Alternative methods of interpreting quality of life data in advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients

Understanding of how to analyse and interpret quality of life (QoL) data from clinical trials in patients with advanced cancer is limited. In order to increase the knowledge about the possibilities of drawing conclusions from QoL data of these patients, data from 2 trials were reanalysed. A total of 113 patients with pancreatic, biliary or gastric cancer were included in 2 randomised trials comparing chemotherapy and best supportive care (BSC) with BSC alone. Patient benefit was evaluated by the treating physician (subjective response) and by using selected scales and different summary measures of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. An increasing number of drop-outs (mainly due to death) with time did not occur in a random fashion. Therefore, the mean scores in the different subscales of the QLQ-C30 obtained during the follow-up of interviewed patients did not reflect the outcome of the randomised population. The scores of the patient-provided summary measure, ‘Global health status/QoL’, were stable in a rather high proportion of the patients and could not discriminate between the 2 groups. 3 other summary measures revealed greater variability, and they all discriminated between the 2 groups. A high agreement was also seen between the changes in the summary measures and the subjective response. A categorisation of whether an individual patient had benefited or not from the intervention could overcome the problem with the selective attrition. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaig

Lower treatment intensity and poorer survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients who live alone

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status (SES) and social support influences cancer survival. If SES and social support affects cancer treatment has not been thoroughly explored. METHODS: A cohort consisting of all patients who were initially diagnosed with or who developed metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC, n=781) in three Scandinavian university hospitals from October 2003 to August 2006 was set up. Clinical and socioeconomic data were registered prospectively. RESULTS: Patients living alone more often had synchronous metastases at presentation and were less often treated with combination chemotherapy than those cohabitating (HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04–0.85, P=0.03). Surgical removal of metastases was less common in patients living alone (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10–0.86, P=0.02) but more common among university-educated patients (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.10–4.49, P=0.02). Smoking, being married and having children did not influence treatment or survival. Median survival was 7.7 months in patients living alone and 11.7 months in patients living with someone (P<0.001). Living alone remained a prognostic factor for survival after correction for age and comorbidity. CONCLUSION: Patients living alone received less combination chemotherapy and less secondary surgery. Living alone is a strong independent risk factor for poor survival in mCRC