-
Kinsey Lam, Liang Zeng,
Liying Zhang,
Ling-Ming Tseng,
Ming-Feng Hou,
Alysa Fairchild,
Vassilios Vassiliou,
Reynaldo Jesus-Garcia,
Mohamed A Alm El-Din,
Aswin Kumar,
Fabien Forges Pharmd,
Wei-Chu Chie,
Arjun Sahgal,
Michael Poon,
Edward Chow
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective: The European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 15 Palliative (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL) was developed to assess quality of life (QOL) for the palliative cancer population to decrease patient burden. The purpose of this study was to compare predictive factors for well-being in the QLQ-C15-PAL extracted from the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30 (QLQ-C30) with the QLQ-C30 itself. Methods and Materials: Patients with advanced cancer referred for treatment of bone metastases completed the QLQ-C30. Fifteen items from the QLQ-C15-PAL were extracted from the QLQ-C30. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine predictive factors of the global QOL/health score in both tools. In the multivariate analyses, a p value of <0.003 indicated statistical significance. Results: Overall, predictive factors were similar when analyzing data from both tools. Predictive factors for the QLQ-C30 were role functioning (p<0.0001), fatigue (p<0.0001), nausea/vomiting (p<0.0001), and financial problems (p<0.0001) and factors for the extracted QLQ-C15-PAL were physical functioning (p<0.0001) and fatigue (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Extraction of the QLQ-C15-PAL items from the QLQ-C30 resulted in similar predictive QOL domains for all patient subgroups analyzed individually. The QLQ-C15-PAL is reflective of the QLQ-C30 domains and is recommended for future studies involving patients in a palliative setting, as this shorter questionnaire reduces patient burden and may increase accrual and compliance, while maintaining a similar breadth of coverage and achieving the same predictive ability.
Journal of palliative medicine 03/2013; · 1.84 Impact Factor
-
Liang Zeng,
Edward Chow,
Gillian Bedard,
Liying Zhang,
Alysa Fairchild,
Vassilios Vassiliou,
Mohamed A Alm El-Din,
Reynaldo Jesus-Garcia,
Aswin Kumar,
Fabien Forges,
Ling-Ming Tseng,
Ming-Feng Hou,
Wei-Chu Chie,
Andrew Bottomley
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Radiation therapy (RT) is an effective method of palliating painful bone metastases and can improve function and reduce analgesic requirements. In advanced cancer patients, quality of life (QOL) is the primary outcome of interest over traditional endpoints such as survival. The purpose of our study was to compare bone metastasis-specific QOL scores among patients who responded differently to palliative RT.
Patients receiving RT for bone metastases across 6 countries were prospectively enrolled from March 2010-January 2011 in a trial validating the QLQ-BM22 and completed the QLQ-BM22 and the core measure (QLQ-C30) at baseline and after 1 month. Pain scores and analgesic intake were recorded, and response to RT was determined according to the latest published guidelines. The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric and Wilcoxon rank sum tests compared changes in QOL among response groups. A Bonferroni-adjusted P<.003 indicated statistical significance.
Of 79 patients who received palliative RT, 59 were assessable. Partial response, pain progression, and indeterminate response were observed in 22, 8, and 29 patients, respectively; there were no patients with a complete response. Patients across all groups had similar baseline QOL scores apart from physical functioning (patients who progressed had better initial functioning). One month after RT, patients who responded had significant improvements in 3 of 4 QLQ-BM22 domains (painful site, P<.0001; painful characteristic, P<.0001; and functional interference, P<.0001) and 3 QLQ-C30 domains (physical functioning, P=.0006; role functioning, P=.0026; and pain, P<.0001). Patients with progression in pain had significantly worse functional interference (P=.0007) and pain (P=.0019).
Patients who report pain relief after palliative RT also have better QOL with respect to bone metastasis-specific issues. The QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C30 are able to discriminate among patients with varying responses and are recommended for use in future bone metastasis clinical trials.
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 07/2012; 84(3):e337-42. · 4.59 Impact Factor
-
Liang Zeng,
Edward Chow,
Liying Zhang,
Ling-Ming Tseng,
Ming-Feng Hou,
Alysa Fairchild,
Vassilios Vassiliou,
Reynaldo Jesus-Garcia,
Mohamed A Alm El-Din,
Aswin Kumar,
Fabien Forges,
Wei-Chu Chie,
Gillian Bedard,
Andrew Bottomley
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Quality of life (QOL) is frequently an endpoint in clinical trials involving patients with advanced cancer. Statistical significance of minimal differences can be achieved with sufficient sample size, yet the actual clinical relevance is unknown. The purpose of this study was to establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) bone metastases module (EORTC QLQ-BM22).
Patients with bone metastases across seven countries were prospectively enrolled in a trial validating the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and completed the QLQ-BM22 and core measure (QLQ-C30) at baseline and 1-month follow-up. MCIDs were calculated for each QOL scale for both improvement and deterioration using both an anchor- (performance status) and distribution-based approach.
A total of 93 patients completed both baseline and follow-up QOL and had recorded performance status at both intervals. Statistically significant meaningful differences were seen in seven scales. There were improvements of 30.5 (95 % confidence interval, 9.0 to 52.0), 20.1 (7.1 to 33.2), 30.5 (13.8 to 47.3) and 19.6 (5.0 to 34.3) in the pain, painful site, painful characteristic and functional interference scales, respectively, demonstrated clinical relevance. Decreases of 12.4 (0.3 to 24.6), 22.4 (11.8 to 32.9) and 13.5 (1.9 to 25.1) were required to represent clinically relevant deterioration in emotional functioning, global health status and financial issues, respectively. Minimal differences for improvement were closest to 0.5 standard deviations (SD) while for deterioration, closer to 0.3 SD on the QLQ-BM22.
Identification of requirements for clinical significance can assist in determining the relevance of QOL changes after treatment and in sample size determination in future trials. Our study is limited by the small sample size. Future studies should continue to determine MCID and confirm our findings using a variety of appropriate anchors and in a larger sample.
Supportive Care in Cancer 05/2012; 20(12):3307-13. · 2.09 Impact Factor
