Health-related quality-of-life assessment in GI cancer randomized trials: improving the impact on clinical practice

References

• Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D et al. Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health6(5), 522–531 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrans CC. Definitions and conceptual models of quality of life. In: Outcomes Assessment in Cancer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 14–30 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder CF. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J.Clin.57(5), 278–300 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Donald Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Coneptual framework and item selection. Med. Care30(6), 473–483 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray A; National Co-ordinating Centre for HTA (Great Britain). Clinical Effectiveness and Cost–effectiveness of Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Systematic Reviews and Economic Evaluation. Gray Publishing on behalf of NCCHTA, Kent, UK (2006).
   Google Scholar
• NICE. The Guidelines Manual 2009. Appendix 1.8. NICE, UK (2009)
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MA, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost–effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA276(15), 1253–1258 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janson M, Lindholm E, Anderberg B, Haglind E. Randomized trial of health-related quality of life after open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Surg. Endosc.21(5), 747–753 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gosselink MP, Busschbach JJ, Dijkhuis CM, Stassen LP, Hop WC, Schouten WR. Quality of life after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis.8(1), 15–22 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blazeby JM, Conroy T. Hammerlid E et al. Clinical and psychometric validation of an EORTC questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OES18, to assess quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer. Eur. J. Cancer39, 1384–1394 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blazeby JM, Conroy T, Bottomley A et al. Clinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-STO 22, to assess quality of life in patients with gastric cancer. Eur. J. Cancer40(15), 2260–2268 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darling G, Eton DT, Sulman J, Casson AG, Celia D. Validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy esophageal cancer subscale. Cancer107(4), 854–863 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Eremenco S, Cashy J, Webster K. Linguistic validation of the fact-gastric (FACT-Ga) in Japanese and English. Qual. Life Res.12, 818 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Sprangers MAG, te Velde A, Aaronson NK, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Study Group on Quality of life. The construction and testing of the EORTC Colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). Eur. J. Cancer35, 238–247 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward WL, Hahn EA, Mo F, Hernandex L, Tulsky DS, Cella D. Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy colorectal (FACT-C) quality of life instrument. Qual. Life Res.8, 181–195 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blazeby JM, Alderson D, Winstone K et al. Development of a EORTC questionnaire module to be used in quality of life assessment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Eur. J. Cancer32, 1912–1917 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Lagergren P, Fayers P, Conroy T et al. Clinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OG25, to assess health-related quality of life in patients with cancer of the oesophagus, the oesophago-gastric junction and the stomach. Eur. J. Cancer43(14), 2066–2073 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprangers MAG, Cull A, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Aaronson NK. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer approach to quality of life assessment: guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. Qual. Life Res.2, 287–295 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprangers MAG, Cull A, Groenvold M et al. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer approach to developing questionnaire modules: an update and overview. Qual. Life Res.7, 291–300 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergquist H, Wenger U, Johnsson E et al. Stent insertion or endoluminal brachytherapy as palliation of patients with advanced cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Dis. Esophagus18(3), 131–139 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blazeby JM, Sanford E, Falk SJ, Alderson D, Donovan JL. Health-related quality of life during neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for localized esophageal carcinoma. Cancer103(9), 1791–1799 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann. Int. Med.134, 663–694 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efficace F, Bottomley A, Osoba D et al. Beyond the development of health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures: a checklist for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials – does HRQoL evaluation in prostate cancer research inform clinical decision making?. J. Clin. Oncol.21(18), 3502–3511 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efficace F, Bottomley A, Vanvoorden V, Blazeby JM. Methodological issues in assessing health-related quality of life of colorectal cancer patients in randomised controlled trials. Eur. J. Cancer40, 187–197 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efficace F, Osoba D, Gotay C, Sprangers M, Coens C, Bottomley A. Has the quality of health-related quality of life reporting in cancer clinical trials improved over time? Towards bridging the gap with clinical decision making. Ann. Oncol.18(4), 775–781 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.345(9), 638–646 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peeters KC, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID et al. The TME trial after a median follow-up of 6 years: increased local control but no survival benefit in irradiated patients with resectable rectal carcinoma. Ann. Surg.246(5), 693–701 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marijnen CA, van de Velde CJ, Putter H et al. Impact of short-term preoperative radiotherapy on health-related quality of life and sexual functioning in primary rectal cancer: report of a multicenter randomized trial. J. Clin. Oncol.23(9), 1847–1858 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charles C, Garni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc. Sci. Med.44(5), 681–692 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K. Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Qual. Life Res.11(3), 207–221 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G, Fayers PM, Brown JM. Quality, interpretation and presentation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire core 30 data in randomised controlled trials. Eur. J. Cancer44(13), 1793–1798 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin. Proc.77(4), 371–383 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of- life scores. J. Clin. Oncol.16(1), 139–144 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Treatment of Early Breast Cancer. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Guyatt G, Montori V, Devereaux PJ, Schunemann H, Bhandari M. Patients at the center: in our practice, and in our use of language. ACP J. Club140(1), A11–A12 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guyatt G, Schunemann H. How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients?. Qual. Life Res.16(7), 1097–1105 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunemann HJ, Akl EA, Guyatt GH. Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician’s perspective. Health Qual. Life Outcomes4, 62 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King MT, Fayers PM. Making quality-of-life results more meaningful for clinicians. Lancet371(9614), 709–710 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J. Natl Cancer Inst. Monogr.25, 149–163 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med. Decis. Making27(5), 696–713 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J. Eval. Clin. Pract.12(1), 13–23 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machin D, Weeden S. Suggestions for the presentation of quality of life data from clinical trials. Stat. Med.17(5–7), 711–724 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brundage M, Feldman-Stewart D, Leis A et al. Communicating quality of life information to cancer patients: a study of six presentation formats. J. Clin. Oncol.23(28), 6949–6956 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McNair AG, Brookes ST, Davis CR, Argyropoulos M, and Blazeby JM. Communicating the results of randomized trials: do patients understand multi-dimensional patient reported outcomes. J. Clin. Oncol. (2009) (In Press).
   Google Scholar
• Brundage M, Leis A, Bezjak A et al. Cancer patients’ preferences for communicating clinical trial quality of life information: a qualitative study. Qual. Life Res.12(4), 395–404 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerty RG, Butow PN, Ellis PA et al. Cancer patient preferences for communication of prognosis in the metastatic setting. J. Clin. Oncol.22(9), 1721–1730 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ327(7417), 745–748 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, Simon L, Strand V, Idzerda L. OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials8, 38 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar