BackgroundIn an international randomised controlled phase II study of temozolomide (TMZ) versus TMZ in combination with bevacizumab (BEV) in locally diagnosed non-1p/19q co-deleted World Health... Show moreBackgroundIn an international randomised controlled phase II study of temozolomide (TMZ) versus TMZ in combination with bevacizumab (BEV) in locally diagnosed non-1p/19q co-deleted World Health Organization grade 2 or 3 gliomas with a first and contrast-enhancing recurrence after initial radiotherapy, and overall survival at 12 months was not significantly different (61% in the TMZ arm and 55% in the TMZ + BEV arm).ObjectivesHealth-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a key secondary end-point in this trial, and the main objective of this study was to determine the impact of the addition of BEV to TMZ on HRQoL.MethodsHRQoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 (version 3) and QLQ-BN20 at baseline, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression. The pre-selected primary HRQoL end-point was the QLQ-C30 global health scale, with self-perceived cognitive functioning and pain selected as secondary HRQoL issues. Analysis was undertaken using linear mixed modelling and complemented with sensitivity analyses using summary statistics. A difference was considered clinically relevant with ≥10 points difference on a 100-point scale.ResultsBaseline compliance was high at 94% and remained above 60% until 72 weeks, limiting the analysis to 60 weeks. Compliance was similar in both arms. We found no statistically significant or clinically significant differences between the primary HRQoL end-point in both treatment arms (p = 0.2642). The sensitivity analyses confirmed this finding. The overall test for post-baseline differences between the two treatment arms also showed no statistically or clinically significant differences regarding the selected secondary end-point scales. Show less
Musoro, J.Z.; Coens, C.; Sprangers, M.A.G.; Brandberg, Y.; Groenvold, M.; Flechtner, H.H.; ... ; EORTC Melanoma Breast Head Neck Ge 2023
IntroductionEarly 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... Show moreIntroductionEarly 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.MethodsData 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.ResultsAnchor-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.ConclusionsOur 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. Show less
Caramanna, I.; Reijneveld, J.C.; Ven, P.M. van de; Bent, M. van de; Idbaih, A.; Wick, W.; ... ; EORTC Quality Life Grp 2023
BackgroundPatients’ reduced awareness of neurocognitive functioning (NCF) may negatively affect the reliability of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinical decision-making. This study... Show moreBackgroundPatients’ reduced awareness of neurocognitive functioning (NCF) may negatively affect the reliability of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinical decision-making. This study evaluated cognitive awareness, defined as the association between NCF and neurocognitive complaints, over the disease course of patients with recurrent high-grade glioma (HGG).MethodsWe assessed NCF using the EORTC core clinical trial battery and neurocognitive complaints using the Medical Outcome Study questionnaire. Patients were categorised as impaired or intact, based on their neurocognitive performance. Spearman’s rank correlations were calculated between NCF and neurocognitive complaints at baseline and each 12 weeks, until 36. The association between changes in NCF and neurocognitive complaints scores between these follow-up assessments was determined using Pearson’s correlation.ResultsA total of 546 patients were included. Neurocognitively impaired patients (n = 437) had more neurocognitive complaints (range: 10.51 [p < 0.001] to 13.34 [p = 0.001]) than intact patients (n = 109) at baseline, at 12 and 24 weeks. In intact patients, NCF and neurocognitive complaints were correlated for only one domain at baseline (0.202, p = 0.036), while in impaired patients correlations were more frequently found in various domains and time points (range: 0.164 [p = 0.001] to 0.334 [p = 0.011]). Over the disease course, NCF and neurocognitive complaints were correlated for only one domain at baseline (0.357, p = 0.014) in intact patients while in impaired patients they were correlated for more domains and time points (range: 0.222 [p < 0.001] to 0.366 [p < 0.001]).ConclusionNeurocognitively impaired patients with recurrent HGG are aware of their neurocognitive limitations at study entry and during follow-up, which should be considered in clinical decision-making and when interpreting PRO results. Show less
Caramanna, I.; Klein, M.; Bent, M. van den; Idbaih, A.; Wick, W.; Taphoorn, M.J.B.; ... ; EORTC Brain Tumor Grp 2022
Purpose: The rate of missing data on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in brain tumor clinical trials is particularly high over time. One solution to this issue is the use of... Show morePurpose: The rate of missing data on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in brain tumor clinical trials is particularly high over time. One solution to this issue is the use of proxy (i.e., partner, relative, informal caregiver) ratings in lieu of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In this study we investigated patient-proxy agreement on HRQOL outcomes in high-grade glioma (HGG) patients. Methods: Generic and disease-specific HRQOL were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 in a sample of 501 patient-proxy dyads participating in EORTC trials 26101 and 26091. Patients were classified as impaired or intact, based on their neurocognitive performance. The level of patient-proxy agreement was measured using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and the Bland-Altman limit of agreement. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate differences between patients' and proxies' HRQOL. Results: Patient-proxy agreement in all HGG patients (N = 501) ranged from 0.082 to 0.460. Only 18.8% of all patients were neurocognitively intact. Lin's CCC ranged from 0.088 to 0.455 in cognitively impaired patients and their proxies and from 0.027 to 0.538 in cognitively intact patients and their proxies. Conclusion: While patient-proxy agreement on health-related quality of life outcomes is somewhat higher in cognitively intact patients, agreement in high-grade glioma patients is low in general. In light of these findings, we suggest to cautiously consider the use of proxy's evaluation in lieu of patient-reported outcomes, regardless of patient's neurocognitive status. Show less
Machingura, A.; Taye, M.; Musoro, J.; Ringash, J.; Pe, M.; Coens, C.; ... ; Head Neck Canc Genito Urinary Canc 2022
Introduction: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) measures 15 health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scales relevant to... Show moreIntroduction: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) measures 15 health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scales relevant to the disease and treatment of patients with cancer. A study by Martinelli (2011) demonstrated that these scales could be grouped into three main clusters: physical, psychological and gastrointestinal. This study aims to validate Martinelli's findings in an independent dataset and evaluate whether these clusters are consistent across cancer types and patient characteristics. Methods: Pre-defined criteria for successful validation were three main clusters should emerge with a minimum R-squared value of 0.51 using pooled baseline-data. A cluster analysis was performed on the 15 QLQ-C30 HRQoL-scales in the overall dataset, as well as by cancer type and selected patient characteristics to examine the robustness of the results. Results: The dataset consisted of 20,066 patients pooled across 17 cancer types. Overall, three main clusters were identified (R-2 = 0.61); physical-cluster included role-functioning, physical functioning, social-functioning, fatigue, pain, and global-health status; psychological-cluster included emotional-functioning, cognitive-functioning, and insomnia; gastro-intestinal-cluster included nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. The results were consistent across different levels of disease severity, socio-demographic and clinical characteristics with minor variations by cancer type. Global-health status was found to be strongly linked to the scales included in the physical-functioning-related cluster. Conclusion: This study successfully validated prior findings by Martinelli (2011): the QLQC30 scales are interrelated and can be grouped into three main clusters. Knowing how these multidimensional HRQoL scales are related to each other can help clinicians and patients with cancer in managing symptom burden, guide policymakers in defining social-support plans and inform selection of HRQoL scales in future clinical trials. (C)2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Coomans, M.; Dirven, L.; Aaronson, N.; Baumert, B.G.; Bent, M. van den; Bottomley, A.; ... ; EORTC Brain Tumor Grp 2022
Background: Maintenance of functioning and well-being during the progression-free survival (PFS) period is important for glioma patients. This study aimed to determine whether health-related... Show moreBackground: Maintenance of functioning and well-being during the progression-free survival (PFS) period is important for glioma patients. This study aimed to determine whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) can be maintained during progression-free time, and factors associated with HRQoL deterioration in this period. Methods: We included longitudinal HRQoL data from previously published clinical trials in glioma. The percentage of patients with stable HRQoL until progression was determined per scale and at the individual patient level (i.e. considering all scales simultaneously). We assessed time to a clinically relevant deterioration in HRQoL, expressed in deterioration-free survival and time-to-deterioration (the first including progression as an event). We also determined the association between sociodemographic and clinical factors and HRQoL deterioration in the progression-free period. Results: Five thousand five hundred and thirty-nine patients with at least baseline HRQoL scores had a median time from randomization to progression of 7.6 months. Between 9-29% of the patients deteriorated before disease progression on the evaluated HRQoL scales. When considering all scales simultaneously, 47% of patients deteriorated on >= 1 scale. Median deterioration-free survival period ranged between 3.8-5.4 months, and median time-to-deterioration between 8.2-11.9 months. For most scales, only poor performance status was independently associated with clinically relevant HRQoL deterioration in the progression-free period. Conclusions: HRQoL was maintained in only 53% of patients in their progression-free period, and treatment was not independently associated with this deterioration in HRQoL. Routine monitoring of the patients' functioning and well-being during the entire disease course is therefore important, so that interventions can be initiated when problems are signaled. Show less
Sztankay, M.; Wintner, L.M.; Roggendorf, S.; Nordhausen, T.; Dirven, L.; Taphoorn, M.J.B.; ... ; EORTC Quality Life Grp 2021
Purpose Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical routine requires knowledge and competences regarding their use. In order to facilitate implementation, an e-learning... Show morePurpose Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical routine requires knowledge and competences regarding their use. In order to facilitate implementation, an e-learning course for health care professionals (HCPs) on the utilisation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PROMs in oncological clinical practice is being developed. This study aimed to explore future users' educational needs regarding content and learning methods. Methods The sequential mixed methods approach was applied. A scoping literature review informed the guideline for qualitative interviews with HCPs with diverse professional backgrounds in oncology and cancer advocates recruited using a purposive sampling strategy. An international online survey was conducted to validate the qualitative findings. Results Between December 2019 and May 2020, 73 interviews were conducted in 9 countries resulting in 8 topic areas (Basic information on PROs in clinical routine, Benefits of PRO assessments in clinical practice, Implementation of PRO assessments in clinical routine, Setup of PRO assessments for clinical application, Interpretation of PRO data, Integration of PROs into the communication with patients, Use of PROs in clinical practice, Self-management recommendations for patients based on PROs) subsequently presented in the online survey. The online survey (open between 3 June and 19 July 2020) was completed by 233 HCPs from 33 countries. The highest preference was indicated for content on interpretation of PRO data (97%), clinical benefits of assessing PRO data (95.3%) and implementation of routine PRO data assessment (94.8%). Regarding learning methods, participants indicated a high preference for practical examples that use a mixed approach of presentation (written, audio, video and interactive). Conclusion Educational needs for an integration of PROs in communication in clinical care and coherent implementation strategies became evident. These results inform the development of an e-learning course to support HCPs in the clinical use of EORTC PRO measures. Show less
Background. Minimally important differences (MIDs) allow interpretation of the clinical relevance of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results. This study aimed to estimate MIDs for all... Show moreBackground. Minimally important differences (MIDs) allow interpretation of the clinical relevance of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results. This study aimed to estimate MIDs for all European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) scales for interpreting group-level results in brain tumor patients.Methods. Clinical and HRQOL data from three glioma trials were used. Clinical anchors were selected for each EORTC QLQ-C30 scale, based on correlation (>0.30) and clinical plausibility of association. Changes in both HRQOL and the anchors were calculated, and for each scale and time period, patients were categorized into one of the three clinical change groups: deteriorated by one anchor category, no change, or improved by one anchor category. Mean change method and linear regression were applied to estimate MIDs for interpreting within-group change and between-group differences in change over time, respectively. Distribution-based methods were applied to generate supportive evidence.Results. A total of 1687 patients were enrolled in the three trials. The retained anchors were performance status and eight Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales. MIDs for interpreting within-group change ranged from 4 to 12 points for improvement and -4 to -14 points for deterioration. MIDs for between-group difference in change ranged from 4 to 9 for improvement and -4 to -16 for deterioration. Most anchor-based MIDs were closest to the 0.3 SD distribution-based estimates (range: 3-10).Conclusions. MIDs for the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales generally ranged between 4 and 11 points for both within-group mean change and between-group mean difference in change. These results can be used to interpret QLQ-C30 results from glioma trials. Show less
Background. Different analytical methods may lead to different conclusions about the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to examine 3 different methods... Show moreBackground. Different analytical methods may lead to different conclusions about the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to examine 3 different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL and to study whether these methods result in different conclusions.Methods. HRQoL data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined (CODAGLIO project). Change in HRQoL scores, measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and BN20 questionnaires, was analyzed in 3 ways: (1) at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms, (2) at the patient level per scale/item, calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved, or remained stable per scale/item, and (3) at the individual patient level, combining all scales/items.Results. Baseline and first follow-up HRQoL data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level, only the item "hair loss" showed a significant and clinically relevant change (ie, >= 10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items were statistically significant only (all P <.001; range in change score, 0.1-6.2). Although a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range, 27%-84%) on the patient level per scale/item, many patients deteriorated (range, 6%-43%) or improved (range, 8%-32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level, the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, whereas only 1% remained stable on all scales.Conclusions. Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct conclusions of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for informing clinical decision making. Show less
Coens, C.; Pe, M.; Dueck, A.C.; Sloan, J.; Basch, E.; Calvert, M.; ... ; Setting Int Stand Analyzing Patien 2020
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide... Show morePatient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed. Show less
Bottomley, A.; Reijneveld, J.C.; Koller, M.; Flechtner, H.; Tomaszewski, K.A.; Greimel, E.; ... ; 5th EORTC Quality Life Canc 2019
