A prospective comparison of the FACT-e and EORTC-QLQC30 and OG25 questionnaires for evaluating changes in health-related quality of life in patients with esophageal cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
130 Background: The FACT-E (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy– Esophageal) and the EORTC QLQ-C30 (European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire) and its cancer-specific module (OG25) are two validated instruments used to assess quality-of-life (QOL) in patients with esophageal cancer. This study investigates the differences between these two instruments. Methods: This is a prospective study of 22 consecutive patients treated with chemoradiation followed by surgery. Questionnaires were self-administered at each of the following: baseline (prior to treatment), 6-8 weeks and 12-14 weeks following start of chemoradiation, and 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 months following esophagectomy. Mixed model regression was applied to model the repeated measures of the two questionnaires to compare slopes. Results: Of the 22 patients, 20 proceeded to surgery. Overall survival and disease-free survival at 18 months were 59% and 55% respectively. Comparison of the QOL domains over time showed good correlation for physical and functional well-being, with an apparent variation in the magnitude of the changes over time for the latter. The questionnaires were discordant with respect to social and total well-being. Social well-being showed a return to baseline by 1 month post-op using the FACT, but never recovered to baseline for the EORTC. FACT Total well-being recovered to baseline by 9 months, while the EORTC only approached baseline values by 18 months. The disease-specific modules showed post-operative symptom improvement with the FACT and a deterioration with the EORTC. There was also discordance in emotional well being. Conclusions: Domain comparisons of the EORTC and FACT questionnaires showed differing results. Discordance was seen for emotional, social and overall QOL, as well as symptomatology. The EORTC total and physical well-being domains showed a similar pattern of change over time. These findings might result from the overall tendency of the EORTC to emphasize physical aspects of QOL. Thus these two instruments appear to measure different aspects of QOL, which may affect their clinical utility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".