QUALITY OF LIFE IN ADVANCED CANCER PATIENT – COMPARISON OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME(PRO) AND PROXIES ASSESSMENT
Author(s)
Choi J1, Miyashita M2, Kim B31National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA), Seoul, South Korea, 2Tohoku University School of Health Sciences, Sendai, Japan, 3Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: While Quality Of Life (QOL) in subjects suffering from advanced cancer patient has been studied using a variety of generic or specific instruments, only very few studies have analyzed the agreement between patients and proxy ratings on patients' QOL. The objective of this study was to compare PRO of quality of life and proxy assessment using EORTC QLQ PAL-15. METHODS: We administered the EORTC QLQ PAL-15 to 32 patients and their own family, nurse and doctor, respectively as proxies of patient. The QLQ PAL-15 is a 15-item shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific health-related quality of life measure consisting of two functional scale(physical and emotional), seven symptom scale(fatigue, pain, nausea and vomiting, dyspnoea, appetite loss, insomnia, constipation) and single item scale to assess quality of life. The analyses focused on intraclass correlation coefficients(ICCs) to comparing the ICC 95% lower confidence interval with critical value 0.70. and Pearson’s correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Agreement between patients and proxies on the scales was excellent for physical function(ICC=0.889) and fatique(ICC=0.739). Emotional function, emesis, pain, appetite loss, constipation, constipation and quality of life scale was fair agreement(ICC range from 0.471 to 0.739). Dyspnoea(ICC=0.301) and insomnia(ICC=0.097) was poor agreement between PRO and proxies assessment. There were higher correlation with family than other proxies with patient in emotional function(r=0.791, p<0.001), insomnia(r=0.774, p<0.001), nausea and vomiting(r0.646, p<0.001), appetite loss(r=0.638, p<0.001), dyspnonea(r=0.402, p<0.005). There were higher correlation with nurse than other proxies with patient in physical function(r=0.791, p<0.001) and constipation(r=0.540, p<0.001). There were higher correlation with doctor than other proxies in pain(r=0.494, p<0.001) and fatigue(r=0.406, p<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The agreement between PROs and proxies assessment in QOL assessment is different by symptom and function. Family caregiver were more agreement than nurse and doctor. We need to paid attention to proxy assessment more carefully.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2010-09, ISPOR Asia Pacific 2010, Phuket, Thailand
Value in Health, Vol. 13, No. 7 (November 2010)
Code
CN3
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Disease
Oncology