Randomized, controlled trial investigating short-term health-related quality of life with doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Group, Investigational Drug Branch for Breast Cancer and the New Drug Development Group Study.

PURPOSE: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) or doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) as first-line chemotherapy treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 275) with anthracycline-naive measurable metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned to AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Dose escalation of paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) was planned at cycle 2 to reach equivalent myelosuppression in the two groups. HRQOL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and the EORTC Breast Module at baseline and the start of cycles 2, 4, and 6, and 3 months after the last cycle. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of the patients (n = 219) completed a baseline measure. However, there were no statistically significant differences in HRQOL between the two treatment groups. In both groups, selected aspects of HRQOL were impaired over time, with increased fatigue, although some clinically significant improvements in emotional functioning were seen, as well as a reduction in pain over time. Overall, global quality of life was maintained in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: This information is important when advising women patients of the expected HRQOL consequences of treatment regimens and should help clinicians and their patients make informed treatment decisions.

Baseline health-related quality-of-life data as prognostic factors in a phase III multicentre study of women with metastatic breast cancer.

The potential value of baseline health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and clinical factors in predicting prognosis was examined using data from an international randomised phase III trial which compared doxorubicin and paclitaxel with doxorubicin and cylophosphamide as first line chemotherapy in 275 women with metastatic breast cancer. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and the related breast module (QLQ-BR23) were used to assess baseline HRQOL data. The Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used for both univariate and multivariate analyses of survival. In the univariate analyses, performance status (P<0.001) and number of sites involved (P=0.001) were the most important clinical prognostic factors. The HRQOL variables at baseline most strongly associated with longer survival were better appetite, physical and role functioning, as well as less fatigue (P<0.001). The final multivariate model retained performance status (P<0.001) and appetite loss (P=0.005) as the variables best predicting survival. Substantial loss of appetite was the only independent HRQOL factor predicting poor survival and was strongly correlated (/r/>0.5) with fatigue, role and physical functioning. In addition to known clinical factors, appetite loss appears to be a significant prognostic factor for survival in women with metastatic breast cancer. However, the mechanism underlying this association remains to be precisely defined in future studies.

Quality of care for cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: Development of key interventions and outcome indicators using a two-round Delphi approach

Purpose: Clear recommendations on how to guide patients with cancer on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are lacking as the use of HPN in this population remains a controversial issue. Therefore, the aims of this study were to rank treatment recommendations and main outcome indicators to ensure high-quality care and to indicate differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. Methods: Treatment recommendations, identified from published guidelines, were used as a starting point for a two-round Delphi approach. Comments and additional interventions proposed in the first round were reevaluated in the second round. Ordinal logistic regression with SPSS 2.0 was used to identify differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. Results: Twenty-seven experts from five European countries completed two Delphi rounds. After the second Delphi round, the top three most important outcome indicators were (1) quality of life (QoL), (2) incidence of hospital readmission and (3) incidence of catheter-related infections. Forty-two interventions were considered as important for quality of care (28/42 based on published guidelines; 14/42 newly suggested by Delphi panel). The topics 'Liver disease' and 'Metabolic bone disease' were considered less important for cancer patients, together with use of infusion pumps (p = 0.004) and monitoring of vitamins and trace elements (p = 0.000). Monitoring of QoL is considered more important for cancer patients (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Using a two-round Delphi approach, we developed a minimal set of 42 interventions that may be used to determine quality of care in HPN patients with malignancies. This set of interventions differs from a similar set developed for benign patients. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Evaluation of the quality of the management of cancer of the corpus uteri-Selection of relevant quality indicators and implementation in Belgium

Objective Describe the methodology and selection of quality indicators (QI) to be implemented in the EFFECT (EFFectiveness of Endometrial Cancer Treatment) project. EFFECT aims to monitor the variability in Quality of Care (QoC) of uterine cancer in Belgium, to compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies to improve the QoC and to check the internal validity of the QI to validate the impact of process indicators on outcome. Methods A QI list was retrieved from literature, recent guidelines and QI databases. The Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Center methodology was used for the selection process and involved an expert's panel rating the QI on 4 criteria. The resulting scores and further discussion resulted in a final QI list. An online EFFECT module was developed by the Belgian Cancer Registry including the list of variables required for measuring the QI. Three test phases were performed to evaluate the relevance, feasibility and understanding of the variables and to test the compatibility of the dataset. Results 138 QI were considered for further discussion and 82 QI were eligible for rating. Based on the rating scores and consensus among the expert's panel, 41 QI were considered measurable and relevant. Testing of the data collection enabled optimization of the content and the user-friendliness of the dataset and online module. Conclusions This first Belgian initiative for monitoring the QoC of uterine cancer indicates that the previously used QI selection methodology is reproducible for uterine cancer. The QI list could be applied by other research groups for comparison. © 2013 Elsevier Inc.