General population normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire based on 15,386 persons across 13 European countries, Canada and the Unites States

OBJECTIVE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire is one of the most widely used cancer-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires worldwide. General population norm data can facilitate the interpretation of QLQ-C30 data obtained from cancer patients. This study aimed at systematically collecting norm data from the general population to develop European QLQ-C30 norm scores and to generate comparable norm data for individual countries in Europe and North America. METHODS: We collected QLQ-C30 data from the general population across 11 European Union (EU) countries, Russia, Turkey, Canada and United States (n \u3e /= 1000/country). Representative samples were stratified by sex and age groups (18-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and \u3e /= 70 years). After applying weights based on the United Nations population distribution statistics, we calculated QLQ-C30 domain scores to generate a \u27European QLQ-C30 Norm\u27 based on the EU countries. Further, we calculated QLQ-C30 norm scores for all 15 individual countries. RESULTS: A total of 15,386 respondents completed the online survey. For the EU sample, most QLQ-C30 domains showed differences by sex/age, with men scoring somewhat better health than women, while age effects varied across domains. Substantially larger differences were seen in inter-country comparisons, with Austrian and Dutch respondents reporting consistently better health compared with British and Polish respondents. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to systematically collect EORTC QLQ-C30 general population norm data across Europe and North America applying a consistent data collection method across 15 countries. These new norm data facilitate valid intra-country as well as inter-country comparisons and QLQ-C30 score interpretation

First-line treatment with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal cancer: a phase II study

This phase II study assessed the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin and capecitabine in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer. Fifty-one eligible patients received oxaliplatin 130 mg m−2 intravenously on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg m−2 orally twice daily on days 1 to 14 in a 21-day treatment cycle as first-line treatment for advanced oesophageal cancer. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in one patient and anaemia in another patient. No grade 4 haematological toxicities were observed. Grade 4 non-haematological toxicity (lethargy) occurred in one patient (2%). Grade 3 non-haematological toxicity was seen in 14 (27%) patients (vomiting and polyneuropathy (8%); nausea (6%); lethargy and hand–foot syndrome (4%); and anorexia, diarrhoea, and hyperbilirubinaemia (each in one patient)). In 22% of the patients, toxicity was the reason for stopping the treatment. The overall response rate was 39%. The median overall survival was 8 months; the 1-year survival rate was 26%. In the quality of life (QoL) analysis, the emotional well-being improved during treatment, but the physical functioning scores declined. The fatigue score on the symptom scales increased. Overall, the global QoL score did not change during treatment. In conclusion, the activity of oxaliplatin and capecitabine is comparable with other chemotherapy regimens in advanced oesophageal cancer with a low frequency of grade 3/4 toxicity. Because this treatment can be given on an outpatient basis, it is probably less toxic than cisplatin-based therapy and preserves QoL during treatment, it is a viable treatment option in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer

Quality of life and illness perception in working and sick-listed chronic RSI patients

OBJECTIVE: To study differences between working and sick-listed chronic repetitive strain injury (RSI) patients in the Netherlands with respect to indices of quality of life and illness perception. METHODS: In a cross-sectional design, one questionnaire was sent to all 3,250 members of the national RSI patient association. For descriptive purposes, demographics, work status and complaint-related variables such as severity, type, duration, and extent of complaints were asked for. Indices of quality of life were assessed through seven SF-36 subscales (physical (role) functioning, emotional role functioning, social functioning, pain, mental health and vitality). A work-ability estimate and VAS scales were used to assess complaint-related decrease in quality of life. Illness perception was assessed through the brief illness perception questionnaire (IPQ-B). Working patients and sick-listed patients were identified. Tests between the two independent groups were performed and P-values < 0.01 were considered significant. RESULTS: Data from 1,121 questionnaires were used. Two-thirds of the respondents worked and one-third were sick-listed. Average duration of complaints was over 5 years in both groups. The sick-listed patients reported significantly more severe and extensive complaints than did the working patients. In addition, sick-listed patients reported significantly poorer mental health, physical (role) functioning, emotional role functioning, pain, vitality, and work-ability. With respect to illness perception, both groups showed the same concerns about their complaints, but sick-listed patients had significantly more distorted perceptions in their emotional response, identity, treatment control, personal control, timeline, and life consequences. Complaint-related decrease in quality of life was 31% in the working patients and 49% in the sick-listed patients. CONCLUSION: The study found a greater number and severe complaints among sick-listed chronic RSI patients and a considerably decreased quality of life because of their complaints. These findings may allow for a better treatment focus in the futur

Generic and disease-specific health related quality of life in non-cirrhotic, cirrhotic and transplanted liver patients: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Studies on Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) of chronic liver patients were performed in clinical populations. These studies included various disease stages but small variations in aetiology and no transplanted patients. We performed a large HRQoL study in non-cirrhotic, cirrhotic and transplanted liver patients with sufficient variety in aetiology. We compared the generic HRQoL and fatigue between liver patients and healthy controls and compared the disease-specific and generic HRQoL and fatigue between non-cirrhotic, cirrhotic and transplanted liver patients, corrected for aetiology. METHODS: Members of the Dutch liver patient association received the Short Form-36, the Liver Disease Symptom Index and the Multidimensional Fatigue Index-20. Based on reported clinical characteristics we classified respondents (n = 1175) as non-cirrhotic, compensated cirrhotic, decompensated cirrhotic or transplants. We used linear, ordinal and logistic regression to compare the HRQoL between groups. RESULTS: All liver patients showed a significantly worse generic HRQoL and fatigue than healthy controls. Decompensated cirrhotic patients showed a significantly worse disease-specific and generic HRQoL and fatigue than non-cirrhotic patients, while HRQoL differences between non-cirrhotic and compensated cirrhotic patients were predominantly insignificant. Transplanted patients showed a better generic HRQoL, less fatigue and lower probabilities of severe symptoms than non-cirrhotic patients, but almost equal probabilities of symptom hindrance. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL in chronic liver patients depends on disease stage and transplant history. Non-cirrhotic and compensated cirrhotic patients have a similar HRQoL. Decompensated patients show the worst HRQoL, while transplanted patients show a significantly better HRQoL than cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients

Financial considerations in the conduct of multi-centre randomised controlled trials: evidence from a qualitative study.

National Coordinating Centre for Research Methodology; Medical Research Council, UK Department of Health; Chief Scientist OfficeNot peer reviewedPublisher PD

Evaluation of safety and efficacy of gefitinib ('iressa', zd1839) as monotherapy in a series of Chinese patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: experience from a compassionate-use programme

BACKGROUND: The gefitinib compassionate-use programme has enabled >39,000 patients worldwide to receive gefitinib ('Iressa', ZD1839) treatment. This paper reports the outcome of gefitinib treatment in Chinese patients who enrolled into the 'Iressa' Expanded Access Programme (EAP) at the Peking Union Medical College Hospital. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had progressed after prior systemic chemotherapy were eligible to receive oral gefitinib 250 mg/day as part of the EAP. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. The impact of treatment on disease-related symptoms and quality of life (QoL) was evaluated with the Chinese versions of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13). RESULTS: Gefitinib was well tolerated. Adverse events (AEs) were generally mild (grade1 and 2) and reversible. The most frequent AEs were acneform rash and diarrhoea. Only one patient withdrew from the study due to a drug-related AE. The objective tumour response rate was 35.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.6–52.3); median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI, 1.6 to 9.4); median overall survival was 11.5 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 17.3). The QoL response rates for five functioning scales and global QoL varied from 56–88%. The main symptom response rates varied from 44–84%. QoL and symptom response were correlated with objective tumour response. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib demonstrated safety and efficacy as monotherapy in this series of Chinese patients with advanced NSCLC and was also associated with remarkable symptom relief and improvement in QoL. Although clinical trials are needed to confirm these positive findings, the data suggest that treatment with gefitinib may be beneficial for some Chinese patients who do not respond to chemotherapy and have poor prognosis

Assessing the Factorial Validity of the Attitudes and Belief Scale 2-Abbreviated Version: A Call for the Development a Gold Standard Method of Measuring Rational and Irrational Beliefs

Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) does not possess a measure of rational and irrational beliefs that meets internationally recognised standards for acceptable psychometric properties. Without such a measure the theory/practice of REBT cannot be rigorously evaluated, thus undermining its scientific veracity. The current study investigates the validity and reliability of a recently developed measure of rational and irrational beliefs: the Attitudes and Belief Scale 2-Abbreviated Version (ABS-2-AV). University students from three countries completed the ABS-2-AV (N = 397). An alternative models framework using confirmatory factor analysis indicated that a theoretically consistent eight-factor model of the ABS-2-AV provided the best fit of the data. A number of post-hoc modifications were required in order to achieve acceptable model fit results, and these modifications revealed important methodological limitations with the ABS-2-AV. Results indicated that the validity of the ABS-2-AV was undermined due to items measuring both the psychological process of interest (rational and irrational beliefs) and the context in which these beliefs processes are presented. This is a serious methodological limitation of the ABS-2 and all questionnaires derived from it, including the ABS-2-AV. This methodological limitation resulted in the ABS-2-AV possessing poor internal reliability. These limitations are discussed in relation to the broader REBT literature and the impact such problems have on research and practice. A call is made for REBT researchers to come together to develop a “gold standard” method of assessing rational and irrational beliefs that meets international standard for psychometric excellence

Six weeks of home enteral nutrition versus standard care after esophagectomy or total gastrectomy for cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Each year approximately 3000 patients in the United Kingdom undergo surgery for esophagogastric cancer. Jejunostomy feeding tubes, placed at the time of surgery for early postoperative nutrition, have been shown to have a positive impact on clinical outcomes in the short term. Whether feeding out of hospital is of benefit is unknown. Local experience has identified that between 15 and 20% of patients required ‘rescue’ jejunostomy feeding for nutritional problems and weight loss while at home. This weight loss and poor nutrition may contribute to the detrimental effect on the overall quality of life (QoL) reported in these patients. Methods/Design: This randomized pilot and feasibility study will provide preliminary information on the routine use of jejunostomy feeding after hospital discharge in terms of clinical benefits and QoL. Sixty participants undergoing esophagectomy or total gastrectomy will be randomized to receive either a planned program of six weeks of home jejunostomy feeding after discharge from hospital (intervention) or treatment-as-usual (control). The intention of this study is to inform a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome measures will be recruitment and retention rates at six weeks and six months. Secondary outcome measures will include disease specific and general QoL measures, nutritional parameters, total and oral nutritional intake, hospital readmission rates, and estimates of healthcare costs. Up to 20 participants will also be enrolled in a qualitative sub-study that will explore participants’ and carers’ experiences of home tube feeding. The results will be disseminated by presentation at surgical, gastroenterological and dietetic meetings and publication in appropriate peer review journals. A patient-friendly lay summary will be made available on the University of Leicester and the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust websites. The study has full ethical and institutional approval and started recruitment in July 2012. Trial registration: UKClinical Research Network ID #12447 (Main study); UKCRN ID#13361 (Qualitative sub study); ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01870817 (First registered 28 May 2013