Make your own free website on Tripod.com
 

image                   image 

Staff member COENS Coorneel
EORTC Group(s) EORTC Quality of Life
EORTC Protocol(s) NA
Accepted abstract as Publication (Permanent Abstract ID: e20576)
Title Health-Related Quality of Life indicators and overall Quality of Life: results from a cluster analysis on baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 data from 6739 cancer patients.
Authors C. Coens, F. Martinelli, C. Quinten, C. Cleeland, E. Greimel, M. King, J. Ringash, J. Schmucker-Von Koch, Q. Shi, A. Bottomley
Background Increasingly randomized controlled trials in cancer research include Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) alongside traditional biomedical outcome measures. The majority of these trials focus on a general cancer HRQoL measure. The objective of this meta-analysis was to identify which HRQoL indicators influence a patient’s overall quality of life, in order to better understand the changes in such a generic scale.
Methods Retrospective pooling of 29 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) clinical trials, among 10 cancer sites, yielded baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 data for a total of 6739 patients. A cluster analysis, using Ward’s method, was performed to determine how the 15 HRQoL indicators, and the Global Health scale (GH) in particular, cluster overall and by cancer characteristics. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) was used to measure internal consistency. Dendrograms of the HRQoL indicators were plotted for each cancer type.
Results Three main clusters emerged: a physical function related cluster (physical functioning, role functioning, fatigue and pain, α = 0.83), a psychological function related cluster (emotional functioning, cognitive functioning and insomnia, α = 0.64) and a gastrointestinal cluster (nausea and vomiting and appetite loss, α = 0.68). The GH scale was found to be part of the physical function cluster in the overall dataset (α = 0.85). This result was reproduced for both metastatic and non-metastatic patients. When looking across the 10 different cancer sites, the GH scale was mainly linked with a physical component in brain, head and neck, lung, melanoma, ovarian, pancreatic and prostate cancer. However, in breast and testicular cancer, GH was more strongly associated with the emotional scales.
Conclusions This study shows that the GH scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 is most strongly linked with a patient’s physical status. This result is consistent across stage of disease and most cancer sites. The different results seen in patients with breast and testicular cancer deserve additional investigation.
 

 

Staff member MARTINELLI Francesca
EORTC Group(s) EORTC Quality of Life
EORTC Protocol(s) NA
Accepted abstract as Poster Presentation (Permanent Abstract ID:  9612)
Title Relationships among Health-Related Quality of Life indicators in cancer patients: a pooled study of baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 data from 6739 patients.
Authors F. Martinelli, C. Quinten, C. Coens, H. Flechtner, C. Gotay, T. Mendoza, D. Osoba, B. Reeve, X. Wang, A. Bottomley
Background Cancer patients frequently experience multiple and co-occuring problems due to their illness and therapies. Clusters are defined as groups of two or more Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) indicators that occur concurrently and may or may not have a common related cause. The objective of this meta-analysis was to identify how HRQoL indicators cluster among cancer patients.
Methods Retrospective pooling of 29 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) randomized clinical trials, among 10 cancer sites, yielded baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 HRQoL data for a total of 6739 patients. A cluster analysis was performed to identify clusters among the 15 HRQoL scales, via Ward’s method. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) was used to measure internal consistency. Dendrograms of the HRQoL indicators were plotted for the overall data and for each cancer site.
Results Three main clusters emerged from the pooled dataset: a physical function-related cluster, consisting of physical and role functioning, fatigue and pain (α = 0.83); a psychological function-related cluster, consisting of emotional and cognitive functioning and insomnia (α = 0.64); and a gastrointestinal cluster, consisting of nausea and vomiting and appetite loss (α = 0.68). The same clusters were found in patients with metastatic and non-metastatic disease. The gastrointestinal cluster was reproduced in all 10 cancer sites. We found that pain was not correlated with the other variables of the physical function cluster for patients with brain, colorectal or pancreatic cancer. For the psychological component cluster, cognitive functioning was not correlated with the other variables of the cluster for breast or pancreatic cancer patients, while insomnia was found not to be correlated with the other variables of the cluster for prostate cancer patients.
Conclusions This study shows that relationships among HRQoL indicators exist and that three major constructs can be found: a physical, a psychological and a gastrointestinal component. Understanding these relationships may aid diagnostic criteria, and assessment, management, and prioritization of symptom care.
 

 

Staff member QUINTEN Chantal
EORTC Group(s) EORTC Quality of Life
EORTC Protocol(s) NA
Accepted abstract as Poster Presentation (Permanent Abstract ID:  9607)
Title The predictive accuracy of survival between patient- versus clinician- reported pain in a cohort of 1214 patients with metastatic cancer.
Authors C. Quinten, F. Martinelli, C. Coens, C. Cleeland, H. Flechtner, C. Gotay, E. Greimel, M. Taphoorn, J. Weis, A. Bottomley
Background Accurate assessment of pain involves cooperation between clinician and patient. However, in patients with metastatic disease agreement between clinician and patient ratings is known to be poor. The objectives of this meta-analysis are to investigate the degree of agreement between clinician- versus patient- reported cancer pain at entry in a cohort of patients with metastatic cancer and whether their ratings were associated with a difference in survival.
Methods Eight European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT), across different cancer sites, were eligible for this study. Pain was scored at baseline by the clinician [Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC)] and the patient (EORTC QLQ-C30). The Wilcoxon rank sign test was applied to investigate scoring differences between patient- versus clinician- reported pain and logistic regression to model whether clinical parameters, i.e., performance status, gender, age or cancer site, affected scoring differences. The model accuracy of both scorings was investigated with the Harrell’s discrimination c-index (c) after correction for the clinical parameters.
Results 1214 patients provided valid patient- and clinician- reported pain data at entry. Cancer pain was specified as bone metastasis by 643 (53%) patients and not specified otherwise. The overall mean pain as scored by the clinician was 2.25 (standard deviation (SD) 1.1) and by the patient was 2.28 (SD=0.95) on a 1 to 4 scale. Scoring differences were found to be statistically significant for colorectal (p<.01), lung (p<.01), prostate (p<.01), and breast (p=0.03, but not for pancreatic cancer (p=0.49). Clinical parameters did not significantly affect the scoring differences. Pain as reported by patients (vs clinicians) showed similar predictive accuracy (c =0.62 vs 0.61, p=0.59).
Conclusions Our results provide further evidence that significant differences exist in pain reporting between clinicians and patients. Such results provide a rationale to include patient self reported pain assessment in future cancer RCTs to better assess disease status and survival prognosis.
 

 

Staff member BOTTOMLEY Andrew
EORTC Group(s) EORTC Quality of Life
EORTC Protocol(s) NA
Accepted abstract as Poster Presentation (Permanent Abstract ID:  )
Title Is patient self-reporting more accurate than clinician reporting of symptoms for predicting survival in patients with cancer? Meta-analysis of 30 closed EORTC Randomized Controlled Trials.
Authors A. Bottomley, C. Coens, M. King, D. Osoba, M. Taphoorn, B. Reeve, J. Ringash, J. Schmucker-Von Koch, J. Weis, C. Quinten
Background This study investigated whether patient self-reporting of symptoms improved prediction of survival as compared to clinician reporting or whether it provided an additive value when taken together with clinician assessment of the same symptoms.
Methods Patients with advanced cancer from 30 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Randomized Controlled Trials were included in this retrospective pooled analysis. Clinician [Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC)] and patient (EORTC QLQ-C30) symptom assessment were reported at entry into the study. Data were obtained for six symptoms: pain, fatigue, vomiting, nausea, diarrhea and constipation. The prognostic accuracy for survival was assessed by modeling the contrast in reporting using the Harrell’s discrimination c-index (c).
Results Data were available from patient and clinician assessment for pain [number of trials (t) =8, number of patients (n) =1214], fatigue [t=5, n=1237], vomiting [t=5, n=824], nausea [t=6, n=1393], diarrhea [t=6, n=815] and constipation [t=4, n=751]. Fatigue (c=0.59 vs 0.55, p<.01) and constipation (c=0.57 vs 0.52, p=0.03) as reported by patients (vs clinicians) were significantly higher in predicting survival. Patient reported pain (c=0.59 vs 0.58, p=0.17), nausea (c=0.54 vs 0.52, p=0.51), vomiting (c=0.55 vs 0.52, p=0.21) and diarrhea (c=0.51 vs 0.52, p=0.49) did not predict survival any more accurately than clinician assessment. Patient and clinician assessment combined (vs clinicians alone) improved the prognostic accuracy for fatigue (c=0.61 vs 0.55, p=0.01), pain (c=0.60 vs 0.58, p<0.01), nausea (c=0.54 vs 0.52, p=0.04), vomiting (c=0.56 vs 0.52, p=0.04) and constipation (c=0.5 vs 0.52, p=0.01), but not for diarrhea (c=0.52 vs 0.52, p=0.44).
Conclusions Our results suggest that patients’ ratings of their own fatigue and constipation have more prognostic value than clinicians’ ratings of these symptoms. Further, the prognostic value of clinicians’s ratings can be improved by combining them with patients’ assessments for the symptoms pain, fatigue, constipation, nausea and vomiting.