OS05.4.A Do neurocognitive deficits explain the differences between brain tumour patients and their proxies assessing the patient’s I-ADL?

BACKGROUND

Neurocognitive deficits are common among brain tumour patients, and may impact on patient awareness of deficits in instrumental activities in daily life (IADL). This study aimed to examine differences between patient-reported and proxy-reported assessments of the patient’s performance of IADL, and whether the level of (dis)agreement is associated with neurocognitive deficits.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A phase III EORTC questionnaire measuring IADL in brain tumour patients (EORTC IADL-BN32) and six neurocognitive test measures were administered as part of a larger multicentre international study designed to develop a brain tumour specific IADL questionnaire. Bland-Altman plots and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to evaluated patient- and proxy-reported IADL on a group level. Subsequently, Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to compare patient-proxy difference scores (patient IADL score - their proxy IADL score) between patients who were considered clearly neurocognitively impaired (≥2 neurocognitive test measures; ≤2.0 SD below healthy controls) and patients who were not. Furthermore, multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to examined which sociodemgraphic, clinical, and particularly neurocognitive variables were independently associated with patients and proxies differing in their evaluation of patient’s IADL.

RESULTS

Patients (N=81) and proxies (N=81), on group level, did not significantly differ on either the IADL individual item or scale scores. However, significant differences were found on patient-proxy difference scores between patients who were (N=37) and were not (N=44) considered clearly neurocognitively impaired for 10/32 individual items and one of the scales (i.e. Scale 4: Administrative tasks), all showing that the proxies of clearly neurocognitively impaired patients reported more problems relative to the patients themselves, compared to proxies of patients not clearly neurocognitively impaired. Furthermore, for each scale, a neurocognitive variable, either impaired information processing speed, cognitive flexibility, verbal fluency or the number of neurocognitive test measures impaired, was found to be independently associated with proxies reporting more problems. For 4/5 scales, a clinical variable was additionally independently associated with proxies reporting more problems. Only one variable was independently associated with patient reporting more problems, namely being in active treatment was found to be associated with patients reporting more problems on Scale 4: Administrative tasks.

CONCLUSION

Results imply a consistent trend of clearly neurocognitively impaired patients underreporting problems with IADL compared to their proxies. It would therefore be advised to administer both the patient- and proxy-version of the EORTC IADL-BN32, particularly if neurocognitive deficits are presumed.

PL03.4.A Factors associated with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) deterioration in glioma patients during the progression-free survival period

BACKGROUND

Maintenance of functioning and wellbeing during the progression-free survival (PFS) period is important for glioma patients. This study aimed to determine whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) can be maintained during progression-free time, and factors associated with HRQoL deterioration in this period.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included longitudinal HRQoL data from previously published clinical trials in glioma. The percentage of patients with stable HRQoL until progression was determined per scale and at the individual patient level (i.e. considering all scales simultaneously). We assessed time to a clinically relevant deterioration in HRQoL, expressed in deterioration-free survival and time-to-deterioration (the first including progression as an event). We also determined the association between sociodemographic and clinical factors and HRQoL deterioration in the progression-free period.

RESULTS

5539 patients with at least baseline HRQoL scores had a median time from randomization to progression of 7.6 months. Between 9%-29% of the patients deteriorated before disease progression on the evaluated HRQoL scales. When considering all scales simultaneously, 47% of patients deteriorated on ≥1 scale. Median deterioration-free survival period ranged between 3.8–5.4 months, and median time-to-deterioration between 8.2–11.9 months. For most scales, only poor performance status was independently associated with clinically relevant HRQoL deterioration in the progression-free period.

CONCLUSION

HRQoL was maintained in only 53% of patients in their progression-free period, and treatment was not independently associated with this deterioration in HRQoL. Routine monitoring of the patients’ functioning and well-being during the entire disease course is therefore important, so that interventions can be initiated when problems are signalled.

An international update of the EORTC questionnaire for assessing quality of life in breast cancer patients: EORTC QLQ-BR45

BACKGROUND

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-BR23 was one of the first disease-specific questionnaires developed in 1996 to assess quality of life (QoL) in patients with breast cancer (BC). However, since 1996 major changes in BC treatment have occurred, requiring an update of the EORTC BC module. This study presents the results of the phase I-III update of the QLQ-BR23 questionnaire.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The update of the EORTC QLQ-BR23 module followed standard EORTC guidelines. A systematic literature review revealed 83 potential relevant QoL issues during phases I and II. After shortening the issues list and following interviews with patients and health care providers, 15 relevant issues were transformed into 27 items. The preliminary module was pretested in an international, multicentre phase III study to identify and solve potential problems with wording comprehensibility and acceptability of the items. Descriptive statistics are provided. Analyses were qualitative and quantitative. We provide a psychometric structure of the items.

RESULTS

The phase I and II results indicated the need to supplement the original QLQ-BR23 with additional items related to newer therapeutic options. The phase III study recruited a total of 250 patients (from 12 countries). The final updated phase III module contains a total of 45 items: 23 items from the QLQ-BR23 and 22 new items. The new items contain two multi-item scales: a target symptom scale and a satisfaction scale. The target symptom scale can be divided into three subscales: endocrine therapy, endocrine sexual and skin/mucosa scale.

CONCLUSION

Our work has led to the development of a new EORTC QLQ-BR45 module that provides a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the impact of new and scalable treatments on patients' QoL. The final version of the EORTC QLQ-BR45 is currently available for use in clinical practice. The final phase IV study is underway to confirm psychometric properties of the module.

OS7.2 Measuring change in health-related quality of life: the added value of analysis on the individual patient level in glioma patients in clinical decision making

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is often used as an outcome in glioma research, reflecting the impact of disease and treatment on a patient’s functioning and wellbeing. Data on changes in HRQoL scores may provide important information for clinical decision-making, but different analytical methods may lead to different interpretations of the impact of treatment on HRQoL. This study aimed to examine three different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL, and to study whether these methods result in different interpretations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

HRQoL and sociodemographical/clinical data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined. Change in HRQoL scores was analyzed in three ways: (1) at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms over time, (2) at the patient level per scale/item by calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved or remained stable on a scale/item per scale/item, and (3) at the individual patient level combining all scales/items.

RESULTS

Baseline and first follow-up HRQoL data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level (method 1), only the item ‘hair loss’ showed a significant and clinically relevant change (i.e. ≥10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items showed a statistically significant change only (all p<.001, range in change score: 0.1–6.2). Analyses on the patient level per scale (method 2) indicated that, while a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range 27–84%), many patients deteriorated (range: 6–43%) or improved (range: 8–32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level (method 3), the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, while only 1% of the patients remained stable on all scales. Clustering on clinical characteristics (WHO performance status, sex, tumor type, type of resection, newly diagnosed versus recurrent tumor and age) did not identify subgroups of patients with a specific pattern of change in their HRQoL score.

CONCLUSION

Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct interpretations of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for clinical decision-making. Additional information about the joint impact of treatment on all outcomes, showing that most patients experience both deterioration and improvement, may help patients and physicians to make the best treatment decision.

OS7.4 Calculating the net clinical benefit in brain tumor clinical trials by combining survival and health-related quality of life data using two methods: quality adjusted survival effect sizes (QASES) and joint modelling (JM)

BACKGROUND

The impact of treatment on both the quality and the quantity of life, i.e. the ‘net clinical benefit’, should be considered to inform glioma patients and facilitate shared decision making. We applied two methods (i.e. Quality Adjusted Effect Sizes (QASES) and Joint Modelling (JM)) that combine survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data into one outcome, to gain insight in the net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy. In addition, we assessed if both methods result in similar interpretations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We calculated the net clinical benefit in one randomized controlled trial, EORTC 26951 comparing radiotherapy (RT) + PCV chemotherapy versus RT alone, as a proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in survival and HRQoL between treatment arms were calculated. Next, the combined effect size can be determined by weighing the emphasis put on survival or HRQoL (e.g. survival more important). JM allows simultaneous modeling of a longitudinal outcome (HRQoL), and a time-to event outcome (survival). HRQoL scales/items that were selected for primary analysis in the main study were also selected for this analysis: fatigue, global health, social functioning, communication deficit, seizures, physical functioning, and nausea/vomiting.

RESULTS

288/386 patients completed baseline HRQoL forms and were included in the analysis. Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with combined treatment (difference of 10.8 months). In contrast, the percentage of patients who experienced a clinically relevant deterioration (≥10 points) in nausea/vomiting, fatigue, social functioning and global health up to one year after treatment compared to baseline was larger in the RT+PCV arm. The QASES corresponded to a reduction in the median OS difference from 10.8 months to 6.8 months when adjusted for the HRQoL scales/items, when given equal weights to OS and HRQoL. JM analyses resulted in a theoretical loss of treatment effect in OS of 2–6% when adjusting for HRQoL.

CONCLUSION

Both methods showed that adjusting for the impact of treatment on a relevant HRQoL parameter reduced the survival benefit in the experimental treatment arm compared to standard treatment arm. Applying these methods may facilitate communicating the impact of treatment to patients in clinical practice.

Targeted prostate cancer screening in men with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 detects aggressive prostate cancer: preliminary analysis of the results of the IMPACT study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of targeted prostate cancer screening in men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, an international study, IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls), was established. This is the first multicentre screening study targeted at men with a known genetic predisposition to prostate cancer. A preliminary analysis of the data is reported.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men aged 40-69 years from families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were offered annual prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, and those with PSA > 3 ng/mL, were offered a prostate biopsy. Controls were men age-matched (± 5 years) who were negative for the familial mutation.

RESULTS

In total, 300 men were recruited (205 mutation carriers; 89 BRCA1, 116 BRCA2 and 95 controls) over 33 months. At the baseline screen (year 1), 7.0% (21/300) underwent a prostate biopsy. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in ten individuals, a prevalence of 3.3%. The positive predictive value of PSA screening in this cohort was 47·6% (10/21). One prostate cancer was diagnosed at year 2. Of the 11 prostate cancers diagnosed, nine were in mutation carriers, two in controls, and eight were clinically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that the positive predictive value of PSA screening in BRCA mutation carriers is high and that screening detects clinically significant prostate cancer. These results support the rationale for continued screening in such men.

Determinants of patient satisfaction in oncology settings from European and Asian countries: Preliminary results based on the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire

The aim of this study was to identify factors associated significantly with hospitalised cancer patients' satisfaction with care. Patients were recruited from four geographical/cultural groups, including five European countries and Taiwan. They rated their level of satisfaction by completing the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire at home. Additionally, data were collected on the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and the quality of life of the patients, as well as on institutional characteristics. Of 762 patients recruited, 647 (85%) returned a completed questionnaire. The number of nurses and doctors per bed, institution size, geo-cultural origin, ward setting, teaching/non-teaching setting, treatment toxicity, global health status, participation in clinical trials and education level were all associated significantly at the multivariate level with satisfaction with doctor and nurse interpersonal skills, information provision, availability, and/or overall satisfaction. A number of patient-, institutional- and culture-related factors are associated with the perceived quality of cancer care. Future studies, with appropriate sampling frames and stratification procedures, are needed to better understand cross-national and cross-cultural differences in cancer patient satisfaction.

Use of item response theory to develop a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning scale

BACKGROUND

As part of a larger study whose objective is to develop an abbreviated version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 suitable for research in palliative care, analyses were conducted to determine the feasibility of generating a shorter version of the 4-item emotional functioning (EF) scale that could be scored in the original metric.

METHODS

We used data from 24 European cancer studies conducted in 10 different languages (n = 8242). Item selection was based on analyses by item response theory (IRT). Based on the IRT results, a simple scoring algorithm was developed to predict the original 4-item EF sum scale score from a reduced number of items.

RESULTS

Both a 3-item and a 2-item version (item 21 'Did you feel tense?' and item 24 'Did you feel depressed?') predicted the total score with excellent agreement and very little bias. In group comparisons, the 2-item scale led to the same conclusions as those based on the original 4-item scale with little or no loss of measurement efficiency.

CONCLUSION

Although these results are promising, confirmatory studies are needed based on independent samples. If such additional studies yield comparable results, incorporation of the 2-item EF scale in an abbreviated version of the QLQ-C30 for use in palliative care research settings would be justified. The analyses reported here demonstrate the usefulness of the IRT-based methodology for shortening questionnaire scales.

Activity of single-agent gemcitabine as second-line treatment after previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

The aim of the study was to evaluate activity, toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQL) with gemcitabine as second-line treatment after previous chemo- or radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with previously treated NSCLC were treated with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) on days 1, 8 and 15 in a 28-day cycle. Eighty patients were included; median age was 57 years (range 38-77). Prior treatment consisted of platinum-containing chemotherapy in 29 patients and high-dose thoracic radiotherapy in 51 patients. Median number of cycles was three (range 1-6). Granulocytopenia CTC grade 3 and 4 occurred in 9% and thrombocytopenia CTC grade 3 and 4 in 9% of cycles. Non-haematological toxicity was mild. Tumour response was achieved in 13% of the patients (95% CI 7-20), median survival time was 26 weeks and 1-year survival was 22%. Tumour response to second-line gemcitabine could not be predicted from response to first-line therapy, first-line treatment modality or treatment interval. In a subset of 35 patients HRQL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires and showed improvement or control of symptoms and functioning in approximately 30% of patients. We conclude that gemcitabine in second-line treatment has modest anti-tumour activity, is well tolerated, and may control tumour-related symptoms and improve HRQL in a significant minority of patients.

External irradiation versus external irradiation plus endobronchial brachytherapy in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

No randomized studies are available on the additional value of endobronchial brachytherapy (EBB) to external irradiation (XRT) regarding palliation of respiratory symptoms (RS). A prospective randomized study was initiated to test the hypothesis that the addition of EBB to XRT provides higher levels of palliation of dyspnea and other RS and improvement of quality of life (QoL) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with endobronchial tumour.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with previously untreated NSCLC, stages I-IIIb, WHO-performance status of 0-3 and with biopsy proven endobronchial tumour in the proximal airways were eligible. EBB consisted of two fractions of 7.5 Gy at 1 cm on day 1 and 8. XRT started at day 2. The XRT dose was 30 Gy (2 weeks) or 60 Gy (6 weeks). The EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 were assessed before treatment and 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment. Re-expansion of collapsed lung was tested by the inspiratory vital capacity (IVC) and CT scan of the chest.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients were randomized between arm 1 (XRT alone) (n=48) or arm 2 (XRT+EBB) (n=47). The arms were well balanced regarding pre-treatment characteristics and QoL scores. The compliance for QoL-assessment was >90% at all times. No significant difference between the trial arms was observed with respect to response of dyspnea. However, a beneficial effect of EBB was noted concerning the mean scores of dyspnea over time (P=0.02), which lasted for 3 months. This benefit was only observed among patients with an obstructing tumour of the main bronchus. A higher rate of re-expansion of collapsed lung was observed in arm 2 (57%) compared to arm 1 (35%) (P=0.01). The inspiratory vital capacity (IVC) assessed 2 weeks after radiotherapy improved with 493 cm(3) in arm 2 and decreased 50 cm(3) in arm 1 (P=0.03). No difference was noted regarding the incidence of massive haemoptysis (13 vs. 15%).

CONCLUSION

The addition of EBB to XRT in NSCLC is safe and provides higher rates of re-expansion of collapsed lung resulting in a transient lower levels of dyspnea. This beneficial effect was only observed among patients with obstructing tumours in the main bronchus.

Flutamide versus prednisone in patients with prostate cancer symptomatically progressing after androgen-ablative therapy: a phase III study of the European organization for research and treatment of cancer genitourinary group

PURPOSE

Time to progression (TTP), overall survival, and quality of life (QL) were compared in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer (HRPC) treated with prednisone (5 mg orally, four times a day) or flutamide (250 mg orally, three times a day).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Symptomatic patients were randomized to receive either prednisone (101 patients) or flutamide (100 patients). Subjective response was assessed based on performance status, the use of analgesics, and the need to apply alternative palliative treatment. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based biochemical response (>or= 50% reduction of baseline PSA) was recorded. At baseline and at 6-week intervals during follow-up, patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the groups in median TTP (prednisone, 3.4 months; flutamide, 2.3 months) or overall survival (prednisone, 10.6 months; flutamide, 11.2 months). In the prednisone group, 56% of the patients experienced a subjective response, compared with 45% in the flutamide group (P: = .18). The median response duration was 4.8 months for prednisone and 4.2 months for flutamide. A biochemical response was observed in 21% and 23% of the prednisone and flutamide groups, respectively. Gastrointestinal toxicity was the reason for trial discontinuation in seven patients receiving flutamide and two patients receiving prednisone. The QL assessment parameters favored the use of prednisone with statistically significant differences in pain, fatigue, role functioning, appetite loss, gastrointestinal distress, and overall QL.

CONCLUSION

In symptomatic HRPC, treatment with prednisone or flutamide leads to similar rates of TTP and overall survival and no difference in subjective or biochemical response. The QL results favor the use of low-cost prednisone in patients with HRPC.

Summary measures and statistics in the analysis of quality of life data: an example from an EORTC-NCIC-SAKK locally advanced breast cancer study

Quality of Life (QL) is now included as an endpoint in many phase III cancer clinical trials. Numerous statistical techniques have been presented in the literature to analyse QL data but there is still no agreement as to what is the optimal approach of analysis. In this paper we, therefore, present and compare various techniques which have all appeared in the literature and which may be globally described as summary measures and summary statistics. These techniques are illustrated using data from an EORTC clinical trial in locally advanced breast cancer (EORTC trial 10921). It is also explained in this paper how and when these techniques may be used in other cancer settings. For EORTC trial 10921, it is shown that by choosing different techniques different conclusions may be drawn concerning the QL outcome. This highlights the importance of choosing an appropriate primary statistical method and for describing it a priori in the protocol and analysis plan. In this paper, we show the importance of performing sensitivity or supportive analysis to support conclusions drawn from the primary analysis.

Quality of life evaluation in oncological clinical trials - the EORTC model. The EORTC Quality of Life Study Group

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) has taken a leading role in the development of the methodology of quality of life (QL) measurement. In the EORTC Quality of Life Study Group (QLSG) valid instruments to assess QL in a general manner and disease-specific modules have been developed to be used in oncological clinical trials. Statistical and methodological aspects of QL research are discussed. The application of QL assessments in clinical trials represents a subsequent challenge. To improve the practice of QL assessment in clinical trials an 'EORTC model' has been developed. This model requires the collaboration of liaison persons, the EORTC Cooperative Tumour Groups and the EORTC Data Centre Quality of Life Unit (QL Unit). Cooperation between these parties, protocol development and advantages and concerns of the model are mentioned in this paper. Finally, suggestions for improvement are proposed.

Randomized phase III study of temozolomide versus dacarbazine in the treatment of patients with advanced metastatic malignant melanoma

PURPOSE

To compare, in 305 patients with advanced metastatic melanoma, temozolomide and dacarbazine (DTIC) in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), objective response, and safety, and to assess health-related quality of life (QOL) and pharmacokinetics of both drugs and their metabolite, 5-(3-methyltriazen-1-yl)imidazole-4-carboximide (MTIC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive either oral temozolomide at a starting dosage of 200 mg/m(2)/d for 5 days every 28 days or intravenous (IV) DTIC at a starting dosage of 250 mg/m(2)/d for 5 days every 21 days.

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat population, median survival time was 7.7 months for patients treated with temozolomide and 6.4 months for those treated with DTIC (hazards ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.52). Median PFS time was significantly longer in the temozolomide-treated group (1.9 months) than in the DTIC-treated group (1.5 months) (P =.012; hazards ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.75). No major difference in drug safety was observed. Temozolomide was well tolerated and produced a noncumulative, transient myelosuppression late in the 28-day cycle. The most common nonhematologic toxicities were mild to moderate nausea and vomiting, which were easily managed. Temozolomide therapy improved health-related QOL; more patients showed improvement or maintenance of physical functioning at week 12. Systemic exposure (area under the curve) to the parent drug and the active metabolite, MTIC, was higher after treatment with oral temozolomide than after IV administration of DTIC.

CONCLUSION

Temozolomide demonstrates efficacy equal to that of DTIC and is an oral alternative for patients with advanced metastatic melanoma.

Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment

This article describes the methods adopted by the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) project to translate the SF-36 Health Survey. Translation methods included the production of forward and backward translations, use of difficulty and quality ratings, pilot testing, and cross-cultural comparison of the translation work. Experience to date suggests that the SF-36 can be adapted for use in other countries with relatively minor changes to the content of the form, providing support for the use of these translations in multinational clinical trials and other studies. The most difficult items to translate were physical functioning items, which used examples of activities and distances that are not common outside of the United States; items that used colloquial expressions such as pep or blue; and the social functioning items. Quality ratings were uniformly high across countries. While the IQOLA approach to translation and validation was developed for use with the SF-36, it is applicable to other translation efforts.

Baseline quality of life of patients with advanced prostate cancer. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Genito-Urinary Tract Cancer Cooperative Group (GUT-CCG)

Quality of life (QoL) is now commonly studied in prostate cancer. However, little is known about the appropriateness of the various QoL instruments in this group of patients. The purpose of this work was to study the baseline QoL assessment of patients with prostate cancer who were randomised into three EORTC phase III studies. The three trials included locoregional prostate cancer patients, poor prognosis metastatic patients and hormone resistance patients, respectively. In the three trials, patients were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing their physical and psychosocial functioning and their symptom levels. These questionnaires included questions from the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 1): the physical functioning, role functioning, global health/QoL scales and a single pain item. The psychometric properties of the scales were assessed and an analysis was performed to investigate if differences existed in the scale scores between the three groups of patients, 638 baseline questionnaires were available for patients entered into the three trials. The Gutman coefficients of reproducibility and scalability were 0.94 and 0.71, respectively, for the physical functioning scale and 0.97 and 0.90, respectively, for the role functioning scale. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients were 0.68, 0.48 and 0.90 for the physical functioning, role functioning and global health/QoL scales, respectively. The four scales were able to distinguish clearly between the patient populations under study. The physical functioning, role functioning, global health/QoL scales and the single pain item scale from the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 1) are valid measures when used in the setting of prostate cancer.

Modification of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 2.0) based on content validity and reliability testing in large samples of patients with cancer. The Study Group on Quality of Life of the EORTC and the Symptom Control and Quality of Life Committees of the NCI of Canada Clinical Trials Group

A revision of the Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was undertaken to improve low internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's alpha) and content validity for the role functioning scale and a conceptual difficulty (undue emphasis on physical functioning) in the global quality of life (QOL) scale. The role functioning items were reworded and a four-category response format was substituted for the previous dichotomous format. A new item asking about 'overall health' was substituted for the 'overall physical condition' item in the global QOL domain. The original and new versions were tested at three time points in a total of 1,181 patients with cancer in Canada (n = 696) and the Netherlands (n = 485). In both samples there was a marked improvement in internal consistency for the role functioning scale (Cronbach's alpha s ranging from 0.78-0.88) in the new version. In the global QOL scale, the substitution of the new item for the previous one did not alter internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha's ranging from 0.81-0.92). The revised versions of the role functioning and global QOL domains have been incorporated into the QLQ-C30 (version 2.0).

The EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30): validity and reliability when analysed with patients treated with palliative radiotherapy

The EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) is designed to measure cancer patients' physical, psychological and social functions. The questionnaire is composed of multi-item scales and single items. 247 patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 before palliative radiotherapy and 181 after palliative radiotherapy. The questionnaire was well accepted with a high completion rate in the present patient population consisting of advanced cancer patients with short life expectancy. In addition, the questionnaire was found to be useful to detect the effect of palliative radiotherapy over time. The scale reliability was excellent for all scales except the role functioning scale. Excellent criterion validity was found for the emotional functioning scale where it was correlated with GHQ-20. Performance of the questionnaire was improved after the second evaluation as compared with the first. The present study shows that the EORTC QLQ-C30 is found to be practical and valid in measuring quality of life in patients with advanced disease.

The clinical meaning of Rankin 'handicap' grades after stroke

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Rankin Scale is a frequently used handicap index in stroke outcome research. However, relatively little is known about its validity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical meaning of Rankin grades by identifying the functional health aspects that contribute to Rankin scores.

METHODS

We studied 438 patients 6 months after stroke. Data were collected on the following functional health indicators: alertness, communication, independence, disability in activities of daily living, mobility, instrumental disability, social interaction, and recreation. Disability in activities of daily living was assessed with the Barthel Index, whereas the other indicators were measured with subscales of the Sickness Impact Profile. The association between functional health and Rankin Scale was expressed in terms of relative frequencies and Somers' D statistic. Linear regression analysis (after ordinal transformation) was used to identify the significant health factors that explain Rankin scores.

RESULTS

Mobility, disability in daily and instrumental activities, and living arrangements showed a stronger association with Rankin scores (Somers' D range, 0.60 to 0.74) than cognitive and social functioning (Somers' D range, 0.34 to 0.47). Disability in activities of daily living turned out to be the most important explanatory factor of Rankin scores (R2 = 67%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Rankin Scale is not a pure handicap measure but should be viewed as a global functional health index with a strong accent on physical disability. The index is useful as a simple and time-efficient outcome measure in largescale multicenter trials. It is argued that at present there is no clear need to assess handicap as the primary outcome in medically oriented stroke intervention studies.

Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models

In the age of increased international collaboration in medical research, the necessity of having at hand cross-culturally applicable instruments for the assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in clinical trials has been voiced. Several important theoretical bases leading to cultural bias in HRQL measurement include differences in definitions of HRQL across national and cultural contexts, levels of observation relied upon to indicate HRQL states, and the significance or weight placed upon the various HRQL states or dimensions measured. Despite a growing literature on the development and evaluation of existing HRQL measures in other cultures, comprehensive sets of procedures or requirements for the international part of development and evaluation are lacking. This paper reviews major approaches to developing international HRQL measures, and discusses various methods and criteria that have been recommended for evaluating measurement equivalence in comparisons of research across national and cultural contexts. A summary of recent trends and advances in international HRQL assessment is presented.

Measuring quality of life in stroke

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Little attention has been focused on quality of life in stroke outcome research. The purpose of this review is to outline the meaning of the concept, describe important methodological issues and methods of assessment, review existing quality of life measures, and discuss criteria for selecting an appropriate instrument.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

The following 10 quality of life instruments were reviewed: COOP Charts; Euroqol; Frenchay Activities Index; Karnofsky Performance Status Scale; McMaster Health Index Questionnaire; Medical Outcomes Study 20-Item Short-Form Health Survey; Nottingham Health Profile; Quality of Life Index; Quality of Well-being Scale; and the Sickness Impact Profile. They were evaluated in terms of length, time needed to complete, content, scoring, and psychometric characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Emphasis should be placed on further psychometric evaluation of existing quality of life measures rather than on generating new instruments. There is particular need for supplementary data on the responsiveness of the instruments to changes in patients' clinical status over time. The choice of a suitable quality of life instrument should be based not only on psychometric properties but also on careful consideration of the research question, the relevance to the objectives of the study, the feasibility of the instrument, and the specific characteristics of the stroke patients under investigation.

A report of the consensus workshop panel on the treatment of brain metastases

The consensus workshop on management of brain metastases focused on several broad issues concerning the patient with brain metastases. These issues included: What are the goals of treatment? Who should not be treated with radiation? What are the optimal treatment regimens? What are the areas of controversy where future investigations may be useful? The brain consensus panel attempted to develop guidelines for radiation oncologists through use of a decision tree format. Existing data to support management decisions, particularly those regarding radiation treatment, were reviewed. Data regarding cost of treatment as well as data regarding explicit quality of life measures were felt to be very important but were largely not available and therefore played little scientific role in the guideline development. Areas where controversy existed and where consensus could not be reached were identified.

Quality of life in patients with muscle-infiltrating bladder cancer and hormone-resistant prostatic cancer

A questionnaire, filled in by the patient, was used to assess the quality of life of 65 patients with previously untreated T2-T4 NX MO bladder cancer and of 67 patients with hormone-resistant prostatic cancer. This study examines the initial questionnaire filled in before any nonsurgical treatment had been started in the patients referred to an oncological ward. The aim was to identify domains in which distress was frequent, in the hope of indicating where treatment directed forward improving the patients' quality of life should be directed. The questionnaires yielded reliable and valid data. Among bladder cancer patients micturition disturbances and sexual problems dominated. Bone pain, fatigue, sexual disturbances and interruption of social relationships were the most frequent and most severe complaints of prostatic cancer patients. It was concluded that routine quality of life evaluation by self-assessment questionnaires is possible in a clinical ward provided some assistance by the nursing staff is available. Future treatment in patients for whom palliation is the main goal of therapy should be concentrated on improving the quality of life in areas where distress is evident. The effect of treatment on quality of life could be monitored by similar questionnaires.