Neurocognitive impairment and patient-proxy agreement on health-related quality of life evaluations in recurrent high-grade glioma patients.
Glioma
Neurocognitive functioning
PROs
Patient–proxy agreement
Quality of Life
Journal
Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1573-2649
Titre abrégé: Qual Life Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9210257
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
accepted:
05
07
2022
pubmed:
19
8
2022
medline:
12
10
2022
entrez:
18
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The rate of missing data on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in brain tumor clinical trials is particularly high over time. One solution to this issue is the use of proxy (i.e., partner, relative, informal caregiver) ratings in lieu of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In this study we investigated patient-proxy agreement on HRQOL outcomes in high-grade glioma (HGG) patients. Generic and disease-specific HRQOL were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 in a sample of 501 patient-proxy dyads participating in EORTC trials 26101 and 26091. Patients were classified as impaired or intact, based on their neurocognitive performance. The level of patient-proxy agreement was measured using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and the Bland-Altman limit of agreement. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate differences between patients' and proxies' HRQOL. Patient-proxy agreement in all HGG patients (N = 501) ranged from 0.082 to 0.460. Only 18.8% of all patients were neurocognitively intact. Lin's CCC ranged from 0.088 to 0.455 in cognitively impaired patients and their proxies and from 0.027 to 0.538 in cognitively intact patients and their proxies. While patient-proxy agreement on health-related quality of life outcomes is somewhat higher in cognitively intact patients, agreement in high-grade glioma patients is low in general. In light of these findings, we suggest to cautiously consider the use of proxy's evaluation in lieu of patient-reported outcomes, regardless of patient's neurocognitive status.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35982202
doi: 10.1007/s11136-022-03197-w
pii: 10.1007/s11136-022-03197-w
pmc: PMC9546946
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3253-3266Subventions
Organisme : European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer
ID : (007/2016)
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Cancer. 2012 Oct 15;118(20):5026-37
pubmed: 22415423
Biometrics. 1947 Sep;3(3):119-22
pubmed: 18903631
Neurooncol Pract. 2015 Mar;2(1):20-31
pubmed: 26034638
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004 Mar;19(2):203-14
pubmed: 15010086
J Neurooncol. 2013 May;113(1):49-55
pubmed: 23436131
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 1996;11(4):329-38
pubmed: 14588937
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2013 Jul;13(7):359
pubmed: 23666388
J Clin Oncol. 1994 Mar;12(3):608-16
pubmed: 8120561
Acta Neuropathol. 2007 Aug;114(2):97-109
pubmed: 17618441
Qual Life Res. 1996 Feb;5(1):139-50
pubmed: 8901377
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Mar 3;85(5):365-76
pubmed: 8433390
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Sep;19(9):1170-1179
pubmed: 30115593
Qual Life Res. 2017 Apr;26(4):869-880
pubmed: 27744512
Am J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr;31(2):163-8
pubmed: 18391601
J Clin Oncol. 1997 Mar;15(3):1206-17
pubmed: 9060565
Neuro Oncol. 2011 Jun;13(6):660-8
pubmed: 21558074
N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 16;377(20):1954-1963
pubmed: 29141164
Lancet Oncol. 2005 Dec;6(12):937-44
pubmed: 16321761
Cancer. 2010 Jul 15;116(14):3348-56
pubmed: 20564075
Neuro Oncol. 2003 Apr;5(2):89-95
pubmed: 12672280