Do neurooncological patients and their significant others agree on quality of life ratings?

IntroductionPatients suffering from brain tumours often experience a wide range of cognitive impairments that impair their ability to report on their quality of life and symptom burden. The use of proxy ratings by significant others may be a promising alternative to gain information for medical decision making or research purposes, if self-ratings are not obtainable. Our study investigated the agreement of quality of life and symptom ratings by the patient him/herself or by a significant other.MethodsPatients with primary brain tumours were recruited at the neurooncological outpatient unit of Innsbruck Medical University. Quality of life self- and proxy-ratings were collected using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and its brain cancer module, the QLQ-BN20.ResultsBetween May 2005 and August 2007, 42 pairs consisting of a patient and his/her significant other were included in the study. Most of the employed quality of life scales showed fairly good agreement between patient- and proxy-ratings (median correlation 0.46). This was especially true for Physical Functioning, Sleeping Disturbances, Appetite Loss, Constipation, Taste Alterations, Visual Disorders, Motor Dysfunction, Communication Deficits, Hair Loss, Itchy Skin, Motor Dysfunction and Hair Loss. Worse rater agreement was found for Social Functioning, Emotional Functioning, Cognitive Functioning, Fatigue, Pain, Dyspnoea and Seizures.ConclusionThe assessment of quality of life in brain cancer patients through ratings from their significant others seems to be a feasible strategy to gain information about certain aspects of patient's quality of life and symptom burden, if the patient is not able to provide information himself.

[1]  P J Nichols,et al.  Functional Assessment , 2019, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Human Communication Sciences and Disorders.

[2]  J. Varni,et al.  Parent proxy-report of their children's health-related quality of life: an analysis of 13,878 parents' reliability and validity across age subgroups using the PedsQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scales , 2007, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[3]  R. Arusell,et al.  A Prospective Study of Quality of Life in Adults With Newly Diagnosed High-Grade Gliomas: Comparison of Patient and Caregiver Ratings of Quality of Life , 2008, American journal of clinical oncology.

[4]  K. Stein,et al.  Temozolomide for high grade glioma. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[5]  Galina Velikova,et al.  Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[7]  Bernhard Holzner,et al.  Implementation of computer-based quality-of-life monitoring in brain tumor outpatients in routine clinical practice. , 2010, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[8]  M. Prados,et al.  A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study of RMP-7 in combination with carboplatin administered intravenously for the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma. , 2003, Neuro-oncology.

[9]  J. Olson,et al.  Benefit of temozolomide compared to procarbazine in treatment of glioblastoma multiforme at first relapse: effect on neurological functioning, performance status, and health related quality of life. , 2005, Cancer investigation.

[10]  Mohamed Abdolell,et al.  Perception of quality of life by patients, partners and treating physicians , 2004, Quality of Life Research.

[11]  L. Carlson,et al.  Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behaviour and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatients , 2000, Psycho-oncology.

[12]  D. Osoba,et al.  The use of significant others as proxy raters of the quality of life of patients with brain cancer. , 1997, Medical care.

[13]  N. Aaronson,et al.  The Influence of Proxy Perspective on Patient-Proxy Agreement in the Evaluation of Health-Related Quality of Life: An Empirical Study , 2008, Medical care.

[14]  N. Aaronson,et al.  Comparison of patient and proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 ratings in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  Susie A. Sami,et al.  Health State Valuation in Mild to Moderate Cognitive Impairment: Feasibility of Computer-Based, Direct Patient Utility Assessment , 2008, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[16]  C. O'boyle,et al.  Proxy assessment of quality of life in patients with prostate cancer: how accurate are partners and urologists? , 2008, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[17]  M. Hegel,et al.  Proxy perspectives regarding end‐of‐life care for persons with cancer , 2008, Cancer.

[18]  D. Osoba,et al.  Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  D. Osoba,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. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[20]  M. King The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30 , 1996, Quality of Life Research.

[21]  D. Cella,et al.  The functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) scale. Development of a brain subscale and revalidation of the general version (FACT‐G) in patients with primary brain tumors , 1995, Cancer.

[22]  G. Kempen,et al.  Patients' self-report and family caregivers' perception of quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: how do they compare? , 2006, European journal of cancer care.

[23]  D. Osoba,et al.  The development and psychometric validation of a brain cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for use in combination with general cancer-specific questionnaires , 1996, Quality of Life Research.