Search

Introduction: Early guidelines for minimally important differences (MIDs) 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 enroled 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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) is among the most widely used patient-reported outcome measures in cancer research and practice. It was developed prior to guidance that content should be established directly from patients to confirm it measures concepts of interest and is appropriate and comprehensive for the intended population. This study evaluated the content validity of the QLQ-C30 for use with cancer patients., Methods: Adults undergoing cancer treatment in Europe and the USA participated in open-ended concept elicitation interviews regarding their functional health, symptoms, side-effects and impacts on health-related quality of life. Thematic analysis was conducted, and similarities across cancer types, disease stages and countries or languages were explored., Results: Interviews with 113 patients with cancer (85 European, 28 USA) including breast, lung, prostate, colorectal and other cancers were conducted between 2016 and 2020. Conceptual saturation was achieved. The most frequently reported concepts were included in the QLQ-C30 conceptual framework. QLQ-C30 items were widely understood across language versions and were relevant to patients across cancer types and disease stages. While several new concepts were elicited such as difficulty climbing steps or stairs, weight loss, skin problems and numbness, many were not widely experienced and/or could be considered sub-concepts of existing concepts., Conclusions: The QLQ-C30 demonstrates good evidence of content validity for the assessment of functional health, symptom burden and health-related quality of life in patients with localised-to-advanced cancer., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The following authors declare no competing interests: Andrew Bottomley, Neil K Aaronson, Deborah Fitzsimmons, Mogens Groenvold, and Sally Wheelwright. Colin Johnson, Krzysztof Tomaszewski, Michael Koller, Monica Pinto, Simone Oerlemans, and Heike Schmidt's respective institutions were provided funding from the EORTC Quality of Life Group to conduct the research described in this manuscript. Jane R Wells, Chelsea Finbow, Elizabeth Exall, Chloe Tolley, and Laura Grant are or were at the time of the study employees of Adelphi Values Ltd. Adelphi Values Ltd was provided a grant from the EORTC Quality of Life Group to conduct the research described in this manuscript and to develop this manuscript. Adelphi Values Ltd provides consultancy for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Kim Cocks is an employee of Adelphi Values Ltd. However, the role of Principal Investigator on this study was not funded through the EORTC Quality of Life Group grant. Kim Cocks has received consulting fees from Endomag Ltd. Galina Velikova's institution was provided funding from the EORTC Quality of Life Group to conduct the research described in this manuscript and other research. Galina Velikova also declares that her institution has grants/contracts with Breast Cancer Now, Pfizer, and IQVIA. Galina Velikova discloses relationships with Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi Advisory Board, and Roche Ester Steering Committee., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire, QLQ-C30, is a frequently used patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to assess health-related quality of life of patients with cancer. To enhance the understanding and interpretation of PRO data, it is important to obtain norm data from the general population. This article presents updated general population norm data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 for Germany., Methods: Data were obtained as part of a larger study collecting EORTC QLQ-C30 norm data across 15 countries via an online survey. After linear transformation of EORTC QLQ-C30 raw scores, data were weighted based on the United Nations' population distribution statistics. Data are presented by age and sex/age., Results: A total of 1006 Germans responded to the survey. Across EORTC QLQ-C30 domains, different response patterns were observed, with men generally scoring better, that is, higher in most function scales and lower in most symptom scales/items than women. For age, mixed patterns were observed. While older respondents scored worse/lower in physical and role functioning, emotional functioning scores appeared to increase with increasing age. For the symptom scales/items, some symptoms were relatively stable across age groups, while others either increased or decreased with increasing age., Conclusions: This study presents updated EORTC QLQ-C30 general population norm data for Germany that can readily be used for comparative purposes with data obtained from patients with cancer., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement None declared., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The computer-adaptive test (CAT) of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the EORTC CAT Core, assesses the same 15 domains as the EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire but with increased precision, efficiency, measurement range and flexibility. CAT parameters for estimating scores have been established based on clinical data from cancer patients. This study aimed at establishing the European Norm for each CAT domain based on general population data., Methods: We collected representative general population data across 11 European Union (EU) countries, Russia, Turkey, Canada and the United States (n ≥ 1000/country; stratified by sex and age). We selected item subsets from each CAT domain for data collection (totalling 86 items). Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses were conducted to investigate cross-cultural measurement invariance. For each domain, means and standard deviations from the EU countries (weighted by country population, sex and age) were used to establish a T-metric with a European general population mean = 50 (standard deviation = 10)., Results: A total of 15,386 respondents completed the online survey (n = 11,343 from EU countries). EORTC CAT Core norm scores for all 15 countries were calculated. DIF had negligible impact on scoring. Domain-specific T-scores differed significantly across countries with small to medium effect sizes., Conclusion: This study establishes the official European Norm for the EORTC CAT Core. The European CAT Norm can be used globally and allows for meaningful interpretation of scores. Furthermore, CAT scores can be compared with sex- and age-adjusted norm scores at a national level within each of the 15 countries., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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 ≥ 1000/country). Representative samples were stratified by sex and age groups (18-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and ≥ 70 years). After applying weights based on the United Nations population distribution statistics, we calculated QLQ-C30 domain scores to generate a 'European QLQ-C30 Norm' 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., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly recognised as an important end-point in cancer clinical trials. The concept of minimally important difference (MID) enables interpreting differences and changes in HRQOL scores in terms of clinical meaningfulness. We aimed to estimate MIDs for interpreting group-level change of European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with malignant melanoma., Methods: Data were pooled from three published melanoma phase III trials. Anchors relying on clinician's ratings, e.g. performance status, were selected using correlation strength and clinical plausibility of associating the anchor/EORTC QLQ-C30 scale pair. HRQOL change was evaluated between time periods that were common to all trials: start of treatment to end of treatment and end of treatment to end of follow-up. Three change status groups were formed: deteriorated by one anchor category, improved by one anchor category and no change. Patients with greater anchor change were excluded. The mean change method and linear regression were used to estimate MIDs for change in HRQOL scores within the group and between the groups of patients, respectively., Results: MIDs varied according to QLQ-C30 scale, direction (improvement versus deterioration), anchor and period. MIDs for within-group change ranged from 4 to 18 points (improvement) and -16 to -4 points (deterioration), and MIDs for between-group change ranged from 3 to 16 points and from -16 to -3 points. MIDs for most of QLQ-C30 scales ranged from 5 to 10 points in absolute values., Conclusions: These results are useful for interpreting changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores over time and for performing more accurate sample size calculations in adjuvant melanoma settings., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To optimise measurement precision, relevance to patients and flexibility, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should ideally be adapted to the individual patient/study while retaining direct comparability of scores across patients/studies. This is achievable using item banks and computerised adaptive tests (CATs). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) is one of the most widely used PROMs in cancer research and clinical practice. Here we provide an overview of the research program to develop CAT versions of the QLQ-C30's 14 functional and symptom domains., Methods: The EORTC Quality of Life Group's strategy for developing CAT item banks consists of: literature search to identify potential candidate items; formulation of new items compatible with the QLQ-C30 item style; expert evaluations and patient interviews; field-testing and psychometric analyses, including factor analysis, item response theory calibration and simulation of measurement properties. In addition, software for setting up, running and scoring CAT has been developed., Results: Across eight rounds of data collections, 9782 patients were recruited from 12 countries for the field-testing. The four phases of development resulted in a total of 260 unique items across the 14 domains. Each item bank consists of 7-34 items. Psychometric evaluations indicated higher measurement precision and increased statistical power of the CAT measures compared to the QLQ-C30 scales. Using CAT, sample size requirements may be reduced by approximately 20-35% on average without loss of power., Conclusions: The EORTC CAT Core represents a more precise, powerful and flexible measurement system than the QLQ-C30. It is currently being validated in a large independent, international sample of cancer patients., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To explore health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in recurrence-free melanoma patients, with a focus on the association between melanoma-related limb lymphoedema and HRQoL., Methods: HRQoL was evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the breast cancer module (EORTC QLQ-BR23) subscales body image and future perspective, the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy-General subscale social/family well-being and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Data were analysed using linear and ordinal logistic regression adjusting for age and gender., Results: A total of 431 melanoma patients who had undergone wide local excision and axillary or inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and/or complete lymph node dissection (CLND) participated. No patients had had recurrence of the disease or had received adjuvant radiotherapy. The HRQoL scores improved with time after surgery. Melanoma-related limb lymphoedema was present in 109 patients (25%). Patients with lymphoedema had significantly worse HRQoL scores in the EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales global health status/quality of life, role and social functioning, fatigue, pain and financial difficulties, as well as in the QLQ-BR23 body image subscale. No associations were found between the limb affected (upper or lower limb), clinical stage of lymphoedema, duration of lymphoedema or type of surgery (SLNB or CLND) and HRQoL. We found an interaction with age and gender in the associations between lymphoedema and HRQoL: younger patients and women with lymphoedema had worse social functioning and women had significantly more impaired body image., Conclusions: The negative impact of melanoma-related limb lymphoedema on HRQoL emphasises the importance of developing strategies for increasing awareness and improving prevention and treatment of lymphoedema., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Cancer has increasingly become a chronic condition and the routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) like quality of life is widely recommended for clinical practice. Nonetheless, the successful implementation of PROs is still a major challenge, although common barriers to and facilitators of their beneficial use are well known. To support health care professionals and other stakeholders in the implementation of the EORTC PRO measures, the EORTC Quality of Life Group provides guidance on issues considered important for their use in daily clinical practice. Herein, we present an outline of the newly developed "'Manual for the use of EORTC measures in daily clinical practice", covering the following issues: * a rationale for using EORTC measures in routine care *selection of EORTC measures, timing of assessments, scoring and presentation of results * aspects of a strategic implementation * electronic data assessment and telemonitoring, and * further use of EORTC measures and ethical considerations. Next to an extensive overview of currently available literature, the manual specifically focuses on knowledge about EORTC measures to give evidence-based recommendations whenever possible and to encourage readers and end-users of EORTC measures to contribute to further needed high-quality research. The manual will be accessible on the EORTC Quality of Life Group website's homepage and will be periodically updated to take into account any new knowledge due to medical, technical, regulatory and scientific advances., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires should ideally be adapted to the individual patient and at the same time scores should be directly comparable across patients. This is achievable using a computerised adaptive test (CAT). Basing the CAT on an existing instrument enables measurement within an established HRQOL framework and allows backward-compatibility with studies using the original instrument. Because of these advantages the EORTC Quality of Life Group (QLG) has initiated a project to develop a CAT version of the widely used EORTC QLQ-C30., Methods: We present the EORTC QLG's strategy for developing a CAT. For each dimension of the EORTC QLQ-C30 our approach includes literature search and conceptualisation, formulation of new items, expert and patient evaluations, field-testing, and psychometric analyses of the items. The strategy is illustrated with the initial results of the development of CAT for physical functioning (PF)., Results: We identified 975 PF items in the literature. Of these, 407 items were deemed relevant, i.e. measured one of the PF aspects measured by the QLQ-C30. Based on these items we developed 86 new items. Review by the EORTC CAT-project group reduced this to 66 items. Based on expert and patient evaluations several items were revised and the list was further reduced to 51 items., Conclusions: Based on the findings for PF, we believe that our approach will generate item pools that are relevant and appropriate for cancer patients. These will form the basis for a backward-compatible CAT assessing the HRQOL dimensions of the EORTC QLQ-C30., (Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To investigate long-term female breast cancer survivors' (BCS') health care utilisation, health, and employment., Methods: An age-stratified random sample of 2000 female breast cancer survivors (BCS) 5-15 years after primary surgery without recurrence was drawn from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group register. A self-administered questionnaire assessed sociodemography, health care utilisation, employment, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Associations with breast cancer treatment were investigated., Results: Response rate was 79%. Significantly more BCS than the general women population reported health care utilisation (61% versus. 56%; age-standardised risk ratio (SRR): 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.15), but significantly fewer BCS were disability pensioners (15% versus 19%; SRR: 0.77; 95% CI 0.64-0.93). 'Daily activities limited due to sequelae' were reported by 20%, and 'stopped working/changed job due to sequelae' by 11% of BCS. In multiple logistic regression analysis, radiotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 2.54; 95% CI 1.34-4.80) and endocrine therapy (OR 2.48; 95% CI 1.13-5.45, postmenopausal women only) were significantly related to 'stopped working/changed job due to sequelae'. Time since surgery 5-10 years (versus >10 years) was significantly associated with 'daily activities limited due to sequelae' (OR 2.02; CI 1.43-2.84), which, in turn, was significantly related to poorer HRQOL (all p<0.05). Chemotherapy, receptor status, and protocol allocation did not show significant associations in any analyses., Conclusion: Significantly more BCS reported health care utilisation. Radiotherapy, shorter time since surgery, and endocrine therapy predicted daily activity and work limitations due to sequelae.

It is often difficult to recruit patients for palliative care studies and severe attrition must be expected resulting in biased findings. This may be avoided if equivalent information could be obtained from sources other than the patients. Therefore, we investigated whether physician assessments can be used to evaluate the patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Patient and physician assessments of the patients' HRQOL were obtained once a week for up to 13 weeks using EORTC QLQ-C30 items. The agreement between patients and physicians at first contact (N=115) and for the following 13 weeks combined (total N=263) was investigated. Significant differences between patient and physician assessments were observed for all HRQOL domains assessed. Physicians reported patients to have fewer problems/symptoms than patients did for all HRQOL domains except for physical and social functioning. The agreement between patients and physicians was poor. Using physician assessments may bias findings and cannot be recommended as a substitute for patient self-assessment in palliative care.

This study aimed at developing a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30, one of the most widely used health-related quality of life questionnaires in oncology, for palliative care research. The study included interviews with 41 patients and 66 health care professionals in palliative care to determine the appropriateness, relevance and importance of the various domains of the QLQ-C30. Item response theory methods were used to shorten scales. Patients and health care professionals rated pain, physical function, emotional function, fatigue, global health status/quality of life, nausea/vomiting, appetite, dyspnoea, constipation, and sleep as most important. Therefore, these scales/items were retained in the questionnaire. Four scales were shortened without reducing measurement precision. Important dimensions not covered by the questionnaire were identified. The resulting 15-item EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL is a 'core questionnaire' for palliative care. Depending on the research questions, it may be supplemented by additional items, modules or questionnaires.

To elucidate which symptoms or problems to measure when evaluating palliative care, we assessed the content validity of selected patient self-assessment questionnaires used to evaluate palliative care: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Quality of Life-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), the Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS), the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL) and the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS). The content of the questionnaires was compared against the symptoms and problems noted in the medical records of 171 consecutive cancer patients on their first admission to a department of palliative medicine. From the records, 63 different symptoms were listed. Two questionnaires covered almost all of the prevalent symptoms/problems: the EORTC QLQ-C30 covered 10 and the MSAS 11 of the 12 most frequent problems. Researchers selecting instruments for evaluating palliative care may use the present study and other reviews to examine to what degree a given selection of instruments cover the symptoms/problems targeted by palliative care physicians.

The aim of the study was to compare the quality of life (QL) of patients treated with single-agent paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. 331 patients with advanced breast cancer were randomised, with 294 eligible for analysis. Patients completed both the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL) with six additional items, at baseline and after the third, fifth and seventh cycles of chemotherapy. A significant difference in progression-free survival in favour of doxorubicin caused a bias in the data with differences in expected completion rates of questionnaires beyond cycle three. Therefore, statistical comparisons were performed only for the first three cycles. Baseline compliance was 64% and 61% for the QLQ-C30 and RSCL questionnaires, respectively. Doxorubicin was associated with significantly more nausea/vomiting (P=0.001), loss of appetite (P=0.010) and a greater burden of disease and treatment (P=0.044), but with less bone pain (P=0.042) and rash (P=0.045) than paclitaxel. Both treatments were associated with improved emotional function and reduction in psychological distress at cycle 3. Longitudinal data suggested that doxorubicin was associated with less pain, specifically bone pain. Doxorubicin was more active but may have had more side-effects during the first three cycles. Long-term QL outcomes could not be assessed.