← 返回

肿瘤学中 EORTC QLQ-C30 和 FACT-G 有意义变化阈值的综述

英文原题:A Review of Meaningful Change Thresholds for EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G Within Oncology.

查看英文原题

A Review of Meaningful Change Thresholds for EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G Within Oncology.

PubMed 2024/01/06(内容时间) Value Health Q1 · IF 6.2(JCR 2025)

分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。

研究概要

试验者应考虑对 QLQ-C30 终点使用当代阈值,而非沿用旧阈值。在可获得的情况下,应使用针对相似患者群体推导的阈值。尚需进一步开展工作,以在更广泛的癌症部位中提供这些阈值。

研究思路结论见上方概要

本综述概述了欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织生活质量问卷核心30(QLQ-C30)和癌症治疗功能评估-通用(FACT-G)在血液系统恶性肿瘤和实体瘤(黑色素瘤、肺癌、膀胱癌和前列腺癌)中使用的有意义变化阈值。

检索了 Embase、MEDLINE 和 PubMed,以识别 2016 年至 2021 年期间发表的相关肿瘤学出版物。审查了美国食品药品监督管理局和欧洲药品管理局对 7 种近期获批药物(pembrolizumab、atezolizumab、glasdegib、gilteritinib、tisagenlecleucel、axicabtagene ciloleucel 和 daratumumab 联合 hyaluronidase-fihj)的标签声明。

关于QLQ-C30有意义变化阈值的出版物呈现出一种日益明显的趋势,即从对所有QLQ-C30量表统一采用10分的宽泛“传统”阈值,转向推导“当代”阈值(例如,特定分量表、特定人群)。当代出版物通常为特定量表提供阈值选择指导,这些阈值区分了改善或恶化的界值(例如,QLQ-C30分量表)。这一趋势在FACT-G中并不明显,可用的新指导较少。用于监管标签提交的大多数临床试验对QLQ-C30分量表使用了10分的阈值,对FACT-G总分使用了3至7分的阈值。尽管有更新的指南可用,但当代有意义变化阈值在已发表文献和监管标签中的出现似乎较为缓慢。

展开英文摘要原文

This literature review provides an overview of meaningful change thresholds for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) used across hematological cancers and solid tumors (melanoma, lung, bladder, and prostate).

Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched to identify relevant oncology publications from 2016 to 2021. Label claims from the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for 7 recently approved drugs (pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, glasdegib, gilteritinib, tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, and daratumumab plus hyaluronidase-fihj) were reviewed.

Publications providing guidance on meaningful change thresholds for the QLQ-C30 displayed a growing trend away from broad "legacy" thresholds of 10 points for all QLQ-C30 scales), toward deriving "contemporary" thresholds (eg, subscale specific, population specific). Contemporary publications generally provide guidance on selecting thresholds for specific scales that account for improved or worsening thresholds (eg, QLQ-C30 subscales). This trend was not clear for FACT-G, with less new guidance available. Most clinical trials used in regulatory label submissions have used thresholds of 10 points for the QLQ-C30 subscales and 3 to 7 points for the FACT-G total score. Despite the availability of more recent guidelines, contemporary meaningful change thresholds seem slow to emerge in the published literature and regulatory labels.

Trialists should consider using contemporary thresholds, rather than legacy thresholds, for QLQ-C30 endpoints. Thresholds derived for a similar patient-population should be used where available. Further work is required to provide these across a broader range of cancer sites.

论文信息

作者
Clarke NA、Braverman J、Worthy G、Shaw JW、Bennett B、Dhanda D、Cocks K
单位
Statistics and Programming, Adelphi Values, Bollington, Cheshire, England, UK. Electronic address: nathan.clarke@adelphivalues.com.United Kingdom
文献类型
综述
期刊
Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2024 Apr
原文标识
PubMed 38191023 · DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2023.12.012