4.7 Article

Is baseline quality of life useful for predicting survival with hormone-refractory prostate cancer?: A pooled analysis of three studies of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary Group

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 19, Pages 3877-3885

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.07.089

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [5U10-CA11488-33, 5U10-CA11488-30] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Patients with symptomatic metastatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer (HRPC) survive a median of 10 months and are often regarded as a homogeneous group. Few prognostic factors have been identified so far. We examined whether baseline health-related quality of life (HRQOL) parameters assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) were independent prognostic factors of survival and whether they bring extra precision to the predictions achievable with models based on clinical and biochemical factors only. Patients and Methods Data of 391 symptomatic (bone) metastatic HRPC patients from three randomized EORTC trials were used in multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. The significance level was set at alpha = .05. Results Of the 391 patients, 371 died, most of prostate cancer. Bone scan result, performance status, hemoglobin level, and insomnia and appetite loss as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 were independent predictors of survival. This model's area under the receiver operating curve was 0.65 compared with 0.63 without the two HRQOL factors. Conclusion Certain HRQOL sores, at baseline, seem to be predictors for duration of survival in HBPC. However, such measurements do not add to the predictive ability of models based only on clinical and biochemical factors. (C) 2004 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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