC QLQ-BM22 module, containing 22 items, conceptualised into both symptom scales, with five painful sites and three pain characteristics, and also functional scales, with eight functional interference and six psychosocial aspects., Conclusion: This study provides a provisional comprehensive HRQOL measurement tool for future trials, which will continue to undergo further validation.

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.