L Mol1, P B Ottevanger2, M Koopman3, C J A Punt4. 1. Clinical Trial Department, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), The Netherlands. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.punt@amc.uva.nl.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Performance status (PS) is an established prognostic factor in patients with advanced cancer and is usually scored by the treating physician. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire as reported by cancer patients is a validated tool to assess quality of life (QoL). Subjectivity plays a role in both assessments, and data on a direct comparison are scarce. METHODS: We compared the prognostic value for overall survival (OS) of the WHO PS to the baseline physical function scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (QLQ-C30 PF) in a prospective randomised phase 3 trial in advanced colorectal cancer (ACC), the CAIRO study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the baseline QLQ-C30 PF. QLQ-C30 PF was considered 'good' if the score was more than 66.7% and 'poor' if 66.7% or less. Results were validated in a subsequent phase 3 study in ACC, the CAIRO2 study. RESULTS: The median OS for patients with a 'good' QLQ-C30 PF and a 'poor' PF in patients with WHO PS 0 was 20.3 months (n = 300) and 10.4 months (n = 44), in patients with WHO PS 1 16.8 months (n = 125) and 10.1 months (n = 63), and in patients with WHO PS 2 16.2 months (n = 11) and 9.9 months (n = 12), respectively. In a Cox regression model which included other prognostic factors, 'good' versus 'poor' QLQ-C30 PF was significantly prognostic for OS (0.57 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.72), but not WHO PS. These results were confirmed in the CAIRO2 study. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate in ACC patients that PF, as assessed by patients using the EORTC QLQ-C30, is superior in terms of prognostic value to WHO PS as scored by physicians. Our data support to include the results of baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 PF instead of WHO PS as a stratification parameter in oncology trials.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Performance status (PS) is an established prognostic factor in patients with advanced cancer and is usually scored by the treating physician. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire as reported by cancerpatients is a validated tool to assess quality of life (QoL). Subjectivity plays a role in both assessments, and data on a direct comparison are scarce. METHODS: We compared the prognostic value for overall survival (OS) of the WHO PS to the baseline physical function scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (QLQ-C30 PF) in a prospective randomised phase 3 trial in advanced colorectal cancer (ACC), the CAIRO study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the baseline QLQ-C30 PF. QLQ-C30 PF was considered 'good' if the score was more than 66.7% and 'poor' if 66.7% or less. Results were validated in a subsequent phase 3 study in ACC, the CAIRO2 study. RESULTS: The median OS for patients with a 'good' QLQ-C30 PF and a 'poor' PF in patients with WHO PS 0 was 20.3 months (n = 300) and 10.4 months (n = 44), in patients with WHO PS 1 16.8 months (n = 125) and 10.1 months (n = 63), and in patients with WHO PS 2 16.2 months (n = 11) and 9.9 months (n = 12), respectively. In a Cox regression model which included other prognostic factors, 'good' versus 'poor' QLQ-C30 PF was significantly prognostic for OS (0.57 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.72), but not WHO PS. These results were confirmed in the CAIRO2 study. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate in ACC patients that PF, as assessed by patients using the EORTC QLQ-C30, is superior in terms of prognostic value to WHO PS as scored by physicians. Our data support to include the results of baseline EORTCQLQ-C30 PF instead of WHO PS as a stratification parameter in oncology trials.
Authors: Johannes J M Kwakman; G Vink; J H Vestjens; L V Beerepoot; J W de Groot; R L Jansen; F L Opdam; H Boot; G J Creemers; J M van Rooijen; M Los; A J E Vulink; H Schut; E van Meerten; A Baars; P Hamberg; E Kapiteijn; D W Sommeijer; C J A Punt; M Koopman Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: A J van Nieuwenhuizen; L M Buffart; J A Langendijk; M R Vergeer; J Voortman; C R Leemans; I M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Allen Naamala; Lars E Eriksson; Jackson Orem; Gorrette K Nalwadda; Zarina Nahar Kabir; Lena Wettergren Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Asmaa M Zahran; Amal Rayan; Hussein Fakhry; Alia M Attia; Ahmed M Ashmawy; Ahmed Soliman; Azza Elkady; Helal F Hetta Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Joeri A J Douma; Sonja Zweegman; Mieke Alberts; Sandy Kruyswijk; Niels C W J van de Donk; Myra van Linde; Laurien M Buffart; Henk M W Verheul Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 3.359