Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp 555–567 | Cite as

The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30

  • M. T KingEmail author
Research Papers

Abstract

While quality of life (QOL) assessment is becoming more common, interpreting the results remains problematic. This paper demonstrates an approach to developing clinically-based interpretations for QOL outcomes, using the QLQ-C30 as an example. The results from 14 published QLQ-C30 studies which group patients by performance status, weight loss, toxicity, extent or severity of disease are collated. Groups with lower clinical status generally have worse QOL. The largest differences are between performance status groups, and the smallest differences are between groups of patients with local disease and those with metastases. The physical and role scores have the largest ranges of means across patient groups, and show the largest differences between clinical groups, while the cognitive and emotional scores have the smallest ranges of means and differences. Sicker groups have larger score standard deviations than healthie groups. Relatively large and small means and differences, and corresponding effect sizes, are presented. Collectively, the results provide a sense of the relative sizes of means and of differences, and of the types of clinical groups which give rise to them, thereby providing clinically-based benchmarks by which to interpret QLQ-C30 results.

Key words

Cancer clinical importance effect size interpretations quality of life statistical significance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Editorial. Quality of life and clinical trials. Lancet 1995; 346: 1–2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Osoba D. Lessons learned from measuring health-related quality if life in oncology. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 608–616.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moinpour CM. Measuring quality of life: An emerging science. Sem Oncol 1994; 21: 48–63.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lydick E, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 221–226.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988: 12,25.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. JNCI 1993; 85: 365–376.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aaronson NK, Cull A, Kaasa S, Sprangers MAG, EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology: an update. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. New York: Raven Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bullinger M, et al. The EORTC core quality of life questionnaire: interim results of an international field study. In: Osoba D, ed. Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 1991: 185–203.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bjordal K, Kaasa S. Psychometric validation of the EORTC core quality of life questionnaire, 30-item version and a diagnosis-specific module for head and neck cancer patients. Acta Oncologica 1992; 31: 311–321.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ringdal GI, Ringdal K. Testing the EORTC quality of life questionnaire on cancer patients with heterogeneous diagnoses. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 129–140.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ringdal GI, Ringdal K, Kvinnsland S, Gotestam KG. Quality of life of cancer patients with different prognoses. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 143–154.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fossa SD. Quality of life assessment in unselected oncologic out-patients: A pilot study. Int J Oncol 1994; 4: 1393–1397.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bergman B, Sullivan M, Sorenson S. Quality of life during chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer. II. A longitudinal study of the EORTC core quality of life questionnaire and comparison with the Sickness Impact Profile. Acta Oncologica 1992; 31: 19–28.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sigurdardottir V, Bolund C, Brandberg Y, Sullivan M. The impact of generalized malignant melanoma on quality of life evaluated by the EORTC questionnaire technique. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 193–203.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bye A, Ose T, Kaasa S. Quality of life during pelvic radiotherapy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1995; 74: 147–152.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osoba D, Zee B, Pater J, Warr D, Kaizer L, Latreille J. Psychometric properties and responsiveness of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in patients with breast, ovarian and lung cancer. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 353–364.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Machin D, Campbell MJ. Statistical Tables for the Design of Clinical Trials. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987: 210.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bjordal K, Kaasa S, Mastekaasa A. Quality of life in patients treated for head and neck cancer: a follow-up study 7 to 11 years after radiotherapy. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys 1994; 28: 847–856.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    King MT, Dobson AJ, Harnett PR. A comparison of two quality-of-life questionnaires for cancer clinical trials: the Functional Living Index — Cancer (FLIC) and the Quality of Life Questionnaire core module (QLQ-C30). J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 49: 21–29.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blazeby JM, Williams MH, Brookes ST, Alderson D, Farndon JR. Quality of life measurement in patients with oespohageal cancer. Gut 1995; 37: 505–508.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hjermstad M, Fossa SD, Bjordal K, Kaasa S. Test/retest study of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality-of-life questionnaire. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 1249–1254.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moore MJ, Osoba D, Murphy K, et al. Use of palliative end points to evaluate the effects of mitoxantrone and low-dose prednisone in patients with hormonally resistant prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 689–694.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hill M, Norman A, Cunningham D, Findlay M, Watson M, Nicolson V. Impact of protracted venous infusion fluorouracil with or without interferon alpha-b2 on tumour response survival, and quality of life in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2317–2323.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hopwood P, Stephens RJ, Machin D. Approaches to the analysis of quality of life data: experiences gained from a Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party palliative chemotherapy trial. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 339–352.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993: 1:1–12:10.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407–415.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Proceedings of the international conference on the measurement of quality of life as an outcome in clinical trials: postscript. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12: 266S–269S.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81–87.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fowler FJ, Wennberg JE, Timothy RP, Barry MJ, Mulley AG, Hanley D. Symptom status and quality of life following prostatectomy. J Amer Med Assoc 1988; 259: 3018–3022.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    O'Brien BJ, Drummond MF. Statistical versus quantitative significance in the socioeconomic evaluation of medicines. Pharmaco Economics 1994; 5: 389–398.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kendall MG, Stuart A. The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Third Edition, Vol 2. Inference and Relationships. London: Griffin, 1973: 483–487.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Julious SA, George S, Campbell MJ. Sample sizes for studies using the short form 36 (SF-36). J Epidemiol Comm Health 1995; 49: 642–644.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Campbell MJ, Julious SA, Altman DG. Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons. BMJ 1995; 311: 1145–1148.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. Boston: Little, Brown, 1991: 3–435.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, et al.. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. Brussels: EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Science Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Health Economics Research and EvaluationWestmead HospitalWestmeadAustralia

Personalised recommendations