scholarly journals Measuring Quality of Life Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Real-World Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients: The Need for a Standardized Approach

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 2308
Author(s):  
Marloes E. Clarijs ◽  
Jacob Thurell ◽  
Friedrich Kühn ◽  
Carin A. Uyl-de Groot ◽  
Elham Hedayati ◽  
...  

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients are almost always treated to minimize the symptom burden, and to prolong life without a curative intent. Although the prognosis of MBC patients has improved in recent years, the median survival after diagnosis is still only 3 years. Therefore, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) should play a leading role in making treatment decisions. Heterogeneity in questionnaires used to evaluate the HRQoL in MBC patients complicates the interpretability and comparability of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) globally. In this review, we aimed to provide an overview of PRO instruments used in real-world MBC patients and to discuss important issues in measuring HRQoL. Routinely collecting symptom information using PROs could enhance treatment evaluation and shared decision-making. Standardizing these measures might help to improve the implementation of PROs, and facilitates collecting and sharing data to establish valid comparisons in research. This is a prerequisite to learn about how they could impact the clinical care pathway. In addition, the prognostic value of intensified PRO collection throughout therapy on survival and disease progression is promising. Future perspectives in the field of PROs and MBC are described.

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. BCBCR.S39385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meaghan Krohe ◽  
Yanni Hao ◽  
Roger E. Lamoureux ◽  
Nina Galipeau ◽  
Denise Globe ◽  
...  

Introduction Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures serve to capture vital patient information not otherwise obtained by primary study endpoints. This paper examines how PROs are utilized as endpoints in industry-sponsored metastatic breast cancer clinical trials. Methods A search was conducted in the clinicaltrials.gov web site for trials involving common treatments for metastatic breast cancer. Thirty-eight clinical trials were identified which included a PRO endpoint in the study, and data were extracted and summarized. Results Overall, 17 unique PRO questionnaires and 14 concepts of measurement were identified as secondary or exploratory endpoints. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Breast was the most frequently utilized questionnaire, commonly implemented to assess quality of life. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was also frequently used to measure quality of life or pain. Conclusion This review shares insights into the role of PROs in trials for metastatic breast cancer from which treatment developers and other stakeholders can enhance successful implementation of the patient voice into future trials.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 539-539
Author(s):  
J. Thaddeus Beck ◽  
Hope S. Rugo ◽  
Howard A. Burris ◽  
José Baselga ◽  
Shinzaburo Noguchi ◽  
...  

539 Background: BOLERO-2, a phase III study, randomized 724 patients with hormone-receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer, who had recurrence or progression on/after prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy, to everolimus (EVE) plus exemestane (EXE) or EXE and placebo. A preplanned 12-month median time interim analysis demonstrated that EVE+EXE significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs EXE+placebo but that EVE+EXE resulted in a higher rate of grade 3/4 toxicity. Per-protocol patient reported health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data are limited; here we report on additional post-hoc analyses of these outcomes. Methods: Using the EORTC–QLQ‑C30 questionnaire, HRQoL was assessed at baseline and every 6 weeks thereafter until progression. The QLQ‑C30 consists of 30 items combined into 15 subscales, including a Global Health Status (GHS) where higher scores (range 0 to 100) indicate better HRQoL. This analysis included a protocol-specified time to definitive deterioration (TTD) analysis at a 5% decrease in QoL relative to baseline, with no subsequent increase above this threshold. We report additional sensitivity analyses using 10-point minimally important difference (MID) decreases in QLQ‑C30 score relative to baseline. Treatment arms were compared using a stratified logrank test and a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for trial stratum (visceral metastases and previous hormone sensitivity), age, sex, race, baseline score and ECOG performance status, prognostic factors, and treatment history. Results: Baseline QLQ‑C30 GHS scores were not statistically significantly different across treatment groups (64.7 vs 65.3; difference -0.7 [95% CI; -4.3, 3.0]). The median TTD in HRQoL was 7.0 months (95% CI; 5.6, 8.3) for EVE+EXE vs 5.6 (95% CI; 4.2, 7.0) for EXE (P = .0792). Adjusted HR (0.80) approached significance (95% CI; 0.63, 1.02). At the 10-point MID, median TTD for EVE+EXE was 9.7 months (95% CI; 8.3, 11.2) vs 8.4 months (95% CI; 6.3, 12.5) for EXE. Adjusted HR was 0.90 (95% CI; 0.69, 1.18). Conclusions: These additional analyses demonstrate that in addition to significantly improving PFS, EVE+EXE does not compromise HRQoL.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document