METHODS. 101 patients with primary brain tumors, after giving informed consent, participated in the last two phases of a four-phase validation process: item generation, item reduction, validation, and reliability testing. In the validation phase, FACT-G subscale and total scores as well as the brain subscale scores were correlated with other tests of mood, response, bias, and quality of life (QOL). Test-retest reliability testing was performed with 46 patients who had primary brain tumors.

RESULTS. Validity and reliability coefficients were high for the FACT-G and brain subscale, except for the comparison with a second QOL measure (FP-QLI) and the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS). The lower scores were the result of inherent differences in the two QOL instruments and the relatively high performance status of the brain tumor patients, which restricted the KPS score range.

CONCLUSION. The FACT-G has good psychometric properties supporting its broad generalizability and the brain subscale tests substantially different QOL issues than the core instrument. Use of this scale with the addition of the brain subscale provides a well rounded view of the various aspects of QOL from the patient's perspective. With modifications and further psychometric testing, the brain subscale may have broader applicability to subpopulations of patients with other brain disorders.

DESIGNS: Cross-sectional study using medical chart review, patient interview, and test administration. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral center. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty adults patients 3 months to 6 years after major surgery for head and neck cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Scores from a general measure of quality of life (the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy), a subscale specific to head and neck cancer, the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients.

RESULTS: The disease-specific measures of functional status correlate well with one another. However, there were low correlations between the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and the disease-specific measures, indicating that general and disease-specific instruments contribute unique information about quality of life.

CONCLUSION: A general measure of quality of life augments information obtained by disease-specific instruments by interpreting functional status in the broader scope of the patient's life.

METHODS: Cancer patients (N = 296) with diverse diagnoses and stages read sets of hypothetical vignettes describing patients with early-stage and advanced disease. In the first set, patients made decisions about treatment acceptance given varying levels of either increasing cure or extending survival. In the second set, the point at which patients shifted preferences from mild to severe treatment to improve likelihood of 1-year survival (switch point) was the dependent measure. We assessed the impact of quality-of-life (QL) domains measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), having children, marital status, and living arrangements on treatment preferences and switch points.

RESULTS: The Social Well-Being (SWB) subscale of the FACT-G predicted both treatment acceptance (P = .007) and switch point (P = .043) in the advanced-disease vignettes, with lower SWB associated with less aggressive preferences. Children living at home was likewise associated with more aggressive intent both in treatment preferences (P = .003, advanced-disease vignette) and switch point (P < .001 and P = .001 for early- and advanced-disease vignettes, respectively). Living with others predicted more aggressive intent in the advanced-disease vignette (P = .03). Marital status did not predict either treatment acceptance or switch point.

CONCLUSION: Positive social well-being, as well as having children living at home, predicted patient willingness to accept aggressive treatment. Willingness to receive aggressive treatment may explain or mediate previously reported salutory effects of social support on cancer outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) accrued 786 malignant glioma patients to a Phase I/II randomized dose escalation trial of twice-daily RT with carmustine from 1983 to 1989. Patients were randomized to one of four arms of hyperfractionated RT in 1.2 Gy twice daily (BID) fractions (64.8 Gy, 72.0 Gy, 76.8 Gy, or 81.6 Gy) or to either of two accelerated hyperfractionated RT arms in 1.6 Gy BID fractions (48.0 or 54.4 Gy). Although preliminary toxicity and survival data have been published, little information is available regarding the quality of these patients' lives during and following such therapy. QAS is a refinement of the methodology for assessing survival quality among breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. The QAS method allows for inclusion of both improvement and decline in neurologic functional status. Patients were scored by the presence or absence of 15 neurologic signs and symptoms at on-study and at every follow-up. Within each category were gradations of severity, with the quality survival time (Q-TIME) adjusted according to any changes in these neurologic findings. The summation of all changes in signs and symptoms were weighted by 1/15th and incorporated into the QAS model as QAS = Q-TIME-TOX-RRX. TOX was the time spent with treatment-related toxicities, and RRX was the time spent in recovery from subsequent therapy.

RESULTS: Of 747 evaluable patients, the average QAS time was 18.5 months. The average QAS for the hyperfractionated arms of 64.8 Gy, 72.0 Gy, 76.8 Gy, and 81.6 Gy were 15.6, 20.8, 10.0, and 13.7 months, respectively. For the accelerated hyperfractionated RT arms of 48.0 and 54.4 Gy, the average QAS times were 13.1 and 13.4 months. The QAS time of the 72.0 Gy arm was significantly longer than that of all other groups, except the 64.8 Gy arm. As expected, the QAS times were strongly discriminated by both age and Karnofsky Performance Scores (KPS) (p < 0.001). Younger patients and patients with high KPS benefited most from assignment to the 72.0 Gy arm; QAS time was not significantly longer in any treatment arm among patients over age 50 or with KPS scores of 80 or less.

CONCLUSIONS: This quality-adjusted survival methodology can be successfully applied to malignant glioma patients and permits a quantitative assessment of the influence of investigational therapies on patient quality of life. This analysis confirms the potential benefit of intermediate dose (72.0 Gy) hyperfractionated RT for selected malignant glioma patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: At our institution, patients with base of tongue cancer are primarily treated either by radiation or surgery depending upon the philosophy of their primary physician. Primary radiation consists of 45-54 Gy external beam radiation followed by an 192Ir implant delivering an additional 20-30 Gy over 2-3 days. A neck dissection is done at the same time as the implant for those with involved nodes. Primary surgery consists of resection of the base of tongue lesion, neck dissection and postoperative radiation therapy. Because both groups have similar local control in our experience (80-90%), we used a subjective performance status scale for head and neck cancer patients to assess the quality of life in these patients (0-100, 0 = worst function, 100 = normal function). This scale measures ability to eat in public, understandability of speech, and normalcy of diet. There were 30 radiation patients (21: T1-T2; nine: T3-T4) and ten surgery patients (five: T1-T2; five: T3-T4) available for long-term quality of life assessment.

RESULTS: Patients treated with radiation had consistently better performance status scores and quality of life according to our study. This was true for those with early (T1-2) as well as more advanced (T3-4) disease. For eating in public, T1-2 patients had scores of 85 vs. 75 (p = .31) and T3-4 patients had scores of 82 vs. 35 (p < .0001) for radiation vs. surgery, respectively. For understandability of speech, T1-2 patients had scores of 92 vs. 65 (p = .0021), and T3-4 patients had scores of 95 vs. 35 (p < .0001) for radiation vs. surgery, respectively. For normalcy of diet, T1-2 patients had scores of 74 vs. 50 (p = .047), and T3-4 patients had scores of 78 vs. 32 (p = .0012) for radiation vs. surgery, respectively. In addition, we compared scores for early vs. advanced disease treated by the same modality. For radiation, there was no difference in all three functional categories for T1-2 vs. T3-4 (p = .84), showing that quality of life scores remain high for all stages. For surgery, functional status deteriorated significantly when comparing T1-2 vs. T3-4 (p = .0014), consistent with the fact that larger tumors require more extensive operations.

CONCLUSION: Radiation therapy provides a better performance status than surgery for base of tongue cancer. This is true for both early and advanced disease. Because radiation also provides similar local control and survival, our data suggests that radiation may be the preferred strategy. Functional scores remain high for all T stages treated with radiation, but deteriorate with more advanced T stages for patients treated with surgery. Similar studies using objective criteria are needed to further compare these treatments.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three self-assessment QL instruments, the FACT, the SAQ, and CUF, were to be administered to patients on a Phase II locally advanced prostate trial at specified time points. Specific instructions for both data managers and for patients on when, how, and why to fill out the questionnaires were included.

RESULTS: Sixty-seven percent (24 out of 36) of patients accrued to RTOG 90-20 completed both the initial FACT and SAQ. Eighty-five percent completed FACT at end of RT and 73% at 3 months. Eighty-one percent completed SAQ at end of treatment, while 69% completed this form at 3 months. Compliance drops off thereafter. Seventy-five percent of patients who had their symptom of dysuria rated by a medical professional as 0 on the RTOG toxicity rating scale self-reported the same. Only 56% of patient self-reports on FACT regarding diarrhea were in agreement with the medical professional's RTOG rating of 0 toxicity. The measures were determined to be in moderate agreement when the patient evaluated a symptom as a 1 on the FACT and the medical professional rated the same symptom as a 0 on the RTOG toxicity rating scale. There was moderate agreement in 13% of patients with dysuria and 31% of patients with diarrhea. Low agreement occurred when the patient evaluated a symptom as a 2 or 3 on the FACT and the medical professional rated the same symptom as a 0 on the RTOG scale. Low agreement occurred in 13% of both patients reporting dysuria and diarrhea. Differences between how medical professionals and patients were able to rate erectile function make direct comparisons difficult, but the trend towards significant discrepancies is still noteworthy.

CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life assessments are necessary and attainable in RTOG clinical trials. Compliance rates for both institutional and patient participation were acceptable at initial and 3 month follow-up. Reasons for noncompliance were predominantly institution related and not patient related. Strategies to address both institution and patient compliance have been developed and implemented within the RTOG. Serious disagreement between patient self-reports of symptoms on the FACT QL scale and medical professional ratings on the RTOG acute toxicity rating scales of the same symptoms was 13% at 3 months follow-up. This warrants continued use of QL self-assessments in clinical trials.

METHODS: A battery of instruments (i.e., Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale [MSAS], Functional Living Index-Cancer [FLIC], Rand Mental Health Inventory [MHI], Brief Pain Inventory [BPI], and Memorial Pain Assessment Card [MPAC]) designed to capture information about social, psychological, and functional aspects of quality of life, as well as symptom prevalence and distress, was completed prior to treatment; serial assessments were obtained at regular intervals during the treatment period. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed evaluating base-line quality-of-life parameters and standard prognostic factors in relation to outcome measures of survival, tumor response, and toxicity. For 30 consecutive patients with extensive prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, longitudinal data were analyzed associating tumor response to changes in quality-of-life scores throughout the course of treatment with paclitaxel.

RESULTS: Base-line scores of two validated quality-of-life instruments, the MSAS and the FLIC, independently predicted the overall survival (P < .01 for each). In this model, however, neither standard prognostic factors nor quality of life instruments predicted the likelihood of tumor response or the probability of encountering grade 3 or grade 4 nonhematologic toxicity. With serial assessments of quality of life, the majority of patients who achieved partial tumor response or stable disease reported improved or unchanged quality-of-life scores, while those patients with progressive disease experienced rapid deterioration in quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS: Base-line quality-of-life assessment may provide prognostic information distinct from that obtained through standard prognostic indicators alone. The combination of two factors--extent of disease and a base-line quality-of-life assessment--predicted survival more accurately than either used separately. Evaluation of quality-of-life outcomes in relation to tumor response may illuminate previously unmeasured palliative effects of chemotherapy, such as pain relief, as well as the burdens it imposes. IMPLICATIONS: Information obtained from quality-of-life assessment in conjunction with phase II testing of new chemotherapeutic agents for metastatic breast cancer can guide quality-of-life evaluation planned in large, randomized future studies.

METHODS AND RESULTS: The five-phase validation process involved 854 patients with cancer and 15 oncology specialists. The initial pool of 370 overlapping items for breast, lung, and colorectal cancer was generated by open-ended interview with patients experienced with the symptoms of cancer and oncology professionals. Using preselected criteria, items were reduced to a 38-item general version. Factor and scaling analyses of these 38 items on 545 patients with mixed cancer diagnoses resulted in the 28-item FACT-general (FACT-G, version 2). In addition to a total score, this version produces subscale scores for physical, functional, social, and emotional well-being, as well as satisfaction with the treatment relationship. Coefficients of reliability and validity were uniformly high. The scale's ability to discriminate patients on the basis of stage of disease, performance status rating (PSR), and hospitalization status supports its sensitivity. It has also demonstrated sensitivity to change over time. Finally, the validity of measuring separate areas, or dimensions, of QL was supported by the differential responsiveness of subscales when applied to groups known to differ along the dimensions of physical, functional, social, and emotional well-being.

CONCLUSION: The FACT-G meets or exceeds all requirements for use in oncology clinical trials, including ease of administration, brevity, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change. Selecting it for a clinical trial adds the capability to assess the relative weight of various aspects of QL from the patient's perspective.