Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The relationship of changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores to ratings on the Subjective Significance Questionnaire in men with localized prostate cancer

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the relationship between changes in health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) on the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), and patients' perceptions of HRQOL changes as measured by the Subjective Significance Questionnaire (SSQ). Patients and methods: A total of 101 patients completed the QLQ-C30 on weeks 1, 4 and 7 of radical external-beam radiation therapy (RT) for localized cancer of the prostate. Patients rated their change in physical functioning, emotional functioning, social functioning, and overall/global quality of life (QOL) by completing a seven-category SSQ at weeks 4 and 7. The association between changes in the QLQ-C30 change and the corresponding SSQ ratings were determined by calculation of mean change scores for each SSQ category and by Spearman rank correlation coefficient analysis. Results: Patients' completion of the QLQ-C30 and SSQ exceeded 95%. Statistically significant changes in fatigue, pain, appetite, diarrhea, and global QOL scores were detected during RT. For patients reporting ‘a little’ change in global QOL on the SSQ, absolute mean QLQ-C30 change scores ranged between 0 to 15 points with 12/16 mean change scores between 2.5 and 8.5 points. In the entire study sample, correlations between SSQ patient ratings and QLQ-C30 change scores were lower than previously reported, ranging between 0.15 and 0.24 for the four different domains, but were higher when QOL scores producing ceiling effects were omitted. Conclusion: The SSQ and QLQ-C30 may measure related concepts that could assist in the interpretation of changes in scores and in the calibration of the QLQ-C30. However, the nature of this relationship could not be elucidated in this data set because of a lack of variance in HRQOL scores in the study sample. Further investigation should be carried out in study samples with sufficient variance to allow more robust conclusions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nelson EC, Berwick DM. The measurement of health status in clinical practice. Med Care 1989; 27: S77–S90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ballatori E, Roila F, Basurto C, et al. Reliability and validity of a quality of life questionnaire in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 1993; 29A: S63–S69.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, 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: 365–376.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sprangers MA, Cull A, Bjordal K, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer: Approach to quality of life assessment: Guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 287–295.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Niezgoda HE, Pater JL. A validation study of the domains of the core EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 319–325.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Osoba D, Zee B, Pater J, et al. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ringdal GI, Ringdal K. Testing the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire on cancer patients with heterogeneous diagnoses. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 129–140.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lydick E, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res 1993;2: 221–226.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407–415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, et al. Determining a minimal important change in a disease specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Redelmeier DA, Guyatt GH, Goldstein RS. Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: A comparison of two techniques. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 1215–1219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, et al. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 139–144.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Osoba D, Tannock I. Measuring health related quality of life. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 2293A.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Osoba D. Interpreting the meaningfulness of changes in health-related quality of life scores; lessons from studies in adults. Int J Cancer Suppl 1999; 12: 132–137.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pater J, Osoba D, Zee B, et al. Effects of altering the time of administration and the time frame of quality of life assessments in clinical trials: An example using the EORTC QLQ-C30 in a large anti-emetic trial. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 273–278.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Litwin MS, Mcguigan KA. Accuracy of recall in healthrelated quality-of-life assessment among men treated for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 2882–2888.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, et al. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. Brussels, Belgium, Quality of Life Unit, EORTC Data Centre, 1995.

  18. Sommers SD, Ramsey SD. A review of quality-of-life evaluations in prostate cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 127–140.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tannock IF, Osoba D, Stockier MR, et al. Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisone alone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: A Canadian randomized trial with palliative end points. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 1756–1764.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee WR, McQuellon RP, Harris-Henderson K, et al. A preliminary analysis of health related quality of life in the first year after permanent source interstitial brachytherapy (PIB) for clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 46: 77–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lilleby W, Fossa SD, Waehre HR, et al. Long-term morbidity and quality of life in patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing definite radiotherapy of radical prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 43: 735–743.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Joly F, Brune D, Couette JE, et al. Health-related quality of life and sequelae in patients treated with brachytherapy and external beam irradiation for localized prostate cancer. Am Oncol 1998; 9: 751–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McCammar KA, Kolm P, Main B, et al. Comparative quality of life analysis after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation for localized prostate cancer. Urology 1999; 54: 509–516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Janda M, Gerstner N, Obermair A, et al. Quality of life changes during conformal radiation therapy for prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2000; 89: 1322–1328.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kraemer HC. Reporting the size of the effect in research studies to facilitate assessment of practical or clinical significance. Psychoneuroendocrinol 1992; 17: 527–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77: 371–383.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cella D, Bullinger M, Scott C, et al. Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77: 384–392.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sloan JA, Aaronson N, Cappellari JC, et al. Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77: 479–487.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K. Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: Differences between improvement and worsening. Qual Life Res 2002; 11: 207–311.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Osoba D, Zee B, Bezjak A, et al. Interpreting the signifi-cance of health-related quality of life scores: The relationship of changes in scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 with ratings on the Subjective Significance Questionnaire. Qual Life Res, in press.

  31. Ross M. Relation of implicit theories in the construction of personal histories. Psychol Rev 1989; 96: 341–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1507–1515.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, et al.A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 55: 900–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sneeuw K, Muller M, Aaronson N. Interpreting the significance of changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 and COOP/ WONCA scores. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 256 (abstract 1416).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Centre, London

    G. Rodrigues

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    A. Bezjak, P. Catton, D. Tsuji, D. Taylor & P. Warde

  3. QOL Consulting, West Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    D. Osoba

Authors
  1. G. Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Bezjak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Osoba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Catton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Tsuji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P. Warde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rodrigues, G., Bezjak, A., Osoba, D. et al. The relationship of changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores to ratings on the Subjective Significance Questionnaire in men with localized prostate cancer. Qual Life Res 13, 1235–1246 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000037494.27127.b5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000037494.27127.b5

Search

Navigation