Evidence-based guidelines for interpreting change scores for the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30
Introduction
The European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) is one of the most widely used measures of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) in cancer patients. Population-based reference data1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and some specific guidance on the interpretation of QLQ-C30 scores6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 have been published. However QOL results rarely influence clinical practice, perhaps because Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) using the QLQ-C30 (even those reported to a high standard) usually lack a clinical interpretation of the QOL differences.12 The Evidence-Based Interpretation Guidelines (EBIG) project aimed to improve the current guidelines for clinical interpretation of the QLQ-C30. Our innovative methods utilise published QLQ-C30 data, and use meta-analytic techniques to combine these with blinded expert opinions to estimate clinically relevant change.6, 13 This method has previously been used to derive guidelines for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scale (FACT-G)13, 14 and for between-group differences in QLQ-C30 scores.6 Here we provide guidelines for interpreting mean changes over time in QLQ-C30 scores.
Section snippets
Methods
Fuller details of the methods employed in the EBIG project are provided elsewhere.6
Expert size classes
For each reviewer, on each contrast, a weighted average of the assigned scale values (–3, 3) was calculated using their percentage certainty as weights. The mean (over reviewers) of these weighted averages was then calculated for each contrast (the ‘overall opinion’). These were rounded into trivial/small/medium/large categories; referred to as the ‘expert size class’.
Quality assessment and analysis dataset
Since the methodology was novel, it was unknown at the start of the study which contrasts would lead to the best quality
Sample
Nine hundred and eleven papers were identified in the literature review. Two hundred and eighty seven papers were subsequently evaluated by the experts. One hundred and eighteen of which yielded the 1232 changes over time which were relevant for this analysis (‘analysis dataset’, see Fig. 1 for full details). The number of contrasts taken from an individual paper ranged from one to eight per subscale with a median of two per paper (per subscale).
The characteristics of the studies/patients have
Discussion
This innovative methodology has previously been used to derive Evidence-Based Interpretation Guidelines for the FACT-G13, 14 and EORTC QLQ-C306 questionnaires. We extended the current literature on interpretation of the QLQ-C306, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 by using this innovative methodology to produce guidelines for the interpretation of changes over time for this questionnaire (Table 4). Our estimates utilise 1232 changes over time from published QOL scores and incorporate reviews from 34 cancer/QOL
Role of the funding source
Cancer Research UK funded the study [Grant No. C7852/A5653] and a UICC ICRETT fellowship provided a travel and subsistence grant to K.C. at the start of the study. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision
Conflict of interest statement
K.C., M.K., P.F., G.C., J.B. and M.M.S.J. have no conflicts of interest to declare. G.V. was the Chair of the EORTC Quality of Life Group from 2008 to 2011 (uncompensated).
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Jane Blazeby, Penny Wright and Jane Maher for their advice on design aspects. The EBIG collaborative group consists of the 35 expert panelists involved over the lifetime of the project, to whom we are extremely grateful: Peter Aquilina, Sydney, Australia; Amit Bahl, University Hospitals Bristol, Bristol, UK; Mike Bennett, Lancaster University, UK; Alison Birtle, Rosemere Cancer Centre, Royal Preston Hospital, Lancashire, UK; Jane Blazeby, University of Bristol,
References (21)
Interpreting quality of life data: population-based reference data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 [comment]
Eur J Cancer
(2001)- et al.
Reference data for the quality of life questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30 in the general German population
Eur J Cancer
(2001) - et al.
Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients
Ann Oncol
(2011) - et al.
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 Cancer
(2008) - et al.
Meta-analysis provides evidence-based effect sizes for a cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire, the FACT-G
J Clin Epidemiol
(2010) Response-shift bias: a challenge to the assessment of patients’ quality of life in cancer clinical trials
Cancer Treat Rev
(1996)- et al.
Health-related quality of life in the general Norwegian population assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire: the QLQ-C30 (+3)
J Clin Oncol
(1998) - et al.
Quality of life of Danish women: population-based norms of the EORTC QLQ-C30
Qual Life Res
(1997) - et al.
Health-related quality of life measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30-reference values from a large sample of Swedish population
Acta Oncol
(2000) - et al.
Evidence-Based Guidelines for Determination of Sample Size and Interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30
J Clin Oncol
(2011)
Cited by (345)
Fear, anxiety and depression in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients in the Netherlands: Data from a cross-sectional multicenter study
2024, International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology