Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Biographahy
Burning Issues
Case Report
Case Reports
Current Issue
Editorial
Expert Commentary
Invited Editorial
Letter to the Editor
LetterTo Editor
MEDic LAWgic Series
Narrative Review
Original Article
Pictorial Update
Review
Review Article
Viewpoint
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Biographahy
Burning Issues
Case Report
Case Reports
Current Issue
Editorial
Expert Commentary
Invited Editorial
Letter to the Editor
LetterTo Editor
MEDic LAWgic Series
Narrative Review
Original Article
Pictorial Update
Review
Review Article
Viewpoint
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Editorial
74 (
2
); 55-56
doi:
10.25259/IJMS_203_2022

How informed are patients after informed consent process

Department of Clinical Research, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Bone and Soft Tissue Disease Management Group, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Corresponding author: Ashish Gulia, Bone and Soft Tissue Disease Management Group, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. aashishgulia@gmail.com
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Panda PK, Gulia A. How informed are patients after informed consent process? Indian J Med Sci 2022;74:55-6.

Researchers in their pursuit of finding better treatment modalities or comparing newer treatments with older ones are in a dilemma of including endpoints such as survival or disease-free survival as they have found out that patients are increasingly no more getting benefitted from these traditional endpoints.[1] However, a better quality of life (QOL) is fast becoming a preferred endpoint for many oncology researchers. In general, health-related QOL (HRQOL) covers the subjective perceptions of the positive and negative aspects of cancer patient’s symptoms, including physical, emotional, social, and cognitive functions and, importantly, disease symptoms and side effects of treatment.[2] Compared to a few decades ago, around 10% of current randomized cancer trials include QOL as their primary endpoint.[3] The QOL has been accepted as a major endpoint by the US-FDA and many other regulatory bodies in giving approvals for several anti-cancer drugs but the implementation of QOL has not been so smooth. One of the various reasons for this is the lack of patient understanding of the importance of QOL in cancer care and the very fact that many patients are not able to understand the contents of the questionnaire itself. Understanding the subjective nature of the results that HRQOL studies generate and the barriers to acceptance by clinicians is another major issue. Studies by Stephens et al.[4] have also shown that as compared to clinical examination by clinicians themselves, patient-reported outcomes showed a marked precise assessment of the functioning of the patient.

CHALLENGES BEING FACED CURRENTLY

While there is increasing evidence for the value of QOL assessment, one of the biggest challenges is actually measuring it. Being subjective it’s difficult to measure. The measurement process draws from many disciplines such as social functioning, psychology amongst others. Many researchers have now started focusing on specific domains pertaining to cancer patients rather than addressing generalized questions which the patient might find difficult to answer. The method adopted by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group, whereby researchers are able to obtain both a single global score as well as detailed knowledge of the various domains has addressed such limitations to some extent.[5] The EORTC quality-of-life questionnaire, QLQ-C30, not only collects details on the domains, but also assesses two global HRQOL items independent of the domain scores. Global quality-of-life items are easier to interpret clinically, however they do have some shortcomings.[6] For example, Indian patients focus more on limited physical functioning and possibly spiritual or psychological issues as the disease condition worsens.[7]

The 20-item EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Brain Neoplasm (QLQ-BN20), a cancer subtype specific QOL questionnaire, was developed[8] and validated[9] for patients with primary brain tumours to supplement the QLQ-C30 core questionnaire. Similarly, a 35-item version (QLQH&N35) EORTC head and neck cancer-specific module was developed as per applicable guidelines.[10] A lung cancer-specific module has also been developed (EORTC QLQLC13) that assesses specific symptoms related to LC and its treatments.[11] The QOL data obtained using EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13 tools have been used as primary outcome measures in some of the randomized clinical trials.[12, 13]

FUTURE DIRECTION

Compliance problem has been attributed to several factors, including the unique challenges of collecting HRQOL data from within a multinational, multi-language region or institution. In addition, collecting QOL data from patients with advanced and progressive disease may be challenging because of their failing health.[14,15] Even though there is increasing participation of patients in the formulation of the QOL questionnaires, still a majority of them are formulated by healthcare personnel. Due to the difference in the psychological and cultural frames of the patients and health-care professionals, misinterpretation of the questions is rampant among patients which eventually leads to the collection of data that is not entirely a valid measurement of the HRQOL. This may result in severe compromising of the results of studies in which HRQOL is a primary endpoint. We must try to evaluate an issue that has rarely been investigated: Whether the questions and response categories in the self-assessment questionnaires are interpreted by the study subjects in the same manner as would the researchers and analysts who interpret and report the data. The very validity of the QOL questionnaires would be at stake if this is not the case.

References

  1. , , . Quality of life instruments in oncology. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1571-80.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. , . The problem of quality of life in medicine. JAMA. 1997;278:47-50.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , . Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials: Bibliographic study. BMJ. 1998;317:1191-4.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , . Randomized trials with quality of life endpoints: Are doctors' ratings of patients' physical symptoms interchangeable with patients' self-ratings? Qual Life Res. 1997;6:225-36.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , , , 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. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365-76.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. , , . Do we know what global ratings of health-related quality of life measure? Qual Life Res. 1999;8:269-73.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. . Methodological issues in the assessment of health-related quality of life in palliative care trials. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1999;43:948-53.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , , , , et al. The development and psychometric validation of a brain cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for use in combination with general cancer-specific questionnaires. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:139-50.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , , et al. An international validation study of the EORTC brain cancer module (EORTC QLQ-BN20) for assessing health-related quality of life and symptoms in brain cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1033-40.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , , , et al. Development of a European organization for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) questionnaire module to be used in quality of life assessments in head and neck cancer patients. EORTC Quality of Life Study Group. Acta Oncol. 1994;33:879-85.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , . The EORTC QLQ-LC13: A modular supplement to the EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for use in lung cancer clinical trials. EORTC study group on quality of life. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A:635-42.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , , , , et al. Phase III study by the Norwegian lung cancer study group: Pemetrexed plus carboplatin compared with gemcitabine plus carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy min advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3217-23.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , , , , et al. First-line cisplatin with docetaxel or vinorelbine in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A quality of life directed phase II randomized trial of Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale. Lung Cancer. 2010;69:218-24.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , , , , et al. Identification and interpretation of clinical and quality of life prognostic factors for survival and response to treatment in first-line chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:1498-506.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , , , , et al. Randomised trial of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: Quality of life evaluation using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Rotterdam symptom checklist. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:1488-97.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Show Sections