Minimally important differences of EORTC QLQ-C30 scales in patients with lung cancer or malignant pleural mesothelioma – Interpretation guidance derived from two randomized EORTC trials

Remote symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes and nudges during lung cancer immunotherapy in China (PRO-NET): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) comprising the majority of cases. For advanced NSCLC, immunotherapy offers substantial survival benefits but is often accompanied by severe immune-related adverse events symptoms, significantly affecting health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Routinely collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) followed by automated alerts has been shown to improve overall survival and HRQoL for cancers. However, there is limited evidence for PRO-based symptom monitoring on advanced NSCLC during immunotherapy. This study proposes an electronic PRO-based symptom tracking intervention, integrated with reactive alerts and nudges (PRO-NET) to improve HRQoL for advanced NSCLC patients receiving immunotherapy in China. Secondary objectives include assessing the effect of PRO-symptom monitoring on survival, physical function, symptom control, mental health, cost-effectiveness and implementation fidelity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The PRO-NET study is a two-arm, parallel randomised controlled trial. The study will enrol at least 300 advanced NSCLC patients undergoing immunotherapy in China. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group in a ratio of 1:1 via PRO-NET programme. The intervention involves weekly electronic collection of immune-related PROs and reactive alerts sent directly to patients, combined with nudges over a 6-month period. Patients in the control group will follow usual care and will not trigger the alerts. Both the intervention and control groups will receive outcome assessments at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. Primary outcome focuses on HRQoL, while secondary outcomes include survival, physical function, symptom burden, mental health, cost-effectiveness and implementation fidelity. Differences in HRQoL between the groups will be compared using general linear mixed model, accounting for potential confounding.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Peking University protocol on 21 July 2024 (No. IRB 00001052-24066). This protocol is based on V2.0, 6 July 2024 of the protocol. The results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and academic conferences.

TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2400088408.

Comparing the EORTC QLQ-LC13, EORTC QLQ-LC29, and the FACT-L for assessment of quality of life in patients with lung cancer - an updated systematic review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Two commonly used quality of life (QoL) questionnaires in lung cancer patients are the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L). More recently, the EORTC QLQ-LC29 was developed. This systematic review compares the EORTC QLQ-LC29, EORTC QLQ-LC13 and FACT-L in terms of the content, validity and psychometric properties in assessing the QoL of lung cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Fourteen studies were included. The EORTC QLQ-LC29 is a 29-item scale that serves as an update of the EORTC QLQ-LC13 to include symptoms from surgery and new targeted therapies. It shows validity, high internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and sensitivity. The FACT-L continues to assess general quality of life and lung cancer-specific symptoms.

SUMMARY

The EORTC QLQ-LC29, EORTC QLQ-LC13, and FACT-L were reviewed to assess their validity in measuring QoL of lung cancer patients. All were found to be sufficiently validated, The choice of which to use should depend on the primary goals of the study.

The european organisation for research and treatment of cancer head and neck cancer module (EORTC QLQ-HN43): Estimates for minimal important difference and minimal important change

INTRODUCTION

Minimal important change estimates (MIC) are useful for interpreting results of clinical research with quality of life (QoL) as an endpoint. For the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer head and neck cancer module, the EORTC QLQ-HN43, no such thresholds are established.

METHODS

Head and neck cancer patients under active treatment (n = 503) from 15 countries completed the EORTC QLQ-HN43 three times (t1: before treatment, t2: three months after t1, t3: six months after t1). A subgroup completed a Subjective Significance Questionnaire (SSQ), indicating experienced change from the previous time point in four QoL domains. QoL was assumed to deteriorate after t1 and improve again until t3. The MIC was established using the average of mean differences in SSQ groups (MICmean) and estimates based on logistic regressions (MICpredict). Additionally, minimal detectable changes (MDC) were computed using 0.5 standard deviation and standard error of the mean.

RESULTS

For swallowing, speech, dry mouth, and global QoL, the MIC for deterioration were 13, 14, 26, and 10 respectively. The MIC for improvement were 8 (swallowing), 6 (dry mouth), and 5 (global QoL); no MIC for speech improvement can be presented because of insufficient correlation between change score and anchor. The MDC estimates for deterioration were 15, 14, 15, and 11. For improvement, the MDC estimates were 13, 14, 14, and 11.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results underline that no single MIC or MDC can be applied to all EORTC QLQ-HN43 scales, and that the MIC for deterioration seems larger than those for improvement.

Patient- vs Physician-Initiated Response to Symptom Monitoring and Health-Related Quality of Life: The SYMPRO-Lung Cluster Randomized Trial

Importance

Online symptom monitoring through patient-reported outcomes can enhance health-related quality of life and survival. However, widespread adoption in clinical care remains limited due to various barriers including the need to reduce health care practitioners' workload.

Objective

To report the effects of patient-reported outcome (PRO) symptom monitoring on HRQOL and survival up to 1 year after initiation of any treatment in patients with lung cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

SYMPRO-Lung is a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial including patients with stage I to IV lung cancer. The inclusion period was from October 24, 2019, until September 16, 2021, and data collection ended October 8, 2022. Data analysis was conducted from November 9, 2023, until March 18, 2024.

Intervention

Patients in the intervention group reported PRO symptoms weekly using the Patient Reported Outcomes version of the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events lung cancer subset. If symptoms exceeded a validated threshold, an alert was sent to the health care practitioner (active intervention subgroup) or to the patient (reactive intervention subgroup). Patients in the control group received standard care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Health-related quality of life was measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire at baseline, 15 weeks (T1), 6 months (T2), and 1 year (T3), with the summary score (SS) and physical functioning (PF) as primary end points. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to assess mean differences over time. Effect size (ES) of 0.40 or greater was considered clinically relevant. Cox proportional hazards regression survival analyses were performed to estimate the effect of the intervention on progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

A total of 515 patients (266 [51.7%] men; mean [SD] age, 65.4 [9.4] years) were included in the study (266 in the control group; 249 in the pooled intervention group). Most baseline characteristics were balanced between groups; however, the most notable exception was the distribution in cancer staging: the intervention group had a higher proportion of patients with stage IV cancer compared with the control group (139 [56%] vs 118 [44%]). The pooled intervention group had a significantly better SS (mean difference T1, 5.22; 95% CI, 2.72-7.73; P < .001; ES = 0.33; mean difference T2, 6.28; 95% CI, 3.65-8.92; P < .001; ES = 0.40; mean difference T3, 3.97; 95% CI, 1.15-6.80; P = .006; ES = 0.25) compared with the control group. Group differences improved more in PF but did not meet the ES greater than or equal to 0.40 threshold (mean difference T1, 7.00; 95% CI, 3.65-10.35; P < .001; ES = 0.27; mean difference T2, 6.79; 95% CI, 3.26-10.31; P < .001; ES = 0.26; mean difference T3, 5.01; 95% CI, 1.23-8.79; P = .009; ES = 0.19). No significant differences in HRQOL were observed between the reactive (n = 89) and active (n = 160) intervention groups. The HR for progression-free survival for the active intervention group compared with the control group was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.58-1.04); the finding was not statistically significant. The HR for overall survival for both interventions groups compared with the control group were not statistically significant.(active: HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.15; reactive: HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this 1-year follow-up of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial, PRO symptom monitoring yielded improvements in long-term HRQOL in patients with lung cancer. The reactive approach proved equally effective as the active approach. A nonsignificant potential survival benefit was observed for the intervention group. These positive results provide further evidence for the usefulness of routine PRO symptom monitoring in lung cancer care.

Trial Registration

The Netherlands trial register Identifier: NL7897.

Relationship between changes in pulmonary function and patient-reported outcomes of lung cancer surgery

PURPOSE

To investigate the relationship between changes in pulmonary function (PF) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of lung cancer surgery.

METHODS

We recruited 262 patients who underwent lung resection for lung cancer, to evaluate the PROs, using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 and the Lung Cancer 13-question supplement (LC13). The patients underwent PF tests and PRO assessments preoperatively (Pre) and 1 year after surgery (Y1). Changes were calculated by subtracting the value at Pre from the value at Y1. We set two cohorts: patients under the ongoing protocol (Cohort 1) and patients who were eligible for lobectomy with clinical stage I lung cancer (Cohort 2).

RESULTS

Cohorts 1 and 2 comprised 206 and 149 patients, respectively. In addition to dyspnea, changes in PF were also correlated with scores for global health status, physical and role function scores, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, and financial difficulties. Absolute correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.149 to 0.311. Improvement of emotional and social function scores was independent of PF. Sublobar resection preserved PF more than lobectomy did. Wedge resection mitigated dyspnea in both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

The correlation between PF and PROs was found to be weak; therefore, further studies are needed to improve the patient's postoperative experience.

Effect of Preoperative Home-Based Exercise Training on Quality of Life After Lung Cancer Surgery: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Preoperative exercise training is recommended for improvement of clinical outcomes after lung cancer (LC) surgery. However, its effectiveness in preventing postoperative decline in quality of life (QoL) remains unknown. This study investigated the effect of preoperative home-based exercise training (PHET) on QoL after LC surgery.

METHODS

Patients awaiting LC resection were randomized to PHET or a control group (CG). The PHET program combined aerobic and resistance exercise, with weekly telephone supervision. Primary outcome was QoL-assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, before surgery, and 1 month after surgery. The secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and physical performance. The main analysis included a factorial repeated-measures analysis of variance. Additionally, the proportion of patients experiencing clinical deterioration from baseline to post-surgery was assessed.

RESULTS

The study included 41 patients (68.1 ± 9.3 years; 68.3% male) in the intention-to-treat analysis (20 PHET patients, 21 CG patients). A significant group × time interaction was observed for global QoL (p = 0.004). Between-group differences in global QoL were statistically and clinically significant before surgery (mean difference [MD], 13.5 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-24.6; p = 0.019) and after surgery (MD, 12.4 points; 95% CI, 1.3-23.4; p = 0.029), favoring PHET. Clinical deterioration of global QoL was reported by 71.4% of the CG patients compared with 30 % of the PHET patients (p = 0.003). Between-group differences in favor of PHET were found in pain and appetite loss as well as in physical, emotional and role functions after surgery (p < 0.05). Compared with CG, PHET was superior in improving preoperative five-times sit-to-stand and postoperative exercise capacity (p < 0.05). No between-group differences in other secondary outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that PHET can effectively prevent the decline in QoL after LC surgery.

Minimally important differences for interpreting EORTC QLQ-C30 change scores over time: A synthesis across 21 clinical trials involving nine different cancer types

INTRODUCTION

Early guidelines for minimally important differences (MIDs) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 proposed ≥10 points change as clinically meaningful for all scales. Increasing evidence that MIDs can vary by scale, direction of change, cancer type and estimation method has raised doubt about a single global standard. This paper identifies MID patterns for interpreting group-level change in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores across nine cancer types.

METHODS

Data were obtained from 21 published EORTC Phase III trials that enroled 13,015 patients across nine cancer types (brain, colorectal, advanced breast, head/neck, lung, mesothelioma, melanoma, ovarian, and prostate). Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change and between-group differences in change over time were obtained via mean change method and linear regression, respectively. Separate MIDs were estimated for improvements and deteriorations. Distribution-based estimates were derived and compared with anchor-based MIDs.

RESULTS

Anchor-based MIDs mostly ranged from 5 to 10 points. Differences in MIDs for improvement vs deterioration, for both within-group and between-group, were mostly within a 2-points range. Larger differences between within-group and between-group MIDs were observed for several scales in ovarian, lung and head/neck cancer. Most anchor-based MIDs ranged between 0.3 SD and 0.5 SD distribution-based estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results reinforce recent claims that no single MID can be applied to all EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and disease settings. MIDs varied by scale, improvement/deterioration, within/between comparisons and by cancer type. Researchers applying commonly used rules of thumb must be aware of the risk of dismissing changes that are clinically meaningful or underpowering analyses when smaller MIDs apply.

Home-Based Preoperative Exercise Training for Lung Cancer Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Feasibility Trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend prehabilitation with exercise training to optimize recovery after lung cancer surgery. However, the lack of access to facility-based exercise programs is a major barrier to routine participation. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of a home-based exercise intervention before lung cancer resection.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, two-site feasibility study, including patients scheduled for lung cancer surgery. Exercise prescription involved aerobic and resistance training with telephone-based supervision. The primary endpoint was overall feasibility (recruitment rate, retention rate, intervention adherence and acceptability). Secondary endpoints included safety and effects on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and physical performance, evaluated at baseline, after the exercise intervention and 4-5 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

Over three months, 15 patients were eligible, and all agreed to participate (recruitment rate: 100%). A total of 14 patients completed the exercise intervention, and 12 patients were evaluated postoperatively (retention rate: 80%). The median length of the exercise intervention was 3 weeks. Patients performed an aerobic and resistance training volume higher than prescribed (median adherence rates of 104% and 111%, respectively). A total of nine adverse events occurred during the intervention (Grade 1, n = 8; Grade 2, n = 1), the most common being shoulder pain. After the exercise intervention, significant improvements were observed in the HRQOL summary score (mean difference, 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], from 0.9 to 4.8; p = 0.049) and the five-times sit-to-stand test score (median difference, -1.5; 95% CI, from -2.1 to -0.9; p = 0.001). After surgery, no significant effects on HRQOL and physical performance were observed.

CONCLUSION

A short-term preoperative home-based exercise intervention is feasible before lung cancer resection and may enhance accessibility to prehabilitation. Clinical effectiveness should be investigated in future studies.

Interpreting Within-Patient Changes on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13

INTRODUCTION

When determining if changes on patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in clinical trials convey a meaningful treatment benefit, statistical significance tests alone may not communicate the patient perspective. Appraising within-patient changes on PRO scores against established thresholds can determine if improvements or deteriorations experienced by individuals are meaningful. To evaluate the appropriateness of thresholds for interpreting meaningful improvements and deterioration within individuals on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30-item core instrument (QLQ-C30) and 13-item lung cancer module (QLQ-LC13), a series of psychometric methods were applied to data from a phase III randomized controlled clinical trial in non-small cell lung cancer.

METHODS

Anchor-based methods of empirical cumulative distribution functions and classification statistics were employed using change scores from Baseline to Week 7 using changes on the QLQ-C30 Global Health Status item as an anchor. Distribution-based methods of one-half standard deviation and standard error of measurement identified the minimum amount of change each domain score can reliably measure.

RESULTS

While the correlations between the domain scores and the anchor item were modest in size (i.e., r ≥ 0.30 for only 5 of 24 domains), consideration of multiple methods along with the magnitude of possible step changes on the score allowed for patterns to emerge. The triangulation process planned a priori resulted in different methods being the source for different domain scores. Absolute values of the proposed thresholds ranged from 11.11 to 33.33, and all resulted in the same classifications for all EORTC domains, except QLQ-C30 Fatigue, as would the 10-point threshold that is traditionally used.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the appropriateness of the 10-point EORTC score threshold generally used by the field for interpreting within-patient changes, but the thresholds proposed from this study enhance interpretability by corresponding to only observable locations along the domain score scale.