Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes in oncologY (EPIPHANY): A systematic review protocol

Introduction While there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of published studies in this research area, in order to identify methodological and statistical issues deserving special attention and to also possibly provide evidence-based recommendations. Methods and analysis An electronic search strategy will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing or validating a prognostic model which includes PROs as predictors. Two reviewers will independently be involved in data collection using a predefined and standardised data extraction form including information related to study characteristics, PROs measures used and multivariable prognostic models. Studies selection will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with data extraction form using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariable models. Methodological quality assessment will also be performed and will be based on prespecified domains of the CHARMS checklist. As a substantial heterogeneity of included studies is expected, a narrative evidence synthesis will also be provided. Ethics and dissemination Given that this systematic review will use only published data, ethical permissions will not be required. Findings from this review will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at major international conferences. We anticipate that this review will contribute to identify key areas of improvement for conducting and reporting prognostic factor analyses with PROs in oncology and will lay the groundwork for developing future evidence-based recommendations in this area of research. Prospero registration number CRD42018099160

QoLR: An R Package for the Longitudinal Analysis of Health-Related Quality of Life in Oncology

Health-related quality of life has become increasingly important in clinical trials over the past two decades. The R package QoLR is a recently developed package for the longitudinal analysis of health-related quality of life in oncology. This package contains the scoring of most of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaires and some programs to analyze the time to a health-related quality of life score deterioration as a modality of longitudinal analysis in oncology

A longitudinal analysis of patient satisfaction with care and quality of life in ambulatory oncology based on the OUT-PATSAT35 questionnaire

BACKGROUND: In the oncology setting, there has been increasing interest in evaluating treatment outcomes in terms of quality of life and patient satisfaction. The aim of our study was to investigate the determinants of patient satisfaction, especially the relationship between quality of life and satisfaction with care and their changes over time, in curative treatment of cancer outpatients. METHODS: Patients undergoing ambulatory chemotherapy or radiotherapy in two centers in France were invited to complete the OUT-PATSAT35, at the beginning of treatment, at the end of treatment, and three months after treatment. This questionnaire evaluates patients’ perception of doctors and nurses, as well as other aspects of care organization and services. Additionally, for each patient, socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, and self-reported quality of life data (EORTC QLQ-C30) were collected. RESULTS: Of the 691 patients initially included, 561 answered the assessment at all three time points. By cross-sectional analysis, at the end of the treatment, patients who experienced a deterioration of their global health reported less satisfaction on most scales (p ≤ 0.001). Three months after treatment, the same patients had lower satisfaction scores only in the evaluation of doctors (p ≤ 0.002). Furthermore, longitudinal analysis showed a significant relationship between a deterioration in global health and a decrease in satisfaction with their doctor and, conversely, between an improvement in global health and an increase in satisfaction on the overall satisfaction scale. Global health at baseline was largely and significantly associated with all satisfaction scores measured at the following assessment time points (p < 0.0001). Younger age (<55 years), radiotherapy (versus chemotherapy) and head and neck cancer (versus other localizations) were clinical factors significantly associated with less satisfaction on most scales evaluating doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treatment self-evaluated global health was found to be the major determinant of patient satisfaction with care. The subsequent deterioration of global health, during and after treatment, emphasized the decrease in satisfaction scores, mainly in the evaluation of doctors. Early initiatives aimed at improving the delivery of care in patients with poor health status should lead to improved perception of the quality of care received

The relationship between traits optimism and anxiety and health-related quality of life in patients hospitalized for chronic diseases: data from the SATISQOL study.

International audienceBACKGROUND: The impact of psychological factors is often taken into account in the evaluation of quality of life. However, the effect of optimism and trait anxiety remains controversial and they are rarely studied simultaneously. We aimed to study the effect of this factor on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients after a hospitalization in relation with their chronic disease. METHODS: Using cross-sectional data from the SATISQOL cohort, we conducted a multicentric study, including patients hospitalized for an intervention in connection with their chronic disease. Six months after hospitalization, patients completed a generic HRQOL questionnaire (SF-36), and the STAI and LOT-R questionnaires to evaluate optimism and trait anxiety. We studied the effect of each trait on HRQOL separately, and simultaneously, taking account of their interaction in 3 models, using an ANOVA. RESULTS: In this study, 1529 patients were included in three participating hospitals and there existed wide diversity in the chronic diseases in our population. The HRQOL score increased for all dimensions of SF36 between 15,8 and 44,5 when the level of anxiety decreased (p < 0.0001) for the model 1, assessing the effect of anxiety on HRQOL and increased for all dimensions of SF36 between 3.1 and 12.7 with increasing level of optimism (< 0.0001) in the model 2 assessing the effect of optimism on HRQOL. In the model 3, assessing the effect of both anxiety and optimism on HRQOL, and their interaction, the HRQOL score for all dimensions of the SF36 increased when the level of anxiety decreased (p < 0.0001). It increased with increasing level of optimism (p < 0.006) in the model for all dimensions of SF36 except the Role Physical dimension. In this model, interaction between anxiety and optimism was significant for the Social Functioning dimension (p = 0.0021). CONCLUSIONS: Optimism and trait anxiety appeared to be significantly correlated with HRQOL. Furthermore, an interaction existed between the trait anxiety and optimism for some dimensions of SF36. Contrary to optimism, it seems essential to evaluate trait anxiety in future studies about HRQOL, since it could represent a confounding factor

Item response theory and factor analysis as a mean to characterize occurrence of response shift in a longitudinal quality of life study in breast cancer patients.

International audienceBACKGROUND: The occurrence of response shift (RS) in longitudinal health-related quality of life (HRQoL) studies, reflecting patient adaptation to disease, has already been demonstrated. Several methods have been developed to detect the three different types of response shift (RS), i.e. recalibration RS, 2) reprioritization RS, and 3) reconceptualization RS. We investigated two complementary methods that characterize the occurrence of RS: factor analysis, comprising Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA), and a method of Item Response Theory (IRT). METHODS: Breast cancer patients (n = 381) completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 questionnaires at baseline, immediately following surgery, and three and six months after surgery, according to the "then-test/post-test" design. Recalibration was explored using MCA and a model of IRT, called the Linear Logistic Model with Relaxed Assumptions (LLRA) using the then-test method. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to explore reconceptualization and reprioritization. RESULTS: MCA highlighted the main profiles of recalibration: patients with high HRQoL level report a slightly worse HRQoL level retrospectively and vice versa. The LLRA model indicated a downward or upward recalibration for each dimension. At six months, the recalibration effect was statistically significant for 11/22 dimensions of the QLQ-C30 and BR23 according to the LLRA model (p ≤ 0.001). Regarding the QLQ-C30, PCA indicated a reprioritization of symptom scales and reconceptualization via an increased correlation between functional scales. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the usefulness of these analyses in characterizing the occurrence of RS. MCA and IRT model had convergent results with then-test method to characterize recalibration component of RS. PCA is an indirect method in investigating the reprioritization and reconceptualization components of RS

Factors Associated with Health-Related Quality of Life in Women with Breast Cancer in the Middle East: A Systematic Review

Objectives: The aim of the present systematic review was to identify the factors that potentially influence health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in women with breast cancer (BC) in the Middle East. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, and Ebscohost databases was conducted to identify all relevant articles published in peer-reviewed journals up to April 2018. The keywords were &ldquo;Health related quality of life&rdquo;, &ldquo;Breast Cancer&rdquo;, and &ldquo;Middle East countries&rdquo;. The Newcastle&ndash;Ottawa (NOS) scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Due to the methodological heterogeneity of the identified studies, no statistical pooling of the individual effect estimates was carried out; instead, the results were summarized descriptively. Results: A total of 5668 articles were screened and 33 studies were retained. The vast majority of these studies were cross-sectional and only two were longitudinal prospective studies. Concerning the methodological quality, only 39% were of high quality. Our comprehensive literature review identified several modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors associated with HRQoL, including sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment-related factors as well as behavioral and psychosocial factors. Conclusion: This study has many implications for clinical practice and may provide a framework for establishing policy interventions to improve HRQoL among women with BC. Healthcare systems in the Middle East are encouraged to develop interventional programs targeting modifiable factors, particularly socio-demographic, behavioral, and psychosocial factors

Psychometric validation of the French version of the Supportive Care Needs Survey for Partners and Caregivers of cancer patients

International audienceThe objective of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the French version of the Supportive Care Needs Survey for Partners and Caregivers (SCNS-P&C-F). The SCNS-P&C-F, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the CareGiver Oncology Quality of Life questionnaire (CarGOQoL) were completed by 327 caregivers at the baseline. The SCNS-P&C-F was completed a second time by 121 participants within 30 days. Four factors were retained with a good explanation of variance (82.65%) and acceptable internal consistencies (α: 0.70 to 0.94): 1) Health Care Service and Information Needs, 2) Emotional and Psychological Needs, 3) Work and Social Security Needs and 4) Communication and Family Support Needs. Overall, convergent and divergent validities were confirmed. The caregiver's gender, age, professional status and level of anxiety and depression, as well as the type of relationship with the patient and cancer, showed an effect on some caregivers’ unmet supportive care needs. Lastly, the test–retest reliability was acceptable (> 0.70), except for the communication and family support dimension. The scale is appropriate for clinical and research use (e.g. good reliability and validity)

Health-related quality of life as an endpoint in oncology phase I trials: a systematic review

Abstract Background Phase I trials aim to identify the recommended dose for further development. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could be a complement to the usual National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) scale to detect adverse events and define the doses. The objective of this study is to review the phase I in oncology which used HRQoL as endpoint. Methods A search in PubMed database identified phase I trials in oncology with HRQoL as endpoint, published between January 2012 to May 2016. Hematological and pediatric phase I were excluded. Results A total of 1333 phase I were identified and 15 trials were identified with HRQoL as endpoint (1.1%). The European Organisation for Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was the most frequently used instrument: 5 studies (33.3%). The targeted dimensions of HRQoL and the minimal clinically important difference were prespecified in 1 study (6.7%) and 2 studies (13.3%), respectively. Twelve studies (80%) described the statistical approach to analyze HRQoL data. Eight studies used the mean change from baseline (60%) to analyse longitudinal HRQoL data, two the mean score at certain times (13.3%), one the linear mixed model for repeated measures (6.7%), one the time to HRQoL score deterioration (6.7%), one percentage of patient-reported symptoms (6.7%). None of the studies used HRQoL to determine the recommended doses. Conclusion Few phase I studies used HRQoL as endpoint and among studies with HRQoL as endpoint, the methodology of HRQoL measurement and statistical analysis was heterogeneous. HRQoL. endpoint not used for assessing the recommended phase II doses