Investigating the prognostic ability of health-related quality of life on survival: a prospective cohort study of adults with lung cancer
- 169 Downloads
Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important predictor for overall survival (OS). To date, no studies compared associations between HRQOL assessed before and after a cancer diagnosis for OS. Our objectives were to (1) investigate associations between HRQOL changes and OS and (2) identify the best HRQOL assessment time point to predict OS.
We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results linked with the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey data. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with SEER-confirmed, incident lung cancer between 1998 and 2013 were included. We only included individuals who completed pre- and post-diagnosis assessments. HRQOL was captured using the Short-Form (SF-36) and Katz’s Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Cox Proportional Hazards models examined associations between HRQOL and OS, adjusting for potential confounders. AICs compared model fit.
Five hundred thirty-five adults with mean age of 75 years at diagnosis were included. We observed 300 deaths. Poor HRQOL was associated with greater risk of death across HRQOL assessments. SF-36 before diagnosis, after diagnosis, and change over time had AHRs of 1.01–1.08, 1.10–1.20, and 1.06–1.12, respectively. Pre-diagnosis, post-diagnosis, and changes in ADLs had AHRs of 0.90–2.06, 1.72–2.56, and 1.66–2.21, respectively. Post-diagnosis HRQOL and HRQOL change models had the smallest AICs and largest AHRs, suggesting they were most associated with OS.
This is the first study to compare the prognostic ability of pre-diagnosis, post-diagnosis, and HRQOL changes for OS. The prognostic value of HRQOL at distinct points in the cancer continuum underscores the importance of routine HRQOL monitoring as part of patient-centered cancer care.
KeywordsQuality of life Cohort study Lung cancer
Compliance with ethical standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Conflict of interest
My co-authors and I have no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures. At the time the study was conducted, both authors were employed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Informed consent from study subjects was not needed as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill IRB granted this research exemption from review. All authors have read and approved the manuscript for submission to Supportive Care in Cancer. This manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.
- 2.ACS (2017) Cancer facts & figures 2017. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-small-cell-lung-cancer/about/key-statistics.html
- 3.Claassens L, van Meerbeeck J, Coens C, Quinten C, Ghislain I, Sloan EK, Wang XS, Velikova G, Bottomley A (2011) Health-related quality of life in non-small-cell lung cancer: an update of a systematic review on methodologic issues in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 29(15):2104–2120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Hennessy CH, Moriarty DG, Zack MM, Scherr PA, Brackbill R (1994) Measuring health-related quality of life for public health surveillance. Public health Rep (Washington, DC: 1974) 109(5):665–672Google Scholar
- 8.Pinheiro LC, Zagar TM, Reeve BB (2017) The prognostic value of pre-diagnosis health-related quality of life on survival: a prospective cohort study of older Americans with lung cancer. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehab 26:1703–1712Google Scholar
- 11.Fleishman JA, Selim AJ, Kazis LE (2010) Deriving SF-12v2 physical and mental health summary scores: a comparison of different scoring algorithms. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehab 19(2):231–241Google Scholar
- 12.Selim A, Rogers W, Qian S, Rothendler JA, Kent EE, Kazis LE (2016) A New algorithm to build bridges between two patient-reported health outcome instruments: the MOS SF-36® and the VR-12 Health Survey. National Cancer InstituteGoogle Scholar
- 13.Selim A, Rogers W, Qian S, Rothendler JA, Kent EE, Kazis LE (2018) A new algorithm to build bridges between two patient-reported health outcome instruments: the MOS SF-36(R) and the VR-12 Health Survey. Qual Life Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1850-3
- 14.Cohen J (1965) Some statistical issues in psychological research. Handbook of clinical psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 95–121Google Scholar