Prospective study of quality of life after lung cancer resection: using patient reported outcomes to assess the patient’s voice

Hopkins and colleagues should be commended for their effort in investigating quality of life (QOL) and postoperative pain as primary outcomes of a study comparing VATS with standard thoracotomy in cancer patients. The investigators concluded that the two approaches didn’t differentiate in terms of late QOL and pain related symptoms.

However, the applicability of these results needs to be considered carefully due to some limitations in the patient reported outcomes (PROs) methodology.

PROs have been widely recognized by International Surgical Societies with specific work forces (European Society of Thoracic Surgeons Quality of Life and Patient Safety working Group) and inclusion in Lung Cancer Management Guidelines (ACCP guidelines) (1). However, from a recent survey among general Thoracic Surgeons, we are aware of the lack of routine PROs data collection and of a standardised methodology when the latter is described (2).

Two crucial points when approaching QOL research studies in surgical oncology include: time of administration and choice of questionnaire.

Regarding the first point, we acknowledge the logistic and financial difficulties in the “fast track” surgical era to find the right time for completion of PROs questionnaires as the patients are often overwhelmed by multidisciplinary information about their treatment journey. However, to evaluate the effect of a particular treatment or a surgical approach, it’s always recommended to longitudinally follow the evolution of QOL, at least for the first 12 months after the operation as it slightly recovers after the initial decrease reported in literature (3). Baseline assessments of QOL before surgery are also helpful in interpreting change over time and comparing outcomes in different treatment groups.

This is particularly important when we cannot compare the scores with the general population, like in most of the lung cancer specific questionnaires. As already established in other oncological settings (4), electronic PRO collection is emerging in the Lung Cancer field as Internet use among our patients continues to increase steadily (5). We have initiated the LILAC study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02882750), a UK-based study which will inform the use of web-based QOL data collection among early stage non-small cell lung cancer patients and comparing these data with those from the stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) patients.

In relation to the second point, the importance of choosing the right questionnaire is crucial especially for surgery where studies are often limited to cross sectional protocols.

According to the trial’s design, we can opt for a generic or cancer specific tool. The feature of a generic survey is that it can allow for comparison of a patient population with a healthy one. The most commonly used validated questionnaire (SF-36V2) has been widely used in our specialty (6).

Cancer specific questionnaires study the effect of cancer and its treatment on QOL. Many of the lung cancer specific questionnaires have been designed and tested for systemically treated patients, with most of the question items related to the effects of chemotherapy or radiotherapy. However, a work force from the European organisation for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) is updating the questionnaire on the quality of life of patients with lung cancer (QLQ-LC13), to adapt it to the therapeutic possibilities available today and, above all, to analyse its measurement quality (7).

We congratulate Hopkins and colleagues for stressing the importance of the patients’ voice rather the oncological benefit in evaluating a surgical approach. QOL data is recognized as being even more relevant when considering surgical versus non-surgical therapies for high-risk patients with early-stage lung cancer. For this reason, we advocate a rigorous methodology when designing future trials comparing surgical modalities from the patients’ perspective.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned and reviewed by the Section Editor Dr. Federico Raveglia (Department of Thoracic Surgery, ASST - Santi Paolo e Carlo, University of Milan Medical School, Milan, Italy).

Conflicts of Interest: Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/vats.2017.09.04). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Brunelli A, Kim AW, Berger KI, et al. Physiologic evaluation of the patient with lung cancer being considered for resectional surgery: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143:e166S-e190S.
2. Pompili C, Novoa N, Balduyck B, et al. Clinical evaluation of quality of life: a survey among members of European society of thoracic surgeons (ESTS). Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2015;21:415-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Pompili C. Quality of life after lung resection for lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 2015;7:S138-44. [PubMed]
4. Velikova G, Brown JM, Smith AB, et al. Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor-patient interactions in oncology. Br J Cancer 2002;86:51-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Smith AB, Basch E. Role of patient-reported outcomes in postsurgical monitoring in oncology. J Oncol Pract 2017;13:535-538. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Koller M, Warncke S, Hjermstad MJ, et al. Use of the lung cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire EORTC QLQ-LC13 in clinical trials: A systematic review of the literature 20 years after its development. Cancer 2015;121:4300-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]