Olga Husson1,2, Belle H de Rooij3,4, Jacobien Kieffer5, Simone Oerlemans4, Floortje Mols3,4, Neil K Aaronson5, Winette T A van der Graaf6,7, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse5,3,4. 1. Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands o.husson@nki.nl. 2. Division of Clinical Studies, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. 3. Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic diseases, Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 4. The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has been shown to be a prognostic factor for cancer survival in randomized clinical trials and observational "real-world" cohort studies; however, it remains unclear which HRQoL domains are the best prognosticators. The primary aims of this population-based, observational study were to (a) investigate the association between the novel European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core30 (QLQ-C30) summary score and all-cause mortality, adjusting for the more traditional sociodemographic and clinical prognostic factors; and (b) compare the prognostic value of the QLQ-C30 summary score with the global quality of life (QoL) and physical functioning scales of the QLQ-C30. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2008 and 2015, patients with cancer (12 tumor types) were invited to participate in PROFILES disease-specific registry studies (response rate, 69%). In this secondary analysis of 6,895 patients, multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to investigate the association between the QLQ-C30 scores and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In the overall Cox regression model including sociodemographic and clinical variables, the QLQ-C30 summary score was associated significantly with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.82). In stratified analyses, significant associations between the summary score and all-cause mortality were observed for colon, rectal, and prostate cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and multiple myeloma. The QLQ-C30 summary score had a stronger association with all-cause mortality than the global QoL scale (HR, 0.82; 99% CI, 0.77-0.86) or the physical functioning scale (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85). CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, the QLQ-C30 summary score has a strong prognostic value for overall survival for a number of populations of patients with cancer above and beyond that provided by clinical and sociodemographic variables. The QLQ-C30 summary score appears to have more prognostic value than the global QoL, physical functioning, or any other scale within the QLQ-C30. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The finding that health-related quality of life provides distinct prognostic information beyond known sociodemographic and clinical measures, not only around cancer diagnosis (baseline) but also at follow-up, has implications for clinical practice. Implementation of cancer survivorship monitoring systems for ongoing surveillance may improve post-treatment rehabilitation that leads to better outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has been shown to be a prognostic factor for cancer survival in randomized clinical trials and observational "real-world" cohort studies; however, it remains unclear which HRQoL domains are the best prognosticators. The primary aims of this population-based, observational study were to (a) investigate the association between the novel European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core30 (QLQ-C30) summary score and all-cause mortality, adjusting for the more traditional sociodemographic and clinical prognostic factors; and (b) compare the prognostic value of the QLQ-C30 summary score with the global quality of life (QoL) and physical functioning scales of the QLQ-C30. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2008 and 2015, patients with cancer (12 tumor types) were invited to participate in PROFILES disease-specific registry studies (response rate, 69%). In this secondary analysis of 6,895 patients, multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to investigate the association between the QLQ-C30 scores and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In the overall Cox regression model including sociodemographic and clinical variables, the QLQ-C30 summary score was associated significantly with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.82). In stratified analyses, significant associations between the summary score and all-cause mortality were observed for colon, rectal, and prostate cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and multiple myeloma. The QLQ-C30 summary score had a stronger association with all-cause mortality than the global QoL scale (HR, 0.82; 99% CI, 0.77-0.86) or the physical functioning scale (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85). CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, the QLQ-C30 summary score has a strong prognostic value for overall survival for a number of populations of patients with cancer above and beyond that provided by clinical and sociodemographic variables. The QLQ-C30 summary score appears to have more prognostic value than the global QoL, physical functioning, or any other scale within the QLQ-C30. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The finding that health-related quality of life provides distinct prognostic information beyond known sociodemographic and clinical measures, not only around cancer diagnosis (baseline) but also at follow-up, has implications for clinical practice. Implementation of cancer survivorship monitoring systems for ongoing surveillance may improve post-treatment rehabilitation that leads to better outcomes.
Authors: Kim Cocks; Madeleine T King; Galina Velikova; Marrissa Martyn St-James; Peter M Fayers; Julia M Brown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N Corsini; J Fish; I Ramsey; G Sharplin; I Flight; R Damarell; B Wiggins; C Wilson; D Roder; M Eckert Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Ethan Basch; John Spertus; R Adams Dudley; Albert Wu; Cynthia Chuahan; Perry Cohen; Mary Lou Smith; Nick Black; Amaris Crawford; Keri Christensen; Kathleen Blake; Christine Goertz Journal: Value Health Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J M Valderas; A Kotzeva; M Espallargues; G Guyatt; C E Ferrans; M Y Halyard; D A Revicki; T Symonds; A Parada; J Alonso Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Johannes M Giesinger; Jacobien M Kieffer; Peter M Fayers; Mogens Groenvold; Morten Aa Petersen; Neil W Scott; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Galina Velikova; Neil K Aaronson Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Belle H de Rooij; Nicole P M Ezendam; Floortje Mols; Pauline A J Vissers; Melissa S Y Thong; Carla C P Vlooswijk; Simone Oerlemans; Olga Husson; Nicole J E Horevoorts; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 4.147