It is now common for
and patients to face choices
among treatments that are highly similar in efficacy and even in prolonging
survival. As a result, differences in treatment toxicity and in the patient’s
status during the survival period have become critical variables in making
treatment choices and in developing new therapies. Paramount in evaluating both
toxicity and quality of survival time is the inclusion of patient-reported
outcomes as important measures of treatment differences. These outcomes can take
a variety of forms, including measures of the differences in symptom severity,
perception of daily functioning, feelings of well-being, global impressions of
the impact of treatment on daily life, satisfaction with treatment, and
health-related quality of life (QOL).
Because these patient-outcome variables are becoming more
important relative to "hard" end points such as survival or time to
recurrence, decisions about which patient-outcome measures to use and how to
interpret them for patients, health-care professionals, and policy makers will
need to be made. Almost all of these outcome measures will ultimately depend on
the patient’s perception of his or her status, before and after becoming ill
and receiving treatment. The patient’s representation of this change forms the
basis for making practical judgments about how treatment should progress.
As treatments that depend on such subjective outcomes emerge,
how such treatments will be "valued" becomes a major issue. Will
patients, given subjective outcome information about the treatments, opt to
pursue them? Will physicians use this outcome information to recommend and
prescribe treatments? When such treatments are being developed, will approval
agencies decide they are beneficial? Will agencies (public and private health
funders) decide that such treatments are worth paying for?
Thus, when a treatment offers little or no survival
advantage, yet seems to improve how patients feel, judgments about the worth of
the treatment will be made by several audiences who will ultimately determine
whether the treatment is effective, should be approved, and will be used. Here
we discuss the concept of symptom burden as a way to portray patient status, and
offer a definition of symptom burden as an outcome measure.
We can trace the origin of the word "symptom" from
the Greek "symptoma," which means "anything that has befallen
one." A more useful definition, however, is provided by Webster, and
states that symptom "is the subjective evidence of disease or physical
disturbance observed by a patient." Implicit in this definition is the
subjective and negative nature of symptoms. Symptoms are an observation by the
patient; ie, the person experiencing the evidence of disease or physical
disturbance. Symptoms can be the subjective expression of the disease itself, or
the products of disease treatment, the latter often referred to as side effects
or toxicities. Symptom burden can be thought of as the subjective counterpart of
summary expressions of disease such as tumor burden.
Patients typically experience multiple concurrent symptoms,
due either to the disease or its treatment. We propose that a measure of symptom
burden be a summative indicator of
- The severity
of the symptoms that are most associated with a disease or treatment
- A summary of
the patient’s perception of the impact of these symptoms on daily living,
including activity, mood, ability to work, and ability to relate to others.
Most clinical trials currently include one or more measures
of quality of life. In 1996, the American Society of Clinical Oncology stated
that quality of life was an end point secondary only to survival. The US Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended that quality of life is a more
important measure of treatment efficacy than most other traditional end points
for drugs that do not have an impact on survival.
Clearly, improving a patient’s quality of life is a goal of
all medical treatment. Based on the World Health Organization definition of
health, quality of life includes psychological and social functioning as well
as physical functioning, and incorporates positive aspects of well-being as well
as negative aspects of disease and infirmity. Among health researchers, a common
consensus is that quality of life is a multidimensional construct composed of at
least four dimensions:
function (ie, daily activities, self-care, etc)
function (ie, emotional/mental status, mood)
function (ie, social interactions, family dynamics), and
symptoms (ie, pain, nausea, fatigue).
The comprehensive nature of quality of life, however, is both
one of its attractions and its difficulties as an outcome measure. Quality of
life is best viewed as a subjective evaluation of life as a whole. In this
section, we present the potential advantages of symptom-burden measure,
highlighting its potential utility as a supplement to QOL measures.
and Quality of Life
QOL measures may be relatively insensitive to obvious changes
in clinical condition. As a multidimensional construct, a measure of quality of
life may include aspects that go beyond the impact of cancer or its treatment.
Among bone marrow transplant patients, studies have shown patients rating their
quality of life as above average despite the persistence of significant physical
and psychological symptoms. For example, Bush and colleagues conducted a
descriptive study of quality of life, psychological distress, demands of
long-term recovery, and health perceptions of 125 bone marrow transplant
survivors. They were no different from individuals sampled from the general
population with regard to their perceived current health and health outlook.
However, 10 or more years posttransplantation, long-term survivors continued to
experience a moderate incidence of lingering complications and demands,
including emotional and sexual dysfunction, fatigue, eye problems, sleep
disturbance, general pain, and cognitive dysfunction.
Molassiotis et al found that long-term autologous bone
marrow transplant survivors rated their quality of life as good to excellent,
although 20% reported symptoms of anxiety, 10% had signs of clinical depression,
and 20% had not returned to full-time employment. McQuellon et al found that
quality of life and mood improved slightly in patients following autologous bone
marrow transplant, despite the fact that 30% had problems with sexuality,
fatigue, and depressive symptoms.
These studies show that patients may report their quality of
life as improved or unchanged, despite changes or deterioration in health. QOL
measures in such situations are liable to yield discrepant results compared with
the proposed symptom- burden measure. Further, results indicating that patients’
quality of life did not deteriorate may also imply that intervention need not be
undertaken, possibly masking the issue of specific residual symptoms that
Symptom burden is correlated with quality of life, and many
QOL measures (eg, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC],
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy [FACT]) have components that measure
symptoms. Symptom severity is a strong predictor of scores on QOL measures
suggesting the potential of symptom- burden measures as an immediate indicator
of deteriorating quality of life. For example, Bull and colleagues studied
quality of life among women with recurrent breast cancer. Results showed that
self-reported physical symptoms were a strong predictor of postrecurrence
ratings of overall quality of life. In a study of 206 adult patients with
multiple myeloma, Poulos and colleagues looked at the relationship between
pain and mood disturbance, and the factors that influence quality of life. They
found that pain and mood disturbance scores were significant predictors of
quality of life in this group of patients.
Symptom-burden measures may be more informative about true
differences in patient status when comparing treatments. A randomized clinical
trial compared the quality of life of patients treated with single-agent
paclitaxel vs doxorubicin as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer.
Quality of life was measured using the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30
and the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Results showed that no statistically
significant differences were observed in either the functional scales or the
global QOL scores during the third cycle of chemotherapy. However,
cross-sectional analyses of data at the end of cycle 3 showed that patients in
the doxorubicin arm had significantly more nausea/vomiting and loss of appetite
than those in the paclitaxel arm. The authors concluded that there is a trend
toward greater burden of disease and treatment and lower general health status
associated with doxorubicin therapy.
When using QOL measures, components assessing symptom burden
are more responsive indicators of changes in patient status. For example, a 1985
randomized phase III study compared patients with low-grade cerebral glioma who
received high-dose (59.4 Gy in 6.5 weeks) vs low-dose (45 Gy in 5 weeks)
radiotherapy with conventional techniques. A QOL questionnaire, consisting
of 47 items that assessed a range of physical, social, psychological, and
symptom domains, was included in the trial to measure the impact of treatment
over time. No difference in survival was observed between the two treatment
The authors also report that, in general, the results suggest
no major differences in quality of life between the two treatment arms. However,
patients who received high-dose radiotherapy reported significantly more
fatigue/malaise and insomnia immediately after radiotherapy, and poorer
emotional functioning at 7 to 15 months postrandomization. For the remaining QOL
domains, no statistically significant differences between the two treatment arms
were found. The authors concluded that conventional radiation therapy for
low-grade cerebral glioma using an administration schedule of 45 Gy over 5 weeks
is at least as good as prolonged treatment in terms of clinical efficacy,
survival, and quality of life.
1. Haubrich WS: Medical Meanings: A Glossary of Word
Origins. Philadelphia, American College of Physicians,1997.
2. Webster’s Third International Dictionary.
Springfield, Massachusetts, Merriam and Company, 1966.
3. Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and
cancer treatment guidelines. J Clin Oncol 14:671-679, 1996.
4. Bietz J, Gnecco C, Justice R: Quality of life endpoints in
cancer clinical trials: The US Food and Drug Administration perspective. J
Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 20:7-9, 1996.
5. World Health Organization: Constitution of the World
Health Organization, in Handbook of Basic Documents. Geneva, 1948.
6. De Haes JCJM: Quality of life: Conceptual and theoretical
considerations, in Watson M, Greer S, Thomas C (eds): Psychosocial Oncology,
pp 61-70. Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1988.
7. Bush NE, Haberman M, Donaldson G, et al: Quality of life
of 125 adults surviving 6-18 years after bone marrow transplantation. Soc Sci
Med 40(4):479-490, 1995.
8. Molassiotis A, van den Akker OB, Milligan DW, et al:
Quality of life in long-term survivors of marrow transplantation: Comparison
with a matched group receiving maintenance chemotherapy. Bone Marrow
Transplant 17(2):249-258, 1996.
9. McQuellon RP, Craven B, Russell GB, et al: Quality of life
in breast cancer patients before and after autologous bone marrow
transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 18(3):579-584, 1996.
10. Chan YM, Ngan HY, Li BY, et al: A longitudinal study on
quality of life after gynecologic cancer treatment. Gynecol Oncol
11. Bull AA, Meyerowitz BE, Hart S, et al: Quality of life in
women with recurrent breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 54:47-57,
12. Poulos AR, Gertz MA, Pankratz VS, et al: Pain, mood
disturbance, and quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma. Oncol
Nurs Forum 28(7):1163-1171, 2001.
13. Kramer JA, Curran D, Piccart M, et al: Randomised trial
of paclitaxel vs 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 36:1488-1497, 2000.
14. Kiebert GM, Curran D, Aaronson NK, et al: Quality of life
after radiation therapy of cerebral low-grade gliomas of the adult: Results of a
randomised phase III trial on dose response (EORTC trial 22844). EORTC
Radiotherapy Co-operative Group. Eur J Cancer 34(12):1902-1909, 1998.
15. Sprangers MA, Moinpour CM, Moynihan TJ, et al: Assessing
meaningful change in quality of life over time: A users’ guide for clinicians.
Mayo Clin Proc 77(6):561-571, 2002.
16. Dodd MJ, Miaskowski C, Paul SM: Symptom clusters and
their effect on the functional status of patients with cancer. Oncol Nurs
Forum 28(3):465-470, 2001.
17. Portenoy RK, Thaler HT, Kornblith AB, et al: Symptom
prevalence, characteristics and distress in a cancer population. Qual Life
Res 3(3):183-189, 1994a.
18. Donnelly S, Walsh D, Rybicki L: The symptoms of advanced
cancer: Identification of clinical and research priorities by assessment of
prevalence and severity. J Palliat Care 11(1):27-32, 1995.
19. Grond S, Zech D, Diefenbach C, et al: Prevalence and
pattern of symptoms in patients with cancer pain: A prospective evaluation of
1635 cancer patients referred to a pain clinic. J Pain Symptom Manage
20. Vainio A, Auvinen A: Prevalence of symptoms among
patients with advanced cancer: An international collaborative study. Symptom
Prevalence Group. J Pain Symptom Manage 12(1):3-10, 1996.
21. Cleeland CS, Gonin R, Hatfield AK, et al: Pain and its
treatment in outpatients with metastatic cancer. N Engl J Med
22. Serlin RC, Mendoza TR, Nakamura Y, et al: "When is
cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference
with function." Pain 61(2):277-284, 1995.
23. Given CW, Given B, Azzouz F, et al: Comparison of changes
in physical functioning of elderly patients with new diagnoses of cancer. Med
Care 38(5):482-493, 2000.
24. Given CW, Given BA, Stommel M: The impact of age,
treatment, and symptoms on the physical and mental health of cancer patients. A
longitudinal perspective. Cancer 74(7 suppl):2128-2138, 1994.
25. Turk DC, Okifuji A, Scharff L: Chronic pain and
depression: Role of perceived impact and perceived control in different age
cohorts. Pain 6:93-101, 1995.
26. Rudy TE, Kerns RD, Turk DC: Chronic pain and depression:
Toward a cognitive-behavioral mediation model. Pain 35:129-140, 1988.
27. Ahmedzai S: Recent clinical trials of pain control:
Impact on quality of life. Eur J Cancer 31A(suppl 6):S2-7, 1995.
28. Wang XS, Cleeland CS, Mendoza TR et al: The effects of
pain severity on health-related quality of life: A study of Chinese cancer
patients. Cancer 86(9):1848-1855, 1999.
29. Borden EC, Parkinson D: A perspective on the clinical
effectiveness and tolerance of interferon-alpha. Semin Oncol 25(suppl
30. Sarna L, McCorkle R: Burden of care and lung cancer. Cancer
Pract 4:245-251, 1996.
31. McCorkle R, Young K: Development of a symptom distress
scale. Cancer Nurs 1:373-378, 1978.
32. Portenoy RK, Thaler HT, Kornblith AB, et al: The Memorial
Symptom Assessment Scale: An instrument for the evaluation of symptom
prevalence, characteristics, and distress. Eur J Cancer 30A:1326-1336,
33. de Haes JC, van Knippenberg FC, Neijt JP: Measuring
psychological and physical distress in cancer patients: Structure and
application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Br J Cancer 62:1034-1038,
34. Cleeland CS, Mendoza TR, Wang XS, et al: Assessing
symptom distress in cancer patients: The M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Cancer
35. Mendoza TR, Wang XS, Cleeland CS, et al: The rapid
assessment of fatigue severity in cancer patients: Use of the Brief Fatigue
Inventory. Cancer 85:1186-1196, 1999.
36. Desbiens NA, Mueller-Rizner N, Connors AF Jr, et al: The
symptom burden of seriously ill hospitalized patients. SUPPORT Investigators.
Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcome and Risks of
Treatment. J Pain Symptom Manage 17(4):248-255, 1999.
37. Hopwood P, Stephens RJ: Depression in patients with lung
cancer: Prevalence and risk factors derived from quality-of-life data. J Clin
Oncol 18(4):893-903, 2000.
38. Burris HA 3rd, Moore MJ, Andersen J, et al: Improvements
in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for
patients with advanced pancreas cancer: A randomized trial. J Clin Oncol
39. Steer CB, Marx GM, Harper PG: Is there quality in
clinical benefit? Ann Oncol 12(9):1191-1193, 2001.
40. Vansteenkiste JF, Vandebroek JE, Nackaerts KL, et al:
Clinical-benefit response in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A multicentre
prospective randomised phase III study of single agent gemcitabine versus
cisplatin-vindesine. Ann Oncol 12(9):1221-1230, 2001.
41. Hollen PJ, Gralla RJ, Kris MG, et al: Quality of life
assessment in individuals with lung cancer: Testing the Lung Cancer Symptom
Scale (LCSS). Eur J Cancer 29A(suppl 1):S51-8, 1993.
42. Glaspy J, Bukowski R, Steinberg D, et al: Impact of
therapy with epoetin alfa on clinical outcomes in patients with nonmyeloid
malignancies during cancer chemotherapy in community oncology practice. Procrit
Study Group. J Clin Oncol 15(3):1218-1234, 1997.
43. Demetri GD, Kris M, Wade J, et al for the Procrit Study
Group. Quality-of-life benefit in chemotherapy patients treated with epoetin
alfa is independent of disease response or tumor type: Results from a
prospective community oncology study. J Clin Oncol 16:3412-3425, 1998.
44. Crawford et al. Manuscript Submitted.
45. Evans RW, Rader B, Manninen DL, and the Cooperative
Multicenter EPO Clinical Trial Group: The quality of life of hemodialysis
recipients treated with recombinant human erythropoietin. JAMA 263:825-830,
46. Benz RL, Pressman MR, Hovick ET, et al: A preliminary
study of the effects of correction of anemia with recombinant human
erythropoietin therapy on sleep, sleep disorders, and daytime sleepiness in
hemodialysis patients (The SLEEPO study). Am J Kidney Dis
34(6):1089-1095, 1999 .
47. Grimm G, Stockenhuber F, Schneeweiss B, et al:
Improvement of brain function in haemodialysis patients treated with
erythropoietin. Kidney Int 38:1-7, 1990.
48. Temple RM, Langan SJ, Deary IJ, et al: Recombinant
erythropoietin improves cognitive function in chronic haemodialysis patients. Nephrol
Dial Transplant 7(3):240-245, 1992.
49. Available at:
http://www.jcaho.org/standard/stds2001_mpfrm.html. Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations Pain Standards for 2001.