Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 26, Issue 11, pp 3925–3932 | Cite as

Investigating the prognostic ability of health-related quality of life on survival: a prospective cohort study of adults with lung cancer

  • Laura C. PinheiroEmail author
  • Bryce B. Reeve
Original Article
  • 169 Downloads

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Quality of life Cohort study Lung cancer 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM (2010) Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 127(12):2893–2917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Donovan K, Sanson-Fisher RW, Redman S (1989) Measuring quality of life in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 7(7):959–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Gotay CC, Kawamoto CT, Bottomley A, Efficace F (2008) The prognostic significance of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 26(8):1355–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ganz PA, Lee JJ, Siau J (1991) Quality of life assessment. An independent prognostic variable for survival in lung cancer. Cancer 67(12):3131–3135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Ambs A, Warren JL, Bellizzi KM, Topor M, Haffer SC, Clauser SB (2008) Overview of the SEER—Medicare Health Outcomes Survey linked dataset. Health Care Financ Rev 29(4):5–21PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 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. 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. 14.
    Cohen J (1965) Some statistical issues in psychological research. Handbook of clinical psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 95–121Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katz S (1983) Assessing self-maintenance: activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living. J Am Geriatr Soc 31(12):721–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Concato J, Peduzzi P, Holford TR, Feinstein AR (1995) Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards analysis. I. Background, goals, and general strategy. J Clin Epidemiol 48(12):1495–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bozdogan H (1987) Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): the general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika 52:345–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duijts SF, van Egmond MP, Spelten E, van Muijen P, Anema JR, van der Beek AJ (2014) Physical and psychosocial problems in cancer survivors beyond return to work: a systematic review. Psycho-Oncology 23(5):481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dickens AP, Richards SH, Greaves CJ, Campbell JL (2011) Interventions targeting social isolation in older people: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 11:647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reeve BB, Potosky AL, Smith AW, Han PK, Hays RD, Davis WW, Arora NK, Haffer SC, Clauser SB (2009) Impact of cancer on health-related quality of life of older Americans. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(12):860–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jensen GA, Morrisey MA (2004) Are healthier older adults choosing managed care? Gerontologist 44(1):85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morgan RO, Virnig BA, DeVito CA, Persily NA (1997) The Medicare-HMO revolving door—the healthy go in and the sick go out. N Engl J Med 337(3):169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pourat N, Kagawa-Singer M, Wallace SP (2006) Are managed care Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions satisfied with their care? J Aging Health 18(1):70–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jagsi R, Abrahamse P, Hawley ST, Graff JJ, Hamilton AS, Katz SJ (2012) Underascertainment of radiotherapy receipt in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data. Cancer 118(2):333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of MedicineWeill Cornell MedicineNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Center for Health Measurement, Population Health SciencesDuke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations