Date: 27 Mar 2013
Using the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in clinical practice for patient management: identifying scores requiring a clinician’s attention
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used increasingly for individual patient management. Identifying which PRO scores require a clinician’s attention is an ongoing challenge. Previous research used a needs assessment to identify EORTC-QLQ-C30 cutoff scores representing unmet needs. This analysis attempted to replicate the previous findings in a new and larger sample.
This analysis used data from 408 Japanese ambulatory breast cancer patients who completed the QLQ-C30 and Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form-34 (SCNS-SF34). Applying the methods used previously, SCNS-SF34 item/domain scores were dichotomized as no versus some unmet need. We calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to evaluate QLQ-C30 scores’ ability to discriminate between patients with no versus some unmet need based on SCNS-SF34 items/domains. For QLQ-C30 domains with AUC ≥ 0.70, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of various cutoffs for identifying unmet needs. We hypothesized that compared to our original analysis, (1) the same six QLQ-C30 domains would have AUC ≥ 0.70, (2) the same SCNS-SF34 items would be best discriminated by QLQ-C30 scores, and (3) the sensitivity and specificity of our original cutoff scores would be supported.
The findings from our original analysis were supported. The same six domains with AUC ≥ 0.70 in the original analysis had AUC ≥ 0.70 in this new sample, and the same SCNS-SF34 item was best discriminated by QLQ-C30 scores. Cutoff scores were identified with sensitivity ≥0.84 and specificity ≥0.54.
Given these findings’ concordance with our previous analysis, these QLQ-C30 cutoffs could be implemented in clinical practice and their usefulness evaluated.
Snyder, C. F., & Aaronson, N. K. (2009). Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. The Lancet, 374, 369–370.CrossRef
McLachlan, S.-A., Allenby, A., Matthews, J., et al. (2001). Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 4117–4125.PubMed
Snyder, C. F., Blackford, A. L., Wolff, A. C., et al. (2012). Feasibility and value of PatientViewpoint: a web system for patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice. Psycho-Oncology,. doi:10.1002/pon.3087.
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied Logistic Regression (2nd ed.). Chichester, New York: Wiley.CrossRef
Fayers, P. M., Weeden, S., Curran, D., & on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Study Group. (1998). EORTC QLQ-C30 Reference Values. Brussels: EORTC (ISBN: 2-930064-11-0).
- Using the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in clinical practice for patient management: identifying scores requiring a clinician’s attention
Quality of Life Research
Volume 22, Issue 10 , pp 2685-2691
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Patient-reported outcomes
- Clinical practice
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 624 N. Broadway, Room 657, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
- 2. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
- 3. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
- 4. Division of Palliative Care and Psycho-oncology, Nagoya City University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
- 5. Department of Psychiatry and Cognitive-Behavioral Medicine, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan
- 6. Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Hokkaido University Hospital, Hokkaido, Japan
- 7. Department of Oncology, Immunology and Surgery, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan