CORE
🇺🇦
make metadata, not war
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Community governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Alternative methods of interpreting quality of life data in advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients
Authors
Aaronson NK
Andrykowski M
+47 more
B Glimelius
Bergman B
Bernhard J
Bernhard J
Bjordal K
Breetvelt I
Campell S
Cassileth B
Cella DF
Cox DR
Curran D
de Haes JC
Detmar SB
Diggle P
Fayers PM
Glimelius B
Glimelius B
Glimelius B
Glimelius B
Glimelius B
Gunnars B
Guyatt GH
Hopwood P
J Steel
Juniper EF
K Hoffman
K Nordin
Kaasa S
Labianca R
Lydick E
Matthews JNS
Moinpour CM
Molenberghs G
Morris J
O&rsquo
Osboa D
Ross PJ
Rothenberg aL
Sanders C
Schag CAC
Schipper H
Sigurdadó
Sprangers M
Sprangers M
Sprangers MA
Troxel A
Wilke H
Publication date
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group
Doi
Cite
View
on
PubMed
Abstract
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
Similar works
Full text
Open in the Core reader
Download PDF
Available Versions
Crossref
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
Last time updated on 03/01/2020