Quality of Life and Adverse Events: Prognostic Relationships in Long-Term Ovarian Cancer Survival.
Journal
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
ISSN: 1460-2105
Titre abrégé: J Natl Cancer Inst
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7503089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2021
01 10 2021
Historique:
received:
29
09
2020
revised:
15
01
2021
accepted:
05
03
2021
pubmed:
18
3
2021
medline:
25
2
2022
entrez:
17
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is a critical need to identify patient characteristics associated with long-term ovarian cancer survival. Quality of life (QOL), measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian-Trial Outcome Index (FACT-O-TOI), including physical, functional, and ovarian-specific subscales, was compared between long-term survivors (LTS) (8+ years) and short-term survivors (STS) (<5 years) of GOG 218 at baseline; before cycles 4, 7, 13, 21; and 6 months post-treatment using linear and longitudinal mixed models adjusted for covariates. Adverse events (AEs) were compared between survivor groups at each assessment using generalized linear models. All P values are 2-sided. QOL differed statistically significantly between STS (N = 1115) and LTS (N = 260) (P < .001). Baseline FACT-O-TOI and FACT-O-TOI change were independently associated with long-term survival (odds ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.06 and odds ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 1.05 to 1.07, respectively). A 7-point increase in baseline QOL was associated with a 38.0% increase in probability of LTS, and a 9-point increase in QOL change was associated with a 67.0% increase in odds for LTS. QOL decreased statistically significantly with increasing AE quartiles (cycle 4 quartiles: 0-5 vs 6-8 vs 9-11 vs ≥12 AEs, P = .01; cycle 21 quartiles: 0-2 vs 3 vs 4-5 vs ≥6 AEs, P = .001). Further, LTS reported statistically significantly better QOL compared with STS (P = .03 and P = .01, cycles 4 and 21, respectively), with similar findings across higher AE grades. Baseline and longitudinal QOL change scores distinguished LTS vs STS and are robust prognosticators for long-term survival. Results have trial design and supportive care implications, providing meaningful prognostic value in this understudied population.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is a critical need to identify patient characteristics associated with long-term ovarian cancer survival.
METHODS
Quality of life (QOL), measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian-Trial Outcome Index (FACT-O-TOI), including physical, functional, and ovarian-specific subscales, was compared between long-term survivors (LTS) (8+ years) and short-term survivors (STS) (<5 years) of GOG 218 at baseline; before cycles 4, 7, 13, 21; and 6 months post-treatment using linear and longitudinal mixed models adjusted for covariates. Adverse events (AEs) were compared between survivor groups at each assessment using generalized linear models. All P values are 2-sided.
RESULTS
QOL differed statistically significantly between STS (N = 1115) and LTS (N = 260) (P < .001). Baseline FACT-O-TOI and FACT-O-TOI change were independently associated with long-term survival (odds ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.06 and odds ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 1.05 to 1.07, respectively). A 7-point increase in baseline QOL was associated with a 38.0% increase in probability of LTS, and a 9-point increase in QOL change was associated with a 67.0% increase in odds for LTS. QOL decreased statistically significantly with increasing AE quartiles (cycle 4 quartiles: 0-5 vs 6-8 vs 9-11 vs ≥12 AEs, P = .01; cycle 21 quartiles: 0-2 vs 3 vs 4-5 vs ≥6 AEs, P = .001). Further, LTS reported statistically significantly better QOL compared with STS (P = .03 and P = .01, cycles 4 and 21, respectively), with similar findings across higher AE grades.
CONCLUSIONS
Baseline and longitudinal QOL change scores distinguished LTS vs STS and are robust prognosticators for long-term survival. Results have trial design and supportive care implications, providing meaningful prognostic value in this understudied population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33729494
pii: 6174697
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djab034
pmc: PMC8486331
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1369-1378Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180868
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA233193
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180822
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA233290
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UG1 CA189867
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2001 Mar 15;19(6):1809-17
pubmed: 11251013
Cancer. 2014 Jan 15;120(2):302-11
pubmed: 24127333
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Jan;88:31-37
pubmed: 29179135
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Dec 14;112(12):1266-1274
pubmed: 32091598
Br J Cancer. 2014 May 13;110(10):2427-33
pubmed: 24743709
Cancer. 2018 Aug;124(16):3409-3416
pubmed: 29905936
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Apr 1;22(7):1553-8
pubmed: 26758559
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Sep 21;8:104
pubmed: 20858248
Support Care Cancer. 2012 Oct;20(10):2553-7
pubmed: 22270087
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Aug 01;3(8):1043-1050
pubmed: 28208174
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Mar;124(3):379-82
pubmed: 22119995
Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Jul;110(1):60-4
pubmed: 18430468
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Oct;147(1):98-103
pubmed: 28743369
Qual Life Res. 2005 Mar;14(2):285-95
pubmed: 15892420
Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Jan;108(1):100-5
pubmed: 17920108
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Dec;143(3):611-616
pubmed: 27697287
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015 Sep;50(3):321-7
pubmed: 25975643
Lancet Oncol. 2009 Sep;10(9):865-71
pubmed: 19695956
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 10;26(8):1355-63
pubmed: 18227528
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Dec 2;101(23):1624-32
pubmed: 19920223
Oncologist. 2016 Mar;21(3):354-76
pubmed: 26921292
Support Care Cancer. 2008 Jan;16(1):47-56
pubmed: 17619911
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-65
pubmed: 26644527
Qual Life Res. 1997 Mar;6(2):151-8
pubmed: 9161115
Int J Cancer. 2011 Jun 15;128(12):3005-11
pubmed: 20824713
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Nov;16(15):1445-1446
pubmed: 26404502
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Dec 1;22(23):5909-5914
pubmed: 27521449
N Engl J Med. 2011 Dec 29;365(26):2473-83
pubmed: 22204724
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2018 Oct;18(sup1):3-7
pubmed: 30223698
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Aug;19(8):1126-1134
pubmed: 30026002
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Aug 20;23(24):5605-12
pubmed: 16110020
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jul;134(1):60-7
pubmed: 24680770
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 May;64(5):507-16
pubmed: 21447427
Lancet Oncol. 2006 Nov;7(11):903-9
pubmed: 17081915
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jul;146(1):101-108
pubmed: 28527672
Support Care Cancer. 2019 Feb;27(2):531-538
pubmed: 30003341
Med Care. 2003 May;41(5):582-92
pubmed: 12719681
Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 01;28(8):1849-1855
pubmed: 28595285
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Aug 10;30(23):2885-90
pubmed: 22802321
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Sep;126(3):491-497
pubmed: 26244529
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10;37(26):2317-2328
pubmed: 31216226
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Mar;128(3):573-8
pubmed: 23219660