Breast Cancer

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 319–325

Pretreatment quality of life, performance status and their relation to treatment discontinuation and treatment changes in high-risk breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: results from the prospective randomized ADEBAR trial

  • Martin Eichler
  • Susanne Singer
  • Wolfgang Janni
  • Nadia Harbeck
  • Brigitte Rack
  • Doris Augustin
  • Arthur Wischnik
  • Marion Kiechle
  • Johannes Ettl
  • Christoph Scholz
  • Visnja Fink
  • Lukas Schwentner
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Health-related quality of life (QoL) is a self-assessed construct indicating how people feel in regard to aspects of their health. Performance status (PS) is evaluated by the treating physician. We examined whether pretreatment QoL and PS are related to subsequent treatment discontinuation and treatment changes in high-risk breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study with data from a randomized phase III trial comparing FEC- and EC-DOC-chemotherapy in patients with primary breast cancer (ADEBAR). We examined the patient’s request to discontinue the study, discontinuation due to toxicity, the prolongation of therapy, and dose reduction. Baseline QoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30. PS was evaluated using the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Scale (ECOG). Four QoL scales were selected prior to analysis as outcomes: global health, physical functioning, emotional functioning, and fatigue. Multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were used to test for differences within the independent variables.

Main results

1322 patients were included. 1094 (82.8 %) patients completed therapy according to protocol. 6.3 % stopped therapy due to toxicity and 4.4 % refused treatment. Global health was not related to any of the four QoL outcomes. Physical functioning had the strongest impact on QoL, when comparing the fittest group to the lowest quintile [OR 2.14 (95 % CI 1.00–4.60)]. ECOG 0 compared to worse than 1 was strongly correlated to therapy discontinuation due to toxicity [OR 20.15 (95 % CI 9.48–42.83)] and treatment refusal [OR 8.32 (95 % CI 3.81–18.14)].

Conclusions

Pretreatment QoL, especially physical functioning, is associated with subsequent therapy discontinuation due to toxicity and with changes of the treatment protocol. Pretreatment performance status is strongly associated with therapy discontinuation due to toxicity and with treatment refusal.

Keywords

Quality of life Performance status Treatment discontinuation Breast cancer Chemotherapy 

Supplementary material

12282_2016_706_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 29 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Quinten C, Coens C, Mauer M, Comte S, Sprangers MAG, Cleeland C, et al. Baseline quality of life as a prognostic indicator of survival: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from EORTC clinical trials. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(9):865–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seidman AD, Portenoy R, Yao TJ, Lepore J, Mont EK, Kortmansky J, et al. Quality of life in phase II trials: a study of methodology and predictive value in patients with advanced breast cancer treated with paclitaxel plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87(17):1316–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coates AS, Hürny C, Peterson HF, Bernhard J, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Gelber RD, International Breast Cancer Study Group, et al. Quality-of-life scores predict outcome in metastatic but not early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000;18(22):3768–74.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kramer JA, Curran D, Piccart M, de Haes JC, Bruning P, Klijn J, et al. Identification and interpretation of clinical and quality of life prognostic factors for survival and response to treatment in first-line chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl. 2000;36(12):1498–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montazeri A. Quality of life data as prognostic indicators of survival in cancer patients: an overview of the literature from 1982 to 2008. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7(1):102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buccheri G, Ferrigno D, Tamburini M. Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: a prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer. 1996;32(7):1135–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee CK, Stockler MR, Coates AS, Gebski V, Lord SJ, Simes RJ. Self-reported health-related quality of life is an independent predictor of chemotherapy treatment benefit and toxicity in women with advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(9):1341–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richardson LC, Wang W, Hartzema AG, Wagner S. The role of health-related quality of life in early discontinuation of chemotherapy for breast cancer. Breast J. 2007;13(6):581–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Combination chemotherapy in treating women with breast cancer, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00047099.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Janni W, et al. Sequential treatment with epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, followed by docetaxel versus FEC120 in the adjuvant treatment of node-positive breast cancer patients: final survival analysis of the German ADEBAR phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(suppl):abstr 1081.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, Groenvold M. The EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. 3rd ed. Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corp; 2013.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bottomley A, de Graeff A. EORTC QLQ-C30 reference values. Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    You J, Shi Z. Study on the relationship among the international scales for quality of life evaluation in patients with lung cancer, the East Cooperative Oncology Group Status and Lung Cancer Symptoms Lists of TCM. Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi Zhongguo Zhongxiyi Jiehe Zazhi Chin J Integr Tradit West Med Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Hui Zhongguo Zhong Yi Yan Jiu Yuan Zhu Ban. 2005;25(7):595–9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suh S-Y, LeBlanc TW, Shelby RA, Samsa GP, Abernethy AP. Longitudinal patient-reported performance status assessment in the cancer clinic is feasible and prognostic. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(6):374–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levine MN, Guyatt GH, Gent M, De Pauw S, Goodyear MD, Hryniuk WM, et al. Quality of life in stage II breast cancer: an instrument for clinical trials. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1988;6(12):1798–810.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Eichler
    • 1
  • Susanne Singer
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Janni
    • 2
  • Nadia Harbeck
    • 3
  • Brigitte Rack
    • 3
  • Doris Augustin
    • 4
  • Arthur Wischnik
    • 5
  • Marion Kiechle
    • 6
  • Johannes Ettl
    • 6
  • Christoph Scholz
    • 2
  • Visnja Fink
    • 2
  • Lukas Schwentner
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI)University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University MainzMainzGermany
  2. 2.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity Hospital UlmUlmGermany
  3. 3.Breast Center, Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsLudwig-Maximilian-University MunichMunichGermany
  4. 4.Clinics Deggendorf Mammacenter OstbayernDeggendorfGermany
  5. 5.Breast CenterClinics AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  6. 6.Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Klinikum Rechts der IsarTechnical University MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations