Literature DB >> 15206013

Quality of life as a clinical trial endpoint: determining the appropriate interval for repeated assessments in patients with advanced lung cancer.

Patricia J Hollen1, Richard J Gralla, Cynthia N Rittenberg.   

Abstract

One of the unresolved design issues for clinical trials with quality of life (QOL) as an endpoint is the frequency of measurement in patients with stage III and IV lung cancer. In a retrospective review of clinical trials, the QOL interval varied widely from 1 to 12 weeks during treatment. During follow-up, the interval was generally 2 to 3 months or not at all. The purpose of this methodological study was to determine an appropriate interval for QOL serial measurement based on prospectively collected data. The 20 patients for this study were part of a phase I/I study using combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). They were typical of patients in lung cancer clinical trials, with a median age of 67 (interquartile range: 58, 72) years, the majority were male (13, 65%), and a baseline median Karnofsky performance status was 80 (interquartile range: 70%, 90%). The primary instrument, developed in 1985, was the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) patient form, a 9-item self-report and site-specific QOL measure. The method, outcome, and implication of these findings to research are presented for establishing a method for obtaining an appropriate serial measurement interval for QOL during therapy in clinical trials. Based on the findings of this study, an every 3-week QOL assessment for patients with advanced NSCLC provides data similar to more frequent evaluation (94% of data preserved compared to twice-weekly assessment, 95% confidence interval, 86-98%, p=0.05). Less frequent assessment (every 4 or every 6 weeks) retained less than 85% of the data, which is the recommended minimum adequacy rate. Retaining a high percentage of QOL information may lessen the effect of measurement bias due to patient attrition and may give more validity to QOL studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15206013     DOI: 10.1007/s00520-004-0639-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Support Care Cancer        ISSN: 0941-4355            Impact factor:   3.603


  24 in total

Review 1.  Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials.

Authors:  M Schumacher; M Olschewski; G Schulgen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Proposed criteria for serial evaluation of quality of life in cancer patients.

Authors:  C A Presant; C Wiseman; D Blayney; P Kennedy; K Gala; M King
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1990-02-21       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 3.  Statistical analysis of quality of life with missing data in cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  A B Troxel; D L Fairclough; D Curran; E A Hahn
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998 Mar 15-Apr 15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Methodologic guidelines for reports of clinical trials.

Authors:  R Simon; R E Wittes
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rep       Date:  1985-01

Review 5.  Missing quality of life data in cancer clinical trials: serious problems and challenges.

Authors:  J Bernhard; D F Cella; A S Coates; L Fallowfield; P A Ganz; C M Moinpour; P Mosconi; D Osoba; J Simes; C Hürny
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998 Mar 15-Apr 15       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  A clinical model for quality of life assessment in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Authors:  M C Klee; M T King; D Machin; H H Hansen
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 7.  Methods and problems in measuring quality of life.

Authors:  D F Cella
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Measurement of quality of life in patients with lung cancer in multicenter trials of new therapies. Psychometric assessment of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale.

Authors:  P J Hollen; R J Gralla; M G Kris; C Cox; C P Belani; S M Grunberg; J Crawford; J A Neidhart
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1994-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 10.  Comparison of instruments for measuring quality of life in patients with lung cancer.

Authors:  P J Hollen; R J Gralla
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 4.929

View more
  5 in total

1.  Measuring quality of life in patients with pleural mesothelioma using a modified version of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS): psychometric properties of the LCSS-Meso.

Authors:  Patricia J Hollen; Richard J Gralla; Astra M Liepa; James T Symanowski; James J Rusthoven
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2005-07-06       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Can a computerized format replace a paper form in PRO and HRQL evaluation? Psychometric testing of the computer-assisted LCSS instrument (eLCSS-QL).

Authors:  Patricia J Hollen; Richard J Gralla; John A Stewart; Jacinta M Meharchand; Rafal Wierzbicki; Natasha Leighl
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-06-10       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  A psychometric analysis of quality of life tools in lung cancer patients who smoke.

Authors:  Kristine K Browning; Amy K Ferketich; Gregory A Otterson; Nancy R Reynolds; Mary Ellen Wewers
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2009-01-31       Impact factor: 5.705

4.  A randomized trial of the electronic Lung Cancer Symptom Scale for quality-of-life assessment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  J C Kuo; D M Graham; A Salvarrey; F Kassam; L W Le; F A Shepherd; R Burkes; P J Hollen; R J Gralla; N B Leighl
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  Cancer symptom response as an oncology clinical trial end point.

Authors:  Laura C Bouchard; Neil Aaronson; Kathleen Gondek; David Cella
Journal:  Expert Rev Qual Life Cancer Care       Date:  2018-06-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.