Fabio Efficace1, Gary S Collins2, Francesco Cottone3, Johannes M Giesinger4, Kathrin Sommer3, Amelie Anota5, Michael Maia Schlussel2, Paola Fazi3, Marco Vignetti3. 1. Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA) Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: f.efficace@gimema.it. 2. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3. Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA) Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Rome, Italy. 4. University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 5. French National Platform Quality of Life and Cancer, Besançon, France; Methodology and Quality of Life in Oncology Unit (INSERM UMR 1098), University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology is of critical importance because it provides unique information that may also predict clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of prognostic factor studies to examine the prognostic value of PROs for survival in cancer. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed for studies published between 2013 and 2018. We considered any study, regardless of the research design, that included at least 1 PRO domain in the final multivariable prognostic model. The protocol (EPIPHANY) was published and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018099160). RESULTS: Eligibility criteria selected 138 studies including 158 127 patients, of which 43 studies were randomized, controlled trials. Overall, 120 (87%) studies reported at least 1 PRO to be statistically significantly prognostic for overall survival. Lung (n = 41, 29.7%) and genitourinary (n = 27, 19.6%) cancers were most commonly investigated. The prognostic value of PROs was investigated in secondary data analyses in 101 (73.2%) studies. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was the most frequently used measure, and its physical functioning scale (range 0-100) the most frequent independent prognostic PRO, with a pooled hazard ratio estimate of 0.88 per 10-point increase (95% CI 0.84-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: There is convincing evidence that PROs provide independent prognostic information for overall survival across cancer populations and disease stages. Further research is needed to translate current evidence-based data into prognostic tools to aid in clinical decision making.
OBJECTIVES: Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology is of critical importance because it provides unique information that may also predict clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of prognostic factor studies to examine the prognostic value of PROs for survival in cancer. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed for studies published between 2013 and 2018. We considered any study, regardless of the research design, that included at least 1 PRO domain in the final multivariable prognostic model. The protocol (EPIPHANY) was published and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018099160). RESULTS: Eligibility criteria selected 138 studies including 158 127 patients, of which 43 studies were randomized, controlled trials. Overall, 120 (87%) studies reported at least 1 PRO to be statistically significantly prognostic for overall survival. Lung (n = 41, 29.7%) and genitourinary (n = 27, 19.6%) cancers were most commonly investigated. The prognostic value of PROs was investigated in secondary data analyses in 101 (73.2%) studies. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was the most frequently used measure, and its physical functioning scale (range 0-100) the most frequent independent prognostic PRO, with a pooled hazard ratio estimate of 0.88 per 10-point increase (95% CI 0.84-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: There is convincing evidence that PROs provide independent prognostic information for overall survival across cancer populations and disease stages. Further research is needed to translate current evidence-based data into prognostic tools to aid in clinical decision making.
Authors: Kuan Liao; Tianxiao Wang; Jake Coomber-Moore; David C Wong; Fabio Gomes; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Matthew Sperrin; Janelle Yorke; Sabine N van der Veer Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Augusta Silveira; Teresa Sequeira; Joaquim Gonçalves; Pedro Lopes Ferreira Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Kea Turner; Naomi C Brownstein; Zachary Thompson; Issam El Naqa; Yi Luo; Heather S L Jim; Dana E Rollison; Rachel Howard; Desmond Zeng; Stephen A Rosenberg; Bradford Perez; Andreas Saltos; Laura B Oswald; Brian D Gonzalez; Jessica Y Islam; Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Wenbin Zhang; Thomas J Dilling Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Jens Lehmann; Petra Buhl; Johannes M Giesinger; Lisa M Wintner; Monika Sztankay; Lucia Neppl; Wolfgang Willenbacher; Roman Weger; Walpurga Weyrer; Gerhard Rumpold; Bernhard Holzner Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Johannes M Giesinger; Giorgio La Nasa; Francesco Sparano; Matthias Angermeyer; Emanuela Morelli; Olga Mulas; Fabio Efficace; Giovanni Caocci Journal: Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health Date: 2021-12-31
Authors: Martin Eichler; Susanne Singer; Leopold Hentschel; Stephan Richter; Peter Hohenberger; Bernd Kasper; Dimosthenis Andreou; Daniel Pink; Jens Jakob; Robert Grützmann; Stephen Fung; Eva Wardelmann; Karin Arndt; Vitali Heidt; Sergio Armando Zapata Bonilla; Verena I Gaidzik; Helena K Jambor; Jürgen Weitz; Klaus-Dieter Schaser; Martin Bornhäuser; Jochen Schmitt; Markus K Schuler Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 9.075