![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
Abstract
Background. The clinical impact of trial-based quality of life (QL) outcomes is frequently underestimated due, in part, to prejudice and lack of knowledge by the medical community. The objectives of this paper are to show that QL assessments build upon an empirically based and stringent approach to measurement and QL outcomes should not be viewed nor handled differently than any other parameter in medical research. Material and methods. Literature overview. Results. The objectives are substantiated with empirical evidence showing that: (1) existing QL measures are as reliable as most other clinical outcomes; (2) available guidelines improve the quality of trial-based QL data; (3) QL data have strong prognostic value for survival; (4) clinical significance of QL data can be established; and (5) accounting for response-shift effects in QL data over time is feasible. Finally, the investigation of the genetic disposition of QL is described as an emerging area of research. Discussion. It is a waste of effort and money and also unethical when collected trial-based QL data are not used to their full power. QL and other patient-reported outcomes deserve to be included in more trials, with full disclosure of all results, and standardized interpretation. Only the combined use of patient-reported and clinical outcomes will enable the examination of the extent to which cancer patients live a qualitatively good life as long as possible.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Pythia Nieuwkerk, Elsbeth Bloem, and Marion de Boer for astute and useful comments to earlier drafts of this manuscript. This paper is based on an invited oral presentation held at the conference “State of Science in Cancer Care” on August 19, 2009 in Stockholm, Sweden.
Declaration of interest: The author report no conflicts of interest. The author alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.