The prognostic value of WHO performance status in relation to quality of life in advanced colorectal cancer patients. (October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mol, L.; Ottevanger, P.B.; Koopman, M.; Punt, C.J.A.
• Is Part Of: European journal of cancer. Volume 66(2016)
• Page Start: 138
• Page End: 143
• Publication Date: 2016-10
• Subjects: WHO performance status -- Quality of life -- Colorectal cancer -- Physical functioning; Cancer -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Périodiques; Cancer; Tumors; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.013
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0959-8049

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Performance status (PS) is an established prognostic factor in patients with advanced cancer and is usually scored by the treating physician. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire as reported by cancer patients is a validated tool to assess quality of life (QoL). Subjectivity plays a role in both assessments, and data on a direct comparison are scarce. Methods: We compared the prognostic value for overall survival (OS) of the WHO PS to the baseline physical function scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (QLQ-C30 PF) in a prospective randomised phase 3 trial in advanced colorectal cancer (ACC), the CAIRO study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the baseline QLQ-C30 PF. QLQ-C30 PF was considered 'good' if the score was more than 66.7% and 'poor' if 66.7% or less. Results were validated in a subsequent phase 3 study in ACC, the CAIRO2 study. Results: The median OS for patients with a 'good' QLQ-C30 PF and a 'poor' PF in patients with WHO PS 0 was 20.3 months (n = 300) and 10.4 months (n = 44), in patients with WHO PS 1 16.8 months (n = 125) and 10.1 months (n = 63), and in patients with WHO PS 2 16.2 months (n = 11) and 9.9 months (n = 12), respectively. In a Cox regression model which included other prognostic factors, 'good' versus 'poor' QLQ-C30 PF was significantly prognostic for OS (0.57 95% confidence interval: 0.46–0.72), but not WHO PS. These results were confirmed in the CAIRO2 study. Conclusions: We demonstrate in ACC patients that PF, as assessed by patients using the EORTC QLQ-C30, is superior in terms of prognostic value to WHO PS as scored by physicians. Our data support to include the results of baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 PF instead of WHO PS as a stratification parameter in oncology trials. Highlights: Physical functioning as assessed by patients is more prognostic than performance status as assessed by physicians. Baseline physical functioning of the EORTC QLQ-C30 should be included as a stratification parameter in clinical trials.