Search

Abstract Background The EORTC Quality of Life Group has developed a questionnaire to evaluate cancer patients’ perception of their communication with healthcare professionals (HCPs): the EORTC QLQ-COMU26. In this study we test the validity and reliability of this novel measure in an international and culturally diverse sample of cancer patients. Methods Cancer patients completed the following EORTC questionnaires at two time points (before and during treatment): the QLQ-COMU26 (including a debriefing questionnaire), the QLQ-C30, and specific IN-PATSAT32 scales. These data were used to assess: the cross-cultural applicability, acceptability, scale structure, reliability, convergent/divergent validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness to change of the QLQ-COMU26. Results Data were collected from 498 patients with various cancer diagnoses in 10 European countries, Japan, Jordan and India (overall 5 cultural regions). At most, only 3% of patients identified an item as confusing and 0.6% as upsetting, which indicates that the questionnaire was clear and did not trigger negative emotional responses. Confirmatory factor analysis and multi-trait scaling confirmed the hypothesised QLQ-COMU26 scale structure comprising six multi-item scales and four single items (RMSEA = 0.025). Reliability was good for all scales (internal consistency > 0.70; test–retest reliability > 0.85). Convergent validity was supported by correlations of ≥ 0.50 with related scales of the IN-PATSAT32 and correlations

Abstract Background General population normative values for the widely used health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure EORTC QLQ-C30 support the interpretation of trial results and HRQoL of patients in clinical practice. Here, we provide sex-, age- and health condition-specific normative values for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in the French general population. Methods French general population data was collected in an international EORTC project. Online panels with quota samples were used to recruit sex and age groups. Number and type of comorbidities were assessed. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate general population values for each QLQ-C30 scale, separately for sex, age, and presence of one- and more chronic health conditions. A multivariate linear regression model has been developed to allow estimating the effect of sex, age, and the presence for one- and more chronic health conditions on EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Data was weighted according to United Nation statistics adjusting for the proportion of sex and age groups. Results In total, 1001 French respondents were included in our analyses. The weighted mean age was 47.9 years, 514 (51.3%) participants were women, and 497 (52.2%) participants reported at least one health condition. Men reported statistically significant better scores for Emotional Functioning (+9.6 points, p = 0.006) and Fatigue (−7.8 point; p = 0.04); women reported better profiles for Role Functioning (+8.7 points; p = 0.008) and Financial Difficulty (−7.8 points, p = 0.011). According to the regression model, the sex effect was statistically significant in eight scales; the effect of increasing age had a statistically significant effect on seven of the 15 EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. The sex- and age effect varied in its direction across the various scales. The presence of health conditions showed a strong negative effect on all scales. Conclusion This is the first publication of detailed French normative values for the EORTC QLQ-C30. It aims to support the interpretation of HRQoL profiles in French cancer populations. The strong impact of health conditions on QLQ-C30 scores highlights the importance of considering the impact of comorbidities in cancer patients when interpreting HRQoL data.

Abstract Background The use of open-ended questions supplementing static questionnaires with closed questions may facilitate the recognition of symptoms and toxicities. The open-ended ‘Write In three Symptoms/Problems (WISP)’ instrument permits patients to report additional symptoms/problems not covered by selected EORTC questionnaires. We evaluated the acceptability and usefulness of WISP with cancer patients receiving active and palliative care/treatment in Austria, Chile, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom. Methods We conducted a literature search on validated instruments for cancer patients including open-ended questions and analyzing their responses. WISP was translated into eight languages and pilot tested. WISP translations were pre-tested together with EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-C15-PAL and relevant modules, followed by patient interviews to evaluate their understanding about WISP. Proportions were used to summarize patient responses obtained from interviews and WISP. Results From the seven instruments identified in the literature, only the free text collected from the PRO-CTAE has been analyzed previously. In our study, 161 cancer patients participated in the pre-testing and interviews (50% in active treatment). Qualitative interviews showed high acceptability of WISP. Among the 295 symptoms/problems reported using WISP, skin problems, sore mouth and bleeding were more prevalent in patients in active treatment, whereas numbness/tingling, dry mouth and existential problems were more prevalent in patients in palliative care/treatment. Conclusions The EORTC WISP instrument was found to be acceptable and useful for symptom assessment in cancer patients. WISP improves the identification of symptoms/problems not assessed by cancer-generic questionnaires and therefore, we recommend its use alongside the EORTC questionnaires.

Abstract Background Cancer patients may experience a decrease in cognitive functioning before, during and after cancer treatment. So far, the Quality of Life Group of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC QLG) developed an item bank to assess self-reported memory and attention within a single, cognitive functioning scale (CF) using computerized adaptive testing (EORTC CAT Core CF item bank). However, the distinction between different cognitive functions might be important to assess the patients’ functional status appropriately and to determine treatment impact. To allow for such assessment, the aim of this study was to develop and psychometrically evaluate separate item banks for memory and attention based on the EORTC CAT Core CF item bank. Methods In a multistep process including an expert-based content analysis, we assigned 44 items from the EORTC CAT Core CF item bank to the memory or attention domain. Then, we conducted psychometric analyses based on a sample used within the development of the EORTC CAT Core CF item bank. The sample consisted of 1030 cancer patients from Denmark, France, Poland, and the United Kingdom. We evaluated measurement properties of the newly developed item banks using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response theory model calibration. Results Item assignment resulted in 31 memory and 13 attention items. Conducted CFAs suggested good fit to a 1-factor model for each domain and no violations of monotonicity or indications of differential item functioning. Evaluation of CATs for both memory and attention confirmed well-functioning item banks with increased power/reduced sample size requirements (for CATs ≥ 4 items and up to 40% reduction in sample size requirements in comparison to non-CAT format). Conclusion Two well-functioning and psychometrically robust item banks for memory and attention were formed from the existing EORTC CAT Core CF item bank. These findings could support further research on self-reported cognitive functioning in cancer patients in clinical trials as well as for real-word-evidence. A more precise assessment of attention and memory deficits in cancer patients will strengthen the evidence on the effects of cancer treatment for different cancer entities, and therefore contribute to shared and informed clinical decision-making.

Abstract The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Multiple Myeloma Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-MY20) was developed in 1996 to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with multiple myeloma. Since its development new therapies have prolonged survival in patients with myeloma and new combination agents are likely to impact HRQoL outcomes and its measurement. The aim of this review was to explore the use of the QLQ-MY20 and reported methodological issues. An electronic database search was conducted (1996-June 2020) to identify clinical studies/research that used the QLQ-MY20 or assessed its psychometric properties. Data were extracted from full-text publications/conference abstracts and checked by a second rater. The search returned 65 clinical and 9 psychometric validation studies. The QLQ-MY20 was used in interventional (n = 21, 32%) and observational (n = 44, 68%) studies and the publication of QLQ-MY20 data in clinical trials increased over time. Clinical studies commonly included relapsed patients with myeloma patients (n = 15, 68%) and assessed a range of combinations therapies. QLQ-MY20 subscales (disease symptoms [DS], side effects of treatment [SE], future perspectives [FP], body image [BI]) were defined as secondary (n = 12, 55%) or exploratory (n = 7, 32%) trial endpoints, particularly DS (n = 16, 72%) and SE (n = 16, 72%). Validation articles demonstrated that all domains performed well regarding internal consistency reliability (>0.7), test-reset reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient > =0.85), internal and external convergent and discriminant validity. Four articles reported a high percentage of ceiling effects in the BI subscale; all other subscales performed well regarding floor and ceiling effects. The EORTC QLQ-MY20 remains a widely used and psychometrically robust instrument. While no specific problems were identified from the published literature, qualitative interviews are ongoing to ensure new concepts and side effects are included that may arise from patients receiving novel treatments or from longer survival with multiple lines of treatment.

Every cancer treatment, irrespective of its clinical effectiveness, has an impact on patients' quality of life (QoL). Even recently developed targeted therapies might have side effects and significantly impact patients' QoL. Thus, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of different treatments from the patient's standpoint has become a must in clinical research and is highly valued by major stakeholders. Thousands of cancer patients are enrolled into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) each year and many complete patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to obtain patient-centered information as part of the assessment of the overall effectiveness of the new therapy. Some of these RCTs have generated high quality PRO evidence forming the basis for approval (or support to approval) of drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, a consistent strategy to determine the quality of patient centered evidence presented in RCTs has until recently been lacking. One of the fundamental questions when including PROs in clinical research revolves around methodological robustness and consistency of outcome reporting. Cancer patients, physicians and healthcare system stakeholders need to rely on solid information to make the best possible choice regarding treatment. Therefore generating high-quality findings from PRO assessment in cancer trials is of paramount importance. In an effort to improve quality of PRO assessment and reporting in the near future, the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements Over Time In ONcology (PROMOTION) Registry was developed. The scope of this Registry is to identify, track, analyse, and store information on all cancer RCTs that have included PROs, and assess the quality of their PRO assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Differential item functioning (DIF) methods can be used to determine whether different subgroups respond differently to particular items within a health-related quality of life (HRQoL) subscale, after allowing for overall subgroup differences in that scale. This article reviews issues that arise when testing for DIF in HRQoL instruments. We focus on logistic regression methods, which are often used because of their efficiency, simplicity and ease of application.Methods: A review of logistic regression DIF analyses in HRQoL was undertaken. Methodological articles from other fields and using other DIF methods were also included if considered relevant.Results: There are many competing approaches for the conduct of DIF analyses and many criteria for determining what constitutes significant DIF. DIF in short scales, as commonly found in HRQL instruments, may be more difficult to interpret. Qualitative methods may aid interpretation of such DIF analyses.Conclusions: A number of methodological choices must be made when applying logistic regression for DIF analyses, and many of these affect the results. We provide recommendations based on reviewing the current evidence. Although the focus is on logistic regression, many of our results should be applicable to DIF analyses in general. There is a need for more empirical and theoretical work in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background General population normative values for the widely used health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), are available for a range of countries. These are mostly countries in northern Europe. However, there is still a lack of such normative values for southern Europe. Therefore, this study aims to provide sex-, age- and health condition-specific normative values for the general Italian population for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Material and methods This study is based on Italian EORTC QLQ-C30 general population data previously collected in an international EORTC project comprising over 15,000 respondents across 15 countries. Recruitment and assessment were carried out via online panels. Quota sampling was used for sex and age groups (18‍–‍39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69 and ≥ 70 years), separately for each country. We applied weights to match the age and sex distribution in our sample with UN statistics for Italy. Along with descriptive statistics, linear regression models were estimated to describe the associations of sex, age and health condition with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Results A total of 1,036 respondents from Italy were included in our analyses. The weighted mean age was 49.3 years, and 536 (51.7%) participants were female. Having at least one health condition was reported by 60.7% of the participants. Men reported better scores than women on all EORTC QLQ-C30 scales but diarrhoea. While the impact of age differed across scales, older age was overall associated with better HRQoL as shown by the summary score. For all scales, differences were in favour of participants who did not report any health condition, compared to those who reported at least one. Conclusion The Italian normative values for the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales support the interpretation of HRQoL profiles in Italian cancer populations. The strong impact of health conditions on EORTC QLQ-C30 scores highlights the importance of adjusting for the impact of comorbidities in cancer patients when interpreting HRQoL data.

Abstract Background The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 is a widely used cancer-specific questionnaire assessing 15 domains of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Our aim was to facilitate the interpretation of scores on this questionnaire by providing Austrian normative data based on a general population sample. Methods The calculation of normative data was based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 data collected from an Austrian general population sample that was part of an international online panel study on the development of European normative data. Data reported herein were stratified and weighted by age and sex. Normative data were calculated for all 15 HRQoL domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30. For precise predictions of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores, a regression model based on sex, age and the presence of health conditions was built. Results The Austrian sample comprised 1002 Austrian participants (50.1% female, 51.4% when weighted by age and sex based on United Nation statistics). The mean age was 53.7 years (weighted: 47.7 years) and 53.6% (weighted: 47.4%) reported at least one health condition. Men reported better physical (Cohen’s d = 0.17) and emotional (Cohen’s d = 0.17) functioning as well as less fatigue (Cohen’s d = 0.18) and insomnia (Cohen’s d = 0.25) compared with women. Younger individuals (

Objectives: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements used in cancer research can assess a number of health domains. Our primary objective was to investigate which broad types of PRO domains (namely, functional health, symptoms, and global quality of life [QoL]) most frequently yielded significant differences between treatments in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Methods: A total of 229 RCTs published between January 2004 and February 2019, conducted on patients diagnosed with the most common solid malignancies and assessed using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30, were considered. Studies were identified systematically using literature searches in key electronic databases. Unlike other PRO measurements typically used in RCTs, the scoring algorithm of the multidimensional EORTC QLQ-C30 allowed us to clearly distinguish the 3 broad types of PRO domains.Results: In total, 134 RCTs (58.5%) reported statistically significant differences between treatment arms for at least 1 of the QLQ-C30 domains. Most frequently, differences were reported for 2 or all 3 broad types of PRO domains (78 of 134 trials; 58.2%). In particular, 35 trials (26.1%) found significant differences for symptoms, functional health, and global QoL, 24 trials (17.9%) for symptoms and functional health, 11 trials (8.2%) for functional health and global QoL, and 8 trials (6.0%) for symptoms and global QoL. The likelihood of finding a statistically significant difference between treatment arms was not associated with key study characteristics, such as study design (ie, open-label vs blinded trials) and industry support.Conclusions: Our findings emphasize the importance of a multidimensional PRO assessment to most comprehensively capture the overall burden of therapy from the patients' standpoint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AIMS: The psychometric properties of the EORTC QLQ-BN20, a brain cancer-specific HRQOL questionnaire, have been previously determined in an English-speaking sample of patients. This study examined the validity and reliability of the questionnaire in a multi-national, multi-lingual study. METHODS: QLQ-BN20 data were selected from two completed phase III EORTC/NCIC clinical trials in brain cancer (N=891), including 12 languages. Experimental treatments were surgery followed by radiotherapy (RT) and adjuvant PCV chemotherapy or surgery followed by concomitant RT plus temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy and adjuvant TMZ chemotherapy. Standard treatment consisted of surgery and postoperative RT alone. The psychometrics of the QLQ-BN20 were examined by means of multi-trait scaling analyses, reliability estimation, known groups validity testing, and responsiveness analysis. RESULTS: All QLQ-BN20 items correlated more strongly with their own scale (r>0.70) than with other QLQ-BN20 scales. Internal consistency reliability coefficients were high (all alpha0.70). Known-groups comparisons yielded positive results, with the QLQ-BN20 distinguishing between patients with differing levels of performance status and mental functioning. Responsiveness of the questionnaire to changes over time was acceptable. CONCLUSION: The QLQ-BN20 demonstrates adequate psychometric properties and can be recommended for use in conjunction with the QLQ-C30 in assessing the HRQOL of brain cancer patients in international studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to examine the agreement between health care professionals' (HCPs) and patients' evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues for cancer patients with bone metastases. A total of 413 patients and 152 HCPs were interviewed across five centres worldwide. Mean scores were almost always higher for HCPs than for patients. Patients and HCPs agreed that four issues affect HRQOL of bone metastases patients profoundly: 'long-term (chronic) pain', 'difficulty in carrying out usual daily tasks', 'able to perform self-care' and 'able to perform role functioning'. A substantial difference was found with respect to the perceived importance of psychosocial and somatic issues. Patients emphasised psychosocial issues with a particular focus on 'worry' about loss of mobility, dependence on others and disease progression, HCPs however rated 'symptom' issues as more important, specifically those related to 'pain'. In conclusion, patients and HCPs agreed that pain and physical/role functioning are important to the HRQOL of cancer patients with bone metastases, but patients also emphasized the importance of psychosocial issues to HRQOL. This information has been an important component in the development of a health-related quality of life questionnaire for patients with bone metastases (EORTC QLQ-BM 22). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide, and increasingly, randomised controlled trials of this disease are measuring the health-related quality of life of these patients. In this systematic Review, we assess the adequacy of methods used to report health-related quality of life (HRQOL) from 49 eligible randomised controlled trials of advanced breast cancer. We compare our findings with those from the literature to investigate whether the standard of HRQOL reporting in this field has changed. We conclude that the overall reporting of HRQOL has improved, but some crucial aspects remain problematic, such as the absence of HRQOL research hypotheses and the overemphasis on statistical rather than clinical significance. Additionally, new challenges are arising with the emergence of novel treatments and the advent of personalised medicine, and improved HRQOL tools are required to cover the range of side-effects of newer therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade, Quality of Life (QOL) research has become an important aspect of cancer clinical trials. A dramatically increasing number of published studies, both randomised and non-randomised, report QOL outcomes. There is increasing evidence that QOL results impact on both future research and treatment decisions for clinicians. The rising number of studies with QOL components is mirrored within the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), one of the largest cancer clinical trial organisations in Europe. Clinical trial groups have frequently reported on the difficulties and challenges of implementing QOL research. In the following paper, we therefore examine past experience in EORTC QOL studies, with a focus on the challenges presented and the improved approaches that are being implemented to obtain more meaningful outcomes.