“Measuring change in health-related quality of life: the impact of different analytical methods on the interpretation of treatment effects in glioma patients”
22 Oct 2020
New QLG paper accepted by the journal “Neuro-Oncology Practice”:
Marijke B Coomans, Martin J B Taphoorn, Neil K Aaronson, Brigitta G Baumert, Martin van den Bent, Andrew Bottomley, Alba A Brandes, Olivier Chinot, Corneel Coens, Thierry Gorlia, Ulrich Herrlinger, Florence Keime-Guibert, Annika Malmström, Francesca Martinelli, Roger Stupp, Andrea Talacchi, Michael Weller, Wolfgang Wick, Jaap C Reijneveld, Linda Dirven, EORTC Quality of Life Group and the EORTC Brain Tumor Group
Abstract:
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 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.
Related News
New study validates clustering of QLQ-30 HRQoL scales, which can help symptom burden management and inform clinical trial design
27 May 2022
EORTC QLG Executive Committee – Call for Candidates
18 Mar 2022
EORTC Quality of Life Group Open Access Policy
15 Mar 2022
New QLG publication “Developing an e-learning course on the use of PRO measures in oncological practice: health care professionals’ preferences for learning content and methods”
24 Nov 2021
“Psychometric validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Quality of Life Questionnaire Sexual Health (EORTC QLQ-SH22)”
28 Jul 2021
“Reference values for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in patients with advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma and in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors”
17 May 2021
“Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): distant metastasis-free survival results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial”
14 May 2021
“Minimally important differences for interpreting the EORTC QLQ-C30 in advanced colorectal cancer patients treated with chemotherapy”
13 Aug 2020
UPDATE – 17-18 September 2020 Quality of Life Group Virtual Autumn meeting
9 Jun 2020