Does change in health-related quality of life score predict survival? Analysis of EORTC 08975 lung cancer trial

Background:Little is known about whether changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores from baseline during treatment also predict survival, which we aim to investigate in this study.Methods:We analysed data from 391 advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients enrolled in the EORTC 08975 study, which compared palliative chemotherapy regimens. HRQoL was assessed at baseline and after each chemotherapy cycle using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13. The prognostic significance of HRQoL scores at baseline and their changes over time was assessed with Cox regression, after adjusting for clinical and socio-demographic variables.Results:After controlling for covariates, every 10-point increase in baseline pain and dysphagia was associated with 11% and 12% increased risk of death with hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.11 and 1.12, respectively. Every 10-point improvement of physical function at baseline (HR=0.93) was associated with 7% lower risk of death. Every 10-point increase in pain (HR=1.08) was associated with 8% increased risk of death at cycle 1. Every 10-point increase in social function (HR=0.91) at cycle 2 was associated with 9% lower risk of death.Conclusions:Our findings suggest that changes in HRQoL scores from baseline during treatment, as measured on subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13, are significant prognostic factors for survival

The effects of age on health-related quality of life in cancer populations: A pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 involving 6024 cancer patients.

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.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.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).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

Minimally important differences for interpreting EORTC QLQ-C30 change scores over time: A synthesis across 21 clinical trials involving nine different cancer types

Introduction: Early guidelines for minimally important differences (MID) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 proposed ≥10 points change as clinically meaningful for all scales. Increasing evidence that MIDs can vary by scale, direction of change, cancer type and estimation method has raised doubt about a single global standard. This paper identifies MID patterns for interpreting group-level change in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores across nine cancer types. Methods: Data were obtained from 21 published EORTC Phase III trials that enrolled 13,015 patients across nine cancer types (brain, colorectal, advanced breast, head/neck, lung, mesothelioma, melanoma, ovarian, and prostate). Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change and between-group differences in change over time were obtained via mean change method and linear regression respectively. Separate MIDs were estimated for improvements and deteriorations. Distribution-based estimates were derived and compared with anchor-based MIDs. Results: Anchor-based MIDs mostly ranged from 5 to 10 points. Differences in MIDs for improvement vs deterioration, for both within-group and between-group, were mostly within a 2-points range. Larger differences between within-group and between-group MIDs were observed for several scales in ovarian, lung and head/neck cancer. Most anchor-based MIDs ranged between 0.3 SD and 0.5 SD distribution-based estimates. Conclusions: Our results reinforce recent claims that no single MID can be applied to all EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and disease settings. MIDs varied by scale, improvement/deterioration, within/between comparisons and by cancer type. Researchers applying commonly used rules of thumb must be aware of the risk of dismissing changes that are clinically meaningful or underpowering analyses when smaller MIDs apply