Background The feasibility of implementing an advance care planning (ACP) program in daily clinical practice for glioblastoma patients is unknown. We aimed to evaluate a previously developed... Show moreBackground The feasibility of implementing an advance care planning (ACP) program in daily clinical practice for glioblastoma patients is unknown. We aimed to evaluate a previously developed disease-specific ACP program, including the optimal timing of initiation and the impact of the program on several patient-, proxy-, and care-related outcomes. Methods The content and design of the ACP program were evaluated, and outcomes including health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety and depression, and satisfaction with care were measured every 3 months over 15 months. Results Eighteen patient-proxy dyads and two proxies participated in the program. The content and design of the ACP program were rated as sufficient. The preference for the optimal timing of initiation of the ACP program varied widely, however, most of the participants preferred initiation shortly after chemoradiation. Over time, aspects of HRQoL remained stable in our patient population. Similarly, the ACP program did not decrease the levels of anxiety and depression in patients, and a large proportion of proxies reported anxiety and/or depression. The needed level of support for proxies was relatively low throughout the disease course, and the level of feelings of caregiver mastery was relatively high. Overall, patients were satisfied with the provided care over time, whereas proxies were less satisfied in some aspects. Conclusions The content and design of the developed disease-specific ACP program were rated as satisfactory. Whether the program has an actual impact on patient-, proxy-, and care-related outcomes proxies remain to be investigated. Show less
Simple Summary: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome in glioma patients, as it reflects the patient's perspective on their functioning and wellbeing through the disease... Show moreSimple Summary: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome in glioma patients, as it reflects the patient's perspective on their functioning and wellbeing through the disease course. The aim of our systematic review was to provide an overview of how HRQoL data is currently analyzed and interpreted in glioma studies. We found that the number of studies including HRQoL data increased in the past decade, but that assessment and analytical methods were highly variable. Ways to maximize information obtained with HRQoL questionnaires include appropriate and complementary analyses at both the group and individual level, comprehensive reporting of HRQoL results, and adherence to existing guidelines on the assessment, analysis, reporting and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. This may ultimately result in high quality information that is relevant to inform physicians, patients and their relatives about the impact of the disease and its treatment on the patients' functioning and well-being.Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has become an increasingly important patient-reported outcome in glioma studies. Ideally, collected HRQoL data should be exploited to the full, with proper analytical methods. This systematic review aimed to provide an overview on how HRQoL data is currently evaluated in glioma studies, focusing on the research objectives and statistical analyses of HRQoL data. Methods: A systematic literature search in the databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane was conducted up to 5 June 2020. Articles were selected based on predetermined inclusion criteria and information on study design, HRQoL instrument, HRQoL research objective and statistical methods were extracted. Results: A total of 170 articles describing 154 unique studies were eligible, in which 17 different HRQoL instruments were used. HRQoL was the primary outcome in 62% of the included articles, and 51% investigated >= 1 research question with respect to HRQoL, for which various analytical methods were used. In only 42% of the articles analyzing HRQoL results over time, the minimally clinical important difference was reported and interpreted. Eighty-six percent of articles reported HRQoL results at a group level only, and not at the individual patient level. Conclusion: Currently, the assessment and analysis of HRQoL outcomes in glioma studies is highly variable. Opportunities to maximize information obtained with HRQoL data include appropriate and complementary analyses at both the group and individual level, comprehensive reporting of HRQoL results in separate articles or supplementary material, and adherence to existing guidelines about the assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes. 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
