4.7 Article

Is a patient's self-reported health-related quality of life a prognostic factor for survival in non-small-cell lung cancer patients? A multivariate analysis of prognostic factors of EORTC study 08975

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 11, Pages 1698-1704

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdl183

Keywords

lung cancer; prognostic factor; quality of life; survival

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA11488-31, 5U10 CA11488-35] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim of this prognostic factor analysis was to investigate if a patient's self-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) provided independent prognostic information for survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Patients and methods: Pretreatment HRQOL was measured in 391 advanced NSCLC patients using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC Lung Cancer module (QLQ-LC13). The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for both univariate and multivariate analyses of survival. In addition, a bootstrap validation technique was used to assess the stability of the outcomes. Results: The final multivariate Cox regression model retained four parameters as independent prognostic factors for survival: male gender with a hazard ratio (HR) = 1.32 (95% CI 1.03-1.69; P = 0.03); performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) with HR = 1.63 (95% CI 1.04-2.54; P = 0.032); patient's self-reported score of pain with HR= 1.11 (95% CI 1.07-1.16; P < 0.001) and dysphagia with HR = 1.12 (95% CI 1.04-1.21; P = 0.003). A 10-point shift worse in the scale measuring pain and dysphagia translated into an 11% and 12% increased in the likelihood of death respectively. A risk group categorization was also developed. Conclusion: The results suggest that patients' self-reported HRQOL provide independent prognostic information for survival. This finding supports the collection of such data in routine clinical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available