Health related quality of life(HRQOL) is increasingly recognized as an important clinical parameter and research endpoint in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC). HRQOL in HCC patients is multifaceted and affec...Health related quality of life(HRQOL) is increasingly recognized as an important clinical parameter and research endpoint in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC). HRQOL in HCC patients is multifaceted and affected by medical factor which encompasses HCC and its complications, oncological and palliative treatment for HCC, underlying liver disease, as well as the psychological, social or spiritual reaction to the disease. Many patients presented late with advanced disease and limited survival, plagued with multiple symptoms, rendering QOL a very important aspect in their general well being. Various instruments have been developed and validated to measure and report HRQOL in HCC patients, these included general HRQOL instruments, e.g., Short form(SF)-36, SF-12, Euro Qo L-5D, World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment 100(WHOQOL-100), World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment abbreviated version; general cancer HRQOL instruments, e.g., the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer(EORTC) QLQ-C30, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy(FACT)-General, Spitzer Quality of Life Index; and liver-cancer specific HRQOL instruments, e.g., EORTC QLQ-HCC18, FACT-Hepatobiliary(FACT-Hep), FACT-Hep Symptom Index, Trial Outcome Index. Important utilization of HRQOL in HCC patients included description of symptomatology and HRQOL of patients, treatment endpoint in clinical trial, prognostication of survival, benchmarking of palliative care service and health care valuation. In this review, difficulties regarding the use of HRQOL data in research and clinical practice, including choosing a suitable instrument, problems of missing data, data interpretation, analysis and presentation are examined. Potential solutions are also discussed.展开更多
Objective:Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)are common with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide(AC)chemotherapy.Recommended antiemetic regimens incorporate neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist(NK1 RA),5-hydroxytrypta...Objective:Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)are common with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide(AC)chemotherapy.Recommended antiemetic regimens incorporate neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist(NK1 RA),5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist(5 HT3 RA),corticosteroid,and dopamine antagonists.This post-hoc analysis compared results of 3 prospective antiemetic studies conducted among Chinese breast cancer patients who received(neo)adjuvant AC,in order to identify optimal antiemetic prophylaxis.Methods:A total of 304 patients were included:Group 1,ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1);Group 2,aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1);Group 3,aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1–3);Group 4,aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1–3)/olanzapine;and Group 5,netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone(D1–3).Antiemetic efficacies of Groups 3,4,and 5 during cycle 1 of AC were individually compared with Group 1.In addition,emesis outcomes of patients in Groups 3 and 5,and those of Groups 2 and 3,were compared.Results:When comparing efficacies of a historical doublet(5 HT3 RA/dexamethasone)with triplet antiemetic regimens(NK1 RA/5 HT3 RA/dexamethasone)with/without olanzapine,complete response(CR)percentages and quality of life(QOL)in overall phase of cycle 1 AC were compared between Group 1 and the other groups:Group 1 vs.3,41.9%vs.38.3%(P=0.6849);Group 1 vs.4,41.9%vs.65.0%(P=0.0107);and Group 1 vs.5,41.9%vs.60.0%(P=0.0460).Groups 4 and 5 achieved a better QOL.When comparing netupitant-based(Group 3)with aprepitant-based(Group 5)triplet antiemetics,CR percentages were 38.3%vs.60.0%,respectively(P=0.0176);Group 5 achieved a better QOL.When comparing 1 day(Group 2)vs.3 day(Group 3)dexamethasone,CR percentages were 46.8%and 38.3%,respectively(P=0.3459);Group 3 had a worse QOL.Conclusions:Aprepitant-containing triplets were non-superior to doublet antiemetics.Netupitant-containing triplets and adding olanzapine to aprepitant-containing triplets were superior to doublets.Netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone was superior to aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone.Protracted administration of dexamethasone provided limited additional benefit.展开更多
文摘Health related quality of life(HRQOL) is increasingly recognized as an important clinical parameter and research endpoint in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC). HRQOL in HCC patients is multifaceted and affected by medical factor which encompasses HCC and its complications, oncological and palliative treatment for HCC, underlying liver disease, as well as the psychological, social or spiritual reaction to the disease. Many patients presented late with advanced disease and limited survival, plagued with multiple symptoms, rendering QOL a very important aspect in their general well being. Various instruments have been developed and validated to measure and report HRQOL in HCC patients, these included general HRQOL instruments, e.g., Short form(SF)-36, SF-12, Euro Qo L-5D, World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment 100(WHOQOL-100), World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment abbreviated version; general cancer HRQOL instruments, e.g., the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer(EORTC) QLQ-C30, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy(FACT)-General, Spitzer Quality of Life Index; and liver-cancer specific HRQOL instruments, e.g., EORTC QLQ-HCC18, FACT-Hepatobiliary(FACT-Hep), FACT-Hep Symptom Index, Trial Outcome Index. Important utilization of HRQOL in HCC patients included description of symptomatology and HRQOL of patients, treatment endpoint in clinical trial, prognostication of survival, benchmarking of palliative care service and health care valuation. In this review, difficulties regarding the use of HRQOL data in research and clinical practice, including choosing a suitable instrument, problems of missing data, data interpretation, analysis and presentation are examined. Potential solutions are also discussed.
基金supported by an education grant from Madam Diana Hon Fun Kong Donation for Cancer Research(Grant No.7104870)。
文摘Objective:Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)are common with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide(AC)chemotherapy.Recommended antiemetic regimens incorporate neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist(NK1 RA),5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist(5 HT3 RA),corticosteroid,and dopamine antagonists.This post-hoc analysis compared results of 3 prospective antiemetic studies conducted among Chinese breast cancer patients who received(neo)adjuvant AC,in order to identify optimal antiemetic prophylaxis.Methods:A total of 304 patients were included:Group 1,ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1);Group 2,aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1);Group 3,aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1–3);Group 4,aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1–3)/olanzapine;and Group 5,netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone(D1–3).Antiemetic efficacies of Groups 3,4,and 5 during cycle 1 of AC were individually compared with Group 1.In addition,emesis outcomes of patients in Groups 3 and 5,and those of Groups 2 and 3,were compared.Results:When comparing efficacies of a historical doublet(5 HT3 RA/dexamethasone)with triplet antiemetic regimens(NK1 RA/5 HT3 RA/dexamethasone)with/without olanzapine,complete response(CR)percentages and quality of life(QOL)in overall phase of cycle 1 AC were compared between Group 1 and the other groups:Group 1 vs.3,41.9%vs.38.3%(P=0.6849);Group 1 vs.4,41.9%vs.65.0%(P=0.0107);and Group 1 vs.5,41.9%vs.60.0%(P=0.0460).Groups 4 and 5 achieved a better QOL.When comparing netupitant-based(Group 3)with aprepitant-based(Group 5)triplet antiemetics,CR percentages were 38.3%vs.60.0%,respectively(P=0.0176);Group 5 achieved a better QOL.When comparing 1 day(Group 2)vs.3 day(Group 3)dexamethasone,CR percentages were 46.8%and 38.3%,respectively(P=0.3459);Group 3 had a worse QOL.Conclusions:Aprepitant-containing triplets were non-superior to doublet antiemetics.Netupitant-containing triplets and adding olanzapine to aprepitant-containing triplets were superior to doublets.Netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone was superior to aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone.Protracted administration of dexamethasone provided limited additional benefit.