PURPOSE: This study is an update of a systematic review of health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) methodology reporting in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The objective was to evaluate HRQOL methodology reporting over the last decade and its benefit for clinical decision making. METHODS: A MEDLINE systematic literature review was performed. Eligible RCTs implemented patient-reported HRQOL assessments and regular oncology treatments for newly diagnosed adult patients with NSCLC. Included studies were published in English from August 2002 to July 2010. Two independent reviewers evaluated all included RCTs. RESULTS: Fifty-three RCTs were assessed. Of the 53 RCTs, 81% reported that there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS). However, 50% of RCTs that were unable to find OS differences reported a significant difference in HRQOL scores. The quality of HRQOL reporting has improved; both reporting of clinically significant differences and statistical testing of HRQOL have improved. A European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer HRQOL questionnaire was used in 57% of the studies. However, reporting of HRQOL hypotheses and rationales for choosing HRQOL instruments were significantly less than before 2002 (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The number of NSCLC RCTs incorporating HRQOL assessments has considerably increased. HRQOL continues to demonstrate its importance in RCTs, especially in those studies in which no OS difference is found. Despite the improved quality of HRQOL methodology reporting, certain aspects remain underrepresented. Our findings suggest need for an international standardization of HRQOL reporting similar to the CONSORT guidelines for clinical findings.
PURPOSE: This study is an update of a systematic review of health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) methodology reporting in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The objective was to evaluate HRQOL methodology reporting over the last decade and its benefit for clinical decision making. METHODS: A MEDLINE systematic literature review was performed. Eligible RCTs implemented patient-reported HRQOL assessments and regular oncology treatments for newly diagnosed adult patients with NSCLC. Included studies were published in English from August 2002 to July 2010. Two independent reviewers evaluated all included RCTs. RESULTS: Fifty-three RCTs were assessed. Of the 53 RCTs, 81% reported that there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS). However, 50% of RCTs that were unable to find OS differences reported a significant difference in HRQOL scores. The quality of HRQOL reporting has improved; both reporting of clinically significant differences and statistical testing of HRQOL have improved. A European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer HRQOL questionnaire was used in 57% of the studies. However, reporting of HRQOL hypotheses and rationales for choosing HRQOL instruments were significantly less than before 2002 (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The number of NSCLC RCTs incorporating HRQOL assessments has considerably increased. HRQOL continues to demonstrate its importance in RCTs, especially in those studies in which no OS difference is found. Despite the improved quality of HRQOL methodology reporting, certain aspects remain underrepresented. Our findings suggest need for an international standardization of HRQOL reporting similar to the CONSORT guidelines for clinical findings.
Authors: I Gauthier; K Ding; T Winton; F A Shepherd; R Livingston; D H Johnson; J R Rigas; M Whitehead; B Graham; L Seymour Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Donald L Patrick; Laurie B Burke; John H Powers; Jane A Scott; Edwin P Rock; Sahar Dawisha; Robert O'Neill; Dianne L Kennedy Journal: Value Health Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Cesare Gridelli; Ciro Gallo; Anna Ceribelli; Vittorio Gebbia; Teresa Gamucci; Fortunato Ciardiello; Francesco Carozza; Adolfo Favaretto; Bruno Daniele; Domenico Galetta; Santi Barbera; Francesco Rosetti; Antonio Rossi; Paolo Maione; Francesco Cognetti; Antonio Testa; Massimo Di Maio; Alessandro Morabito; Francesco Perrone Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ulrich Gatzemeier; Anna Pluzanska; Aleksandra Szczesna; Eckhard Kaukel; Jaromir Roubec; Flavio De Rosa; Janusz Milanowski; Hanna Karnicka-Mlodkowski; Milos Pesek; Piotr Serwatowski; Rodryg Ramlau; Terezie Janaskova; Johan Vansteenkiste; Janos Strausz; Georgy Moiseevich Manikhas; Joachim Von Pawel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N Helbekkmo; S H Sundstrøm; U Aasebø; P Fr Brunsvig; C von Plessen; H H Hjelde; O K Garpestad; A Bailey; R M Bremnes Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-06-26 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: David Gilligan; Marianne Nicolson; Ian Smith; Harry Groen; Otilia Dalesio; Peter Goldstraw; Matthew Hatton; Penelope Hopwood; Christian Manegold; Franz Schramel; Hans Smit; Jan van Meerbeeck; Matthew Nankivell; Mahesh Parmar; Cheryl Pugh; Richard Stephens Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-06-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Felicity W K Harper; Elisabeth I Heath; Marci E J Gleason; Louis Penner; Patricia Lorusso; Ding Wang; Terrance L Albrecht Journal: J Cancer Ther Date: 2012-10
Authors: Fabio Efficace; Peter Fayers; Andrea Pusic; Yeliz Cemal; Jane Yanagawa; Marc Jacobs; Andrea la Sala; Valentina Cafaro; Katie Whale; Jonathan Rees; Jane Blazeby Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: D R Sullivan; C W Forsberg; L Ganzini; D H Au; M K Gould; D Provenzale; K S Lyons; C G Slatore Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 5.705