Learning from Patients: Reflections on Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Lung Cancer Trials

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.

Willingness to report treatment-related symptoms of immunotherapy among patients with non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

Immunotherapy is an evolving therapeutic approach for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study explored factors involved in patients' perceptions about reporting or not reporting treatment-related symptoms experienced while undergoing immunotherapy.

METHODS

Patients receiving immunotherapy for NSCLC were recruited in the USA and Europe. Qualitative interviews were conducted to elicit treatment-related symptoms and explore patients' reasons and motivations for either reporting or not reporting these to their medical teams. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were interviewed (mean age: 62 years; 55% male; 91% with stage IV NSCLC). The most frequent symptoms that patients experienced but did not report were gastrointestinal (23% of patients), respiratory (17%), and energy related (12%). The most common reasons for not reporting symptoms included a perception that they were not severe enough, being unsure whether the experiences were side effects, and deciding that the experiences were expected and could be managed without assistance. Fear of having treatment discontinued was also mentioned but was not a prominent reason. The most common reasons for reporting symptoms were to ascertain if these were normal and expected, and to let the medical team know. Patients emphasized the importance of survival over treatment burden when balancing symptoms with treatment benefits.

CONCLUSION

Patients have a range of reasons for not reporting their treatment-related symptoms when undergoing immunotherapy for NSCLC. Reasons are more strongly related to determination of the severity versus manageability of patients' experiences of symptoms than they are to the fear of having treatment discontinued.

Patients' views of routine quality of life assessment following a diagnosis of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

There is an increasing interest in the quality of life (QoL) evaluation following video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A qualitative interview study was conducted to gain insight into the optimal methods of assessing and discussing QoL in clinical practice.

METHODS

A prospective observational longitudinal study of patients with early-stage NSCLC was conducted where repeated QoL measures were administered either online or on paper. A subset of participants was invited for qualitative interviews after the 6-month assessment or at the end of the study. The semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were interviewed. Generally, patients were content with recruitment and data collection procedures. Most opted to complete the assessments on paper instead of online; this choice was influenced by the level of technology literacy. Some found the questionnaires too generic to reflect their experiences. Barriers to questionnaire completion were mostly practical, and many acknowledged benefits of QoL assessment including allowing them to express problems and health issues, and following changes over time. Generally, participants would like to discuss QoL results during clinical consultations, but reported this rarely happened.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung cancer patient interviews confirm the acceptability of repeated QoL assessments, but online data capture is limited. Patients highlight the importance of discussing QoL aspects with their clinical team. Future strategies are needed to optimize the routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice.

Psychometric properties of the updated EORTC module for assessing quality of life in patients with lung cancer (QLQ-LC29): an international, observational field study

BACKGROUND

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) assesses quality of life (QOL) in patients with lung cancer and was the first EORTC module developed for use in international clinical trials. Since its publication in 1994, major treatment advances with possible effects on QOL have occurred. These changes called for an update of the module and its international psychometric validation. We aimed to investigate the scale structure and psychometric properties of the updated lung cancer module, QLQ-LC29, in patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

This international, observational field study was done in 19 hospitals across 12 countries. Patients aged older than 18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of lung cancer and no other previous primary tumour, and who were mentally fit with sufficient language skills to understand and complete the questionnaire were included. Patients were asked during a hospital visit to fill in the paper versions of the core questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30 plus QLQ-LC29, and investigators selected half of these patients to complete the questionnaire again 2-4 weeks later. Our primary aim was to assess the scale structure and psychometric properties of EORTC QLQ-LC29. We analysed scale structure using confirmatory factor analysis; reliability using Cronbach's α value (internal consistency) and intra-class coefficient (test-retest reliability); sensitivity using independent t tests stratified by Karnofsky performance status; and responsiveness to change over time by ANOVA. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02745691.

FINDINGS

Between April 12, 2016, and Sept 26, 2018, 523 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of either non-small-cell lung cancer (n=442) or small-cell lung cancer (n=81) were recruited. Confirmatory factor analysis provided a solution composed of five multi-item scales (coughing, shortness of breath, fear of progression, hair problems, and surgery-related symptoms) plus 15 single symptom or side-effect items: χ²=370·233, root mean square error of approximation=0·075, and comparative-fit index=0·901. Cronbach's α for internal consistencies of all multi-item scales were above the threshold of 0·70. Intra-class coefficients for test-retest reliabilities ranged between 0·82 and 0·97. Three (shortness of breath, fear of progression, and hair problems) of the five multi-item scales showed responsiveness to change over time (p values <0·05), as did nine of 15 single symptom items. Four (coughing, shortness of breath, fear of progression, and surgery-related symptoms) of the five multi-item scales and ten of the 15 single symptom items were sensitive to known group differences (ie, lower vs higher Karnofsky performance status).

INTERPRETATION

Results determined the psychometric properties of the updated lung cancer module, which is ready for use in international clinical studies.

FUNDING

EORTC Quality of Life Group.

The distress thermometer as a prognostic tool for one-year survival among patients with lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

The use of patient-reported outcome measures is increasingly advocated to support high-quality cancer care. We therefore investigated the added value of the Distress Thermometer (DT) when combined with known predictors to assess one-year survival in patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

All patients had newly diagnosed or recurrent lung cancer, started systemic treatment, and participated in the intervention arm of a previously published randomised controlled trial. A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted based on five selected known predictors for survival. The DT-score was added to this model and contrasted to models including the EORTC-QLQ-C30 global QoL score (quality of life) or the HADS total score (symptoms of anxiety and depression). Model performance was evaluated through improvement in the -2 log likelihood, Harrell's C-statistic, and a risk classification.

RESULTS

In total, 110 patients were included in the analysis of whom 97 patients accurately completed the DT. Patients with a DT score ≥5 (N = 51) had a lower QoL, more symptoms of anxiety and depression, and a shorter median survival time (7.6 months vs 10.0 months; P = 0.02) than patients with a DT score <5 (N = 46). Addition of the DT resulted in a significant improvement in the accuracy of the model to predict one-year survival (P < 0.001) and the discriminatory value (C-statistic) marginally improved from 0.69 to 0.71. The proportion of patients correctly classified as high risk (≥85% risk of dying within one year) increased from 8% to 28%. Similar model performance was observed when combining the selected predictors with QoL and symptoms of anxiety or depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the DT allows clinicians to better identify patients with lung cancer at risk for poor outcomes, to further explore sources of distress, and subsequently personalize care accordingly.

Maximizing quality of life remains an ultimate goal in the era of precision medicine: exemplified by lung cancer

An ultimate goal of precision medicine in lung cancer treatment is to restore patient health with maximized quality of life (QOL). Results from Mayo Clinic studies show that a significant improvement in fatigue, dyspnea, and pain scales could lead to better overall QOL. Although treatments and guidelines for clinical implementation to alleviate these key symptoms are available, few cancer patients receive adequate therapy, mostly because of limitations in current care delivery systems and unclear clinicians’ roles. For optimal care of lung cancer survivors in different subpopulations, three barriers must be overcome: physicians’ lack of knowledge, unwarranted practice variation, and uncertainty regarding care provider roles. Appropriate culturally adapted, tested and validated tools for QOL measures must be developed, rather than directly translating existing tools between different languages and across cultures or diverse subpopulations. Finally, lack of sensitive, adequate, and relevant tools in measuring health-related QOL (HRQOL) has long been an issue for effective data collection, demanding a global consensus on a set of core components that reflect the needs of all critical parties for the best cure and care, supporting patients to achieve optimal HRQOL.