Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Machine Learning and Traditional Statistical Models to Assess the Value of Stroke Genetic Liability for Prediction of Risk of Stroke Within the UK Biobank
Previous Article in Journal
Hindering and Facilitating Factors While Implementing the Family and Community Nursing Model in Italy: Findings from a Qualitative Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of Quality of Life and Difficulties in Recording Data from Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaires in Patients with Cancer Undergoing Immunotherapy Treatment

by
Laura Bibiano Guillén
1,*,
Cristina Recio Carrasco
1,
José Miguel Cárdenas Rebollo
2,
Dihan van Niekerk
3,
Jesús Rodríguez Pascual
4,
María Carmen Rubio-Rodríguez
5 and
Miguel A. Reina
6,7
1
Department of Oncology, HM Puerta del Sur Hospital, 28938 Madrid, Spain
2
Department of Mathematics and Data Science, CEU-San-Pablo University, 28925 Madrid, Spain
3
Department of Physiological Science, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa
4
Department of Medical Oncology, Vithas Hospital Group, 28043 Madrid, Spain
5
Department of Radiation Oncology, HM Hospitales, 28050 Madrid, Spain
6
Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, CEU-San-Pablo University, 28925 Madrid, Spain
7
Department of Anesthesiology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2025, 13(9), 1002; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13091002 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 25 February 2025 / Revised: 17 April 2025 / Accepted: 24 April 2025 / Published: 26 April 2025

Abstract

:
Background: Prospective studies evaluating the challenges of systematically assessing health-related quality of life in patients with cancer outside clinical trials are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of life of patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy such as checkpoint inhibitors and to determine the difficulties and limitations in achieving data collection from health-related quality of life questionnaires. Methods: We carried out a prospective observational study over 15 months in 30 patients with solid tumors undergoing checkpoint inhibitor therapy in an outpatient setting. We assessed health-related quality of life using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire at treatment initiation, three months, and six months. We analyzed compliance rates, reported difficulties, and treatment-related toxicities. Results: Of the 30 patients, 26 completed the health-related quality of life standardized questionnaire at one month (86.6%), 24 at three months (80%), and 18 at six months (56.6%). Patients receiving checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy showed an improvement in global health status scores from 60 at baseline to 65 at three months and 70.8 at six months. These findings suggest that checkpoint inhibitor therapy delays symptom onset and positively impacts quality of life. Fatigue was the most frequently reported adverse effect, followed by pain, dyspnea, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Conclusions: Checkpoint inhibitor treatments may delay the onset of cancer-related symptoms, positively influencing patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes. However, this study highlights significant methodological challenges in collecting standardized HRQoL questionnaire data outside of clinical trials, including declining patient compliance over time. These findings underscore the need for adapted HRQoL assessment strategies tailored to the unique treatment trajectories of immunotherapy patients.

1. Introduction

Oncological treatments that adjust the immune response against tumor cells, collectively known as immunotherapy, have recently transformed cancer treatment strategies [1]. When administered either alone or in combination with chemotherapy (ChT), these therapies have changed the toxicity profile of conventional cancer treatments. A key category within immunotherapy is checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), drugs designed to block specific immune checkpoint proteins produced by immune cells such as T cells and specific tumor cells [2]. These checkpoint proteins function as negative regulators of the immune response, and tumor cells exploit this mechanism to evade immune detection, thereby promoting disease progression. CPIs counteract this tumor-protective mechanism by restoring immune system activity, leading to tumor cell destruction [3]. Current oncological treatment strategies incorporate immunotherapy alongside surgery, radiotherapy, ChT, and targeted therapies [2], positioning immunotherapy as the fifth pillar of cancer treatment [4]. Despite the clinical benefits of CPIs, their mechanism of action can lead to immune-related adverse effects. While the incidence of these toxicities can be considerable, their overall toxicity profile is generally more favorable than that of standard ChT, often resulting in an improved quality of life for patients [5,6,7]. Assessing patients with cancer quality of life (QoL) is essential for optimizing treatment strategies tailored to individual patient conditions and disease progression. A comprehensive approach also necessitates enhanced communication between physicians, nurses, and patients. Patients with cancer must contend not only with their disease but also with the side effects of treatment; thus, understanding their QoL is critical for the personalization of therapy. Although clinical trials often include assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients undergoing immunotherapy with or without ChT [8,9], there is limited prospective evaluation of the challenges and constraints associated with these assessments outside the controlled setting of clinical trials. This study aims to identify the challenges and limitations associated with collecting HRQL data through patient-reported questionnaires. Additionally, it seeks to analyze HRQL scores in patients receiving CPIs, either alone or in combination with ChT, while also evaluating the emergence of potential toxicities.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

A prospective, observational, and descriptive study was conducted on 30 patients undergoing treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) between 1 October 2021, and 21 December 2022. Data were collected at three time points: at immunotherapy treatment initiation using CPIs and three and six months post-treatment. The study was conducted at the HM Group Hospitals in Madrid, Spain.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Patients eligible for inclusion were adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with solid neoplasms, excluding hematological malignancies, who had not previously received immunotherapy.

2.3. Questionnaire and Variables

The validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire was used to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL). The variables analyzed are detailed in Table 1. The questionnaire was administered at baseline (before treatment initiation) and at, 3, and 6 months post-treatment.
The QLQ-C30 consists of 30 questions evaluating five functional domains (physical, emotional, role, social, and cognitive status), three symptom scales (fatigue, pain, and nausea and vomiting), a global health status/quality of life scale, and six additional single-item symptoms (dyspnea, insomnia, anorexia, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties).
Responses were recorded using a Likert-type scale. Functional and global health status scales were scored such that higher values indicated a better quality of life, whereas higher scores on the symptom scales corresponded to a more significant symptom burden and reduced quality of life. Scores were standardized on a scale from 0 to 100 to quantify the impact of immunotherapy on HRQL.
An oncology nurse supervised the questionnaires, who explained previously in detail the meaning of each of the questions and patients completed them independently, with assistance from a family member or a nurse if necessary. All difficulties that arose related to filling out the questionnaires were also recorded by the nurses.
Compliance rates were defined as the proportion of patients who completed the questionnaire at each follow-up point over six months. Patients with complete data at the completion of the study were included in the analysis, with documentation of any withdrawals due to disease progression, loss to follow-up, or death.

2.4. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient data, including means, medians, absolute frequencies, relative frequencies, and value ranges.
We tested the normality of the groups using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test with Lilliefors correction and the Shapiro–Wilk test. As the data did not follow a parametric distribution, the Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare groups. Post hoc analysis was conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test when significant differences were identified. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.
All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

2.5. Supplementary Data Collection

In addition to the questionnaire responses, medical records were reviewed to collect clinical data on incidents that could affect the validity of questionnaire data, including:
  • Tumor histology;
  • Disease extent;
  • Primary tumor location;
  • Treatment intent (radical, neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or palliative);
  • Type of CPI used;
  • Presence or absence of symptoms;
  • Baseline assessment of health and quality of life (one week before treatment initiation);
  • Hospital admissions;
  • Immunotherapy treatment cycle delays due to the patient’s condition.

2.6. Ethical Considerations

All participants were informed about the voluntary nature of their participation, their right to withdraw at any time without explanation, and the confidentiality of their responses. Data were de-identified for reporting purposes, and all recorded information was encrypted and securely stored with restricted access.
This study was approved by the Grupo Hospital Madrid Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CEIC code 22.03.1842E2-GHM).

3. Results

Of the 30 patients (17 men and 13 women) who initiated treatment, 26 completed the questionnaire at one month, 24 at three months, and 18 at six months, corresponding to compliance rates of 86.6%, 80%, and 56.6%, respectively. Patient discontinuation was attributed to disease progression, requiring a change in treatment and/or patient death. The mean age was 63 years (39–83 years). All patients were prescribed checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy.
Among the cohort, 70% (n = 21) had metastatic disease, and 43.3% (n = 13) were receiving treatment with palliative intent. The most frequently observed tumor types were lung (46.6%), breast (13.3%), kidney (6.6%), and bladder cancer (6.6%). Additionally, 40% (n = 12) of patients had undergone prior chemotherapy (ChT) before study inclusion, while 60% (n = 18) had not.
Of the 30 patients, 60% (n = 18) received CPI monotherapy, whereas 40% (n = 12) received ChT in combination with CPI drugs. Patient characteristics are presented in Table 2. Questionnaire completion rates remained high through the three-month assessment, declining at the six-month follow-up.
The median follow-up duration was 4.8 months. By study completion, 50% of patients (n = 15) remained enrolled, while 26.6% (n = 8) had died, and 23.3% (n = 7) discontinued participation due to disease progression (n = 4), poor medication tolerance (n = 1), or unknown reasons (n = 2).

3.1. Challenges in Completing HRQL Questionnaires

Difficulties in completing the questionnaire were identified in 3.3% (n = 1) of patients with cognitive impairment, 3.3% (n = 1) with an intellectual disability, and 20% (n = 6) with reading or writing difficulties.
Regarding hospital admissions, 16.6% (n = 5) were hospitalized at baseline, 16.6% (n = 4) at three months, and 35.2% (n = 6) at six months. Additional challenges included treatment cycle delays due to worsening clinical status or disease progression, affecting 11.5% (n = 3) of patients at one month, 20.8% (n = 5) at three months, and 52.9% (n = 9) at six months.

3.2. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Analysis

Among patients assessed using the QLQ-C30 questionnaire, 53.3% were aged ≥65, and 46.6% were <65. The global health status/quality of life (QoL) scores for these two groups were 60.4 and 68, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.39), either at three months (p = 0.95) or six months (p = 0.17).
Patients with prior ChT exposure (40% of the sample) had a lower baseline global health status score (56.2) than those without prior ChT (score: 68.2). However, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.23) at baseline, three months, or six months. Over time, patients with prior ChT exhibited improvements in QoL scores, increasing to 63.5 at three months and 66.6 at six months, whereas those without prior ChT maintained scores of 64 (p = 0.90) at three months and 70.5 (p = 0.58) at six months.
At baseline, patients who had received prior ChT exhibited a higher symptom burden, particularly in fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, and dyspnea, correlating with lower QoL scores. However, by three and six months (Table 3), these patients showed reduced symptom severity and improved QoL scores. In contrast, patients without prior ChT reported increased symptom burden at three months, though their symptom scores improved at six months, suggesting a delayed adaptation period.

3.3. Impact of Disease Extent and Treatment Type on QoL

At baseline, disease extent (localized, locally advanced, or metastatic) was associated with a statistically significant difference in QoL scores (p = 0.045). However, this difference was insignificant at three months (p = 0.99) or six months (p = 0.35).
Patients receiving CPI monotherapy achieved a global health status score of 65 at three months (62.5% of the sample), which improved to 70.8 at six months (66.6% of the sample). Those receiving ChT in combination with CPI reported a score of 62 at three months (37.5% of the sample), which improved to 66.6 at six months (33.3% of the sample). While both groups exhibited good QoL outcomes, no statistically significant differences were observed between them at three (p = 0.80) or six months (p = 0.66).
The most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue, pain, constipation, and dyspnea, which were consistently the highest-scoring symptom scales across both groups (Table 4).
Patients receiving CPI monotherapy demonstrated improvements in fatigue at six months, while both groups showed reductions in dyspnea over time.
As shown in Table 5, patients experienced improvements in QoL following CPI therapy, whether administered alone or in combination with ChT.

4. Discussion

This study prospectively evaluated the challenges and limitations associated with recording health-related quality of life (HRQL) data and assessing potential treatment-related toxicities in 30 cancer patients receiving immunotherapy outside the controlled setting of clinical trials. This real-world approach provides a broader perspective on the complexities of oncology care, capturing patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice rather than under the rigid conditions of a clinical trial.
Quality of life (QoL) is a subjective measure influenced by physical, social, and psychological well-being, and it is increasingly recognized as a key indicator of treatment effectiveness [8,10]. CPIs have significantly improved survival rates in metastatic tumors [11,12,13]; however, it remains crucial to determine whether these therapies delay the onset of symptoms and result in measurable improvements in QoL in real-world contexts.
Beyond objective clinical outcomes, patient-reported improvements in well-being, symptom relief, and treatment effectiveness must be systematically quantified through standardized HRQL tools, such as the QLQ-C30 questionnaire. These assessments contribute to clinical decision-making, ensuring that subjective patient experiences inform personalized treatment strategies. In this context, oncology nurses play a pivotal role in identifying treatment-related toxicities and monitoring QoL trajectories, thus facilitating optimized care planning.
In this study, comprehensive nurse-led follow-ups enabled the identification of key real-world challenges in oncology patients outside of clinical trials [14]. These included clinical deterioration, hospital admissions, treatment delays, and disease progression, often requiring additional diagnostic interventions. Seventy percent of patients had oligometastatic disease, and 43.3% received palliative care, factors that contributed to hospitalization and treatment cycle delays, ultimately impacting patient outcomes.
Despite these challenges, survey completion rates remained high, with 86.6% compliance at one month, 80% at three months, and 56.6% at six months. The median follow-up was 4.8 months. These findings are consistent with clinical trial data in which patients received CPI monotherapy or CPI combined with chemotherapy (ChT) [3,6,15,16,17,18].

4.1. Impact of Chemotherapy on HRQL

Patients with prior ChT exposure had poorer baseline health status, with a global health status score of 56, comparable to findings from previous studies [16]. In contrast, patients without prior ChT had a higher baseline score of 68, aligning with previous research suggesting that patients transitioning from ChT to immunotherapy may experience HRQL improvements over time [6]. In our study, patients previously treated with ChT demonstrated improved HRQL scores, reaching 63 at three months and 66 at six months.
These results would have been unthinkable a few years ago when most patients receiving immunotherapy had disseminated disease [3,19,20], typically experiencing significant deterioration and poor quality of life [13]. However, our findings suggest that patients receiving CPI-based therapies, either alone or in combination with ChT, experience significant QoL improvements at six months [6,17]. Notably, QoL outcomes did not differ significantly between CPI monotherapy and combination therapy groups, reinforcing the idea that adding ChT does not necessarily compromise QoL [15,16,21]. Symptom Burden and Toxicities
Fatigue was the most reported symptom, a finding consistent with previous studies [3,22,23]. Interestingly, patients receiving CPI monotherapy initially reported higher fatigue scores than combination therapy patients. However, by six months, fatigue scores declined significantly in CPI monotherapy patients. This suggests that CPI-related fatigue may be transient, possibly diminishing over time as patients adapt physiologically or experience long-term immunotherapy benefits.
Other CPI-associated toxicities included headache [24,25], skin reactions [26], diarrhea, nausea, and emesis [3,4,7,27]. However, our study reported nausea and emesis at low levels. Constipation scores were higher than diarrhea scores, and both constipation and pain scores remained stable throughout the six-month follow-up.
Previous research has suggested that immune-related adverse effects (irAEs) typically emerge 6–12 weeks after treatment initiation and subsequently decline [28]. However, our findings diverged from this trend, as constipation and pain scores remained consistent throughout the study, whereas fatigue improved over time, particularly in CPI monotherapy patients.

4.2. Study Limitations and Strengths

This study has several limitations, including a small sample size, tumor heterogeneity, and variability in immunotherapy regimens, all of which may have influenced the results. However, the primary strength of this study is its real-world applicability, providing valuable insights into HRQL outcomes beyond the structured setting of clinical trials.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates a positive impact on the quality of life for cancer patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors, as assessed using the QLQ-C30 Quality of Life Questionnaire. Checkpoint inhibitor therapy was linked to a significant delay in the onset of symptoms, with fatigue being the most commonly reported adverse effect.
The findings emphasize the importance and practicality of implementing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires across diverse clinical settings. This study establishes a foundation for future research by pinpointing key challenges in gathering HRQoL data outside clinical trial contexts.
While more than 70% of participants reported no difficulty completing the questionnaires, nearly 27% faced challenges—mainly due to baseline limitations in reading or writing. Acknowledging these barriers is essential for improving data collection methods and enhancing patient compliance, thus supporting the routine integration of HRQoL assessments in oncology care.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.B.G., J.R.P., M.C.R.-R. and M.A.R.; formal analysis, L.B.G., C.R.C., J.R.P., M.C.R.-R. and M.A.R.; investigation, L.B.G.; methodology, L.B.G. and M.A.R.; software, J.M.C.R.; validation, L.B.G. and M.A.R.; writing—original draft, L.B.G.; writing—review amd editing, L.B.G., D.v.N., J.R.P., M.C.R.-R. and M.A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external Funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Grupo Hospital Madrid (Madrid, Spain) (codes CEIC code 22.03.1842E2-GHM, 18 April 2022) and it was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the results and findings of this study are available from the corresponding author. These data, due to confidentiality and ethical considerations, are not publicly available.

Acknowledgments

This work was accomplished by Laura Bibiano Guillén in the Doctorate Program framework of CEU San Pablo University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hegde, P.S.; Chen, D.S. Top 10 Challenges in Cancer Immunotherapy. Immunity 2020, 52, 17–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Pantuck, M.; McDermott, D.; Drakaki, A. To treat or not to treat: Patient exclusion in immune oncology clinical trials due to preexisting autoimmune disease. Cancer 2019, 125, 3506–3513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Canales, R. Update on immunotherapy for renal cancer. Medwave 2021, 21, 8202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kichloo, A.; Albosta, M.; Dahiya, D.; Guidi, J.C.; Aljadah, M.; Singh, J.; Shaka, H.; Wani, F.; Kumar, A.; Lekkala, M. Systemic Adverse Effects and Toxicities Associated with Immunotherapy: A Review. World J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 12, 150–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Joshi, S.S.; Maron, S.B.; Catenacci, D.V. Pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Future Oncol. 2018, 14, 417–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Molinero, M.; Zamora, M.D.; Martínez, J.M. Effectiveness and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients excluded from clinical trials. Rev. OFIL 2020, 30, 325–328. [Google Scholar]
  7. Andre, T.; Amonkar, M.; Norquist, J.M.; Shiu, K.-K.; Kim, T.W.; Jensen, B.V.; Jensen, L.H.; A Punt, C.J.; Smith, D.; Garcia-Carbonero, R.; et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (KEYNOTE-177): An open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 665–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Servetto, A.; Salomone, F.; Di Costanzo, F.; Iuliano, R.; Marandino, L.; Napolitano, F.; Santaniello, A.; De Placido, P.; De Placido, S.; Di Maio, M.; et al. Inadequate health-related quality of life assessment and reporting in phase III clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors in solid cancers: A systematic review. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2022, 172, 103649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Viada, C.; Bouza, C.; Ballesteros, J.; Fors, M.; Alvarez, M.; Frias, A.; Garcia, L.; Santiesteban, Y.; Ramos, M. Evaluation of quality of life as a predictor of survival in cancer. Bionatura 2020, 5, 1223–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Park, R.; Shaw, J.W.; Korn, A.; McAuliffe, J. The value of immunotherapy for survivors of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: Patient perspectives on quality of life. J. Cancer Surviv. 2020, 14, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Arrarás, J.I.; de la Vega, F.A.; Illarramendi, J.J.; Manterola, A.; Salgado, E.; Domínguez, M.A.; Vera, R. Health-related quality of life in the Oncology services of the Hospital de Navarra: EORTC Quality of Life Group. Sist. Sanit. Navar. 2011, 34, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cella, D.; Motzer, R.J.; Suarez, C.; I Blum, S.; Ejzykowicz, F.; Hamilton, M.; Wallace, J.F.; Simsek, B.; Zhang, J.; Ivanescu, C.; et al. Patient-reported outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated in CheckMate 9ER: An open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022, 23, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Motzer, R.; Porta, C.; Alekseev, B.; Rha, S.Y.; Choueiri, T.K.; Mendez-Vidal, M.J.; Hong, S.-H.; Kapoor, A.; Goh, J.C.; Eto, M.; et al. Health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus versus sunitinib (CLEAR): A randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2022, 23, 768–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Reck, M.; Wehler, T.; Orlandi, F.; Nogami, N.; Barone, C.; Moro-Sibilot, D.; Shtivelband, M.; Larriba, J.L.G.; Rothenstein, J.; Früh, M.; et al. Safety and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy with or Without Bevacizumab Versus Bevacizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 2530–2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Coquan, E.; Joly, F. Quality of life in immune checkpoint inhibitors trials. Bull. Cancer 2020, 107, 830–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mazieres, J.; Kowalski, D.; Luft, A.; Vicente, D.; Tafreshi, A.; Gümüş, M.; Laktionov, K.; Hermes, B.; Cicin, I.; Rodríguez-Cid, J.; et al. Health-Related Quality of Life with Carboplatin-Paclitaxel or nab-Paclitaxel with or Without Pembrolizumab in Patients with Metastatic Squamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Brahmer, J.R.; Rodríguez-Abreu, D.; Robinson, A.G.; Hui, R.; Csőszi, T.; Fülöp, A.; Gottfried, M.; Peled, N.; Tafreshi, A.; Cuffe, S.; et al. Health-related quality-of-life results for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in advanced, PD-L1-positive NSCLC (KEYNOTE-024): A multicentre, international, randomised, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, 1600–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Marcela, D.F.E.; Sylvia, G.N.E.; Carlos, L.C.E.J.; Aracely, T.M.E. Oncology nursing: Safety standards in the management of cancer patients. Rev. Med. Clin. Las. Condes. 2013, 24, 694–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cortes, J.; Cescon, D.W.; Rugo, H.S.; Nowecki, Z.; Im, S.-A.; Yusof, M.M.; Gallardo, C.; Lipatov, O.; Barrios, C.H.; Holgado, E.; et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-355): A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet 2020, 396, 1817–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Madden, D.L. From a Patient Advocate’s Perspective: Does Cancer Immunotherapy Represent a Paradigm Shift? Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2018, 20, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rzeniewicz, K.; Larkin, J.; Menzies, A.M.; Turajlic, S. Immunotherapy use outside clinical trial populations: Never say never? Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 866–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Zhai, Y.; Ye, X.; Hu, F.; Xu, J.; Guo, X.; Zhuang, Y.; He, J. Endocrine toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A real-world study leveraging US Food and Drug Administration adverse events reporting system. J. Immunother. Cancer 2019, 7, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Elia, G.; Ferrari, S.M.; Galdiero, M.R.; Ragusa, F.; Paparo, S.R.; Ruffilli, I.; Varricchi, G.; Fallahi, P.; Antonelli, A. New insight in endocrine-related adverse events associated to immune checkpoint blockade. Best. Pr. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2020, 34, 101370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Suay, G.; Bataller, L. Checkpoint inhibitors neurological side effects. Rev. Neurol. 2019, 68, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cuzzubbo, S.; Javeri, F.; Tissier, M.; Roumi, A.; Barlog, C.; Doridam, J.; Lebbe, C.; Belin, C.; Ursu, R.; Carpentier, A. Neurological adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: Review of the literature. Eur. J. Cancer 2017, 73, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sibaud, V. Dermatologic Reactions to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2018, 19, 345–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Juan-Carpena, G.; Palazón-Cabanes, J.C.; Blanes-Martínez, M. Systematic review of cutaneous adverse effects caused by immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs: Characteristics, management and prognosis. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2022, 113, 376–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rapoport, B.L.; van Eeden, R.; Sibaud, V.; Epstein, J.B.; Klastersky, J.; Aapro, M.; Moodley, D. Supportive care for patients undergoing immunotherapy. Support. Care Cancer 2017, 25, 3017–3030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. QLQ-C30 Quality of Life questionnaire analyzed variables.
Table 1. QLQ-C30 Quality of Life questionnaire analyzed variables.
Variable TypeVariableDescription
Quantitative variableAgeOver 18 years old.
Presence or absence of symptomsDegree of presence of symptoms.
Assessment of quality of life in the week prior to treatmentEach patient specified the quality of life they had the week before treatment.
Qualitative variableSexMale, Female.
Oncological historyIt was determined whether the patient had an oncological history other than the current tumor.
History of autoimmune diseasesThe presence of autoimmune diseases was recorded in each patient.
Tumor histologyThe histology of each patient’s tumor was specified.
Tumor extensionTumor extension was classified as localized, locally advanced, or metastatic disease.
Treatment intentionThe intention of the treatment that each patient would receive was defined as radical, neoadjuvant, adjuvant or palliative.
Prior receipt of chemotherapyIt was recorded whether patients had previously received chemotherapy before being included in the study.
Treatment that each patient will receiveIt was specified whether patients received only IPC or a combination of chemotherapy and IPC.
DrugThe drug that each patient would receive was recorded, including nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab or tremelimumab.
Difficulty filling out the questionnaireIt was determined whether the patients had cognitive impairment, intellectual disability, or difficulty completing the questionnaire.
Delay of treatment cycleIt was recorded whether patients experienced any delay in treatment cycles.
Hospital admissionIt was specified whether the patients required hospitalization due to their clinical status.
Table 2. Patients’ Characteristics.
Table 2. Patients’ Characteristics.
Properties Patients
Total30%
Demography characteristicsMale1756
Female1343
Oncological historyYes826
No2273
Autoimmune disease historyYes413
No2686
Histology of tumorMesothelioma26
Adenocarcinoma826
Carcinoma1550
Melanoma413
Leiomyyosarcoma13
Spreading tumorLocated517
Locally advanced413
Metastatic2170
Treatment objectiveRadical826
Neoadjuvant413
Adjuvant516
Paliative1343
Previous chemotherapyYes1240
No1860
Current treatmentChT-immunotherapy1240
Immunotherapy1860
Signs and symptomsDyspnoea1343
Pain1653
Insomnia1653
Asthenia2170
Nausea516
Vomiting310
Diarrhea930
Constipation1343
None26
Quality of life assessment at the beginning of treatment
(“0” very bad
“7” very good)
000
100
226
3620
4620
5723
6516
7413
Difficulty filling out the questionnaireCognitive impairment13
Intellectual disability13
Difficulty reading/writing620
Without difficulty2273
Delay in treatment cycle at the startyes00
no30100
Hospital admission at the beginningyes517
no2583
Table 3. Symptom and functional scale score. Comparison of results based on whether they have received chemotherapy previously or not before entering the study.
Table 3. Symptom and functional scale score. Comparison of results based on whether they have received chemotherapy previously or not before entering the study.
Results Receiving or Not Chemotherapy Previously p-Value
Have Previously Received
Chemotherapy
Have Not Received ChemotherapyHave Previously Received
Chemotherapy
Have Not Received Chemotherapy
Mean ± DE Mean ± DE Median
[RIC]
Median
[RIC]
Start3 Months6 MonthsStart3 Months6 MonthsStart3 Months6 MonthsStart3 Months6 MonthsStart3 Months6 Months
Fatigue45.8 [22.5]26.3 [16.7]26.6 [16.8]29.8 [22.5]41.6 [30.7]34.1 [30.2]50 [38.8]27.7 [55.5]33.3 [27.7]33.3 [38.8]33.3 [52.7]33.3 [38.8]0.120.230.96
Nausea and vomiting10.4 [15.2]4.1 [11.7]13.3 [29.8]1 [4.1]12.5 [21.5]7.6 [12.9]0 [29.1]0 [0]0 [33.3]0 [0]0 [83.3]0 [16.6]0.040.180.85
Pain27 [26.6]18.7 [18.7]16.6 [20.4]21.8 [19.9]32.2 [25.4]26.9 [25.9]25 [50]16.6 [66.6]16.6 [33.3]25 [33.3]33.3 [45.8]33.3 [33.3]0.630.20.44
Dyspnoea33.3 [25.1]29.1 [33]6.6 [14.9]12.5 [20.6]22.9 [23.4]5.3 [22]33.3 [50]16.6 [66.6]0 [16.6]0 [33.3]33.3 [33.3]0 [33.3]0.040.710.43
Insomnia20.8 [24.8]12.5 [24.8]6.6 [14.9]27 [27.8]27 [25]20.5 [21.6]16.6 [33.3]0 [25]0 [16.6]33.3 [33.3]33.3 [33.3]33.3 [33.3]0.620.140.19
Loss of appetite25 [23.5]12.5 [24.8]6.6 [14.9]16.6 [29.8]27 [34.8]15.3 [32.2]33.3 [33.3]16.6 [33.3]0 [16.6]0 [33.3]0 [25]0 [16.6]0.230.260.78
Constipation25 [34.5]8.3 [14.4]33.3 [40.8]22.9 [33.8]20.8 [23.9]20.5 [28.9]66.6 [0]0 [25]33.3 [66.67]0 [58.3]16.6 [33.3]0 [50]0.910.20.47
Diarrhea16.6 [25.1]8.3 [15.4]13.3 [18.2]14.5 [27.1]12.5 [20.6]10.2 [16]0 [33.3]0 [25]0 [33.3]0 [33.3]0 [33.3]0 [33.3]0.740.70.71
Financial difficulties4.1 [11.7]8.3 [23.5]6.6 [14.9]8.3 [14.9]14.5 [27.1]17.9 [35]0 [0]0 [0]0 [16.6]0 [25]0 [25]0 [33.3]0.480.510.73
Phisical functioning67.5 [24.2]80.8 [16.4]68 [25.5]74.1 [27]65.8 [29.6]68.7 [32.4]70 [25]80 [18.3]73.3 [46.6]80 [43.3]60 [50]73.3 [60]0.350.380.88
Role functioning70.8 [31.8]81.2 [18.7]83.3 [28.8]68.7 [36.9]61.4 [35.3]58.9 [38.8]75 [62.5]83.3 [33.3]100 [41.6]83.3 [62.5]66.6 [66.6]66.6 [83.3]10.220.23
Emotional functioning77 [18.2]88.5 [23.1]81.6 [17]69.7 [22.1]75 [19]80.7 [19]70.8 [31.2]100 [14.5]75 [33.3]75 [37.5]75 [25]91.6 [33.3]0.510.040.79
Cognitive functioning81.2 [13.9]85.4 [20.7]90 [9.1]85.4 [20]73.9 [26.5]65.3 [32.2]83.3 [29.1]100 [33.3]83.3 [16.6]100 [33.3]75 [33.3]66.6 [50]0.350.310.1
Social functioning70.8 [27.8]87.5 [14.7]83.3 [11.7]78.1 [24.1]72.9 [29.1]67.9 [31.5]75 [41.6]91.6 [29.1] 83.3 [16.6]83.3 [33.3]83.3 [50]66.6 [66.6]0.50.250.51
Table 4. Comparison of outcomes when receiving checkpoint inhibitors alone or chemotherapy in combination with checkpoint inhibitors.
Table 4. Comparison of outcomes when receiving checkpoint inhibitors alone or chemotherapy in combination with checkpoint inhibitors.
Comparison of Outcomes When Receiving Checkpoint Inhibitors Alone or Chemotherapy in Combination with Checkpoint Inhibitors p-Value
Number of Patients has Received Checkpoint InhibitorsNumber of Patients Has Received Checkpoint Inhibitors in Combination with ChemotherapyNumber of Patients Has Received Checkpoint InhibitorsNumber of Patients Has Received Checkpoint Inhibitors in Combination with Chemotherapy
Mean ± DE Mean ± DE Median [RIC] Median [RIC]
Start3 Months6 MonthsStart3 Months6 MonthsStart3 Months6 MonthsStart3 Months6 MonthsStart3 Months6 Months
Fatigue41.4 [26]33.3 [29.6]30.5 [31.4]24.6 [24]41.9 [24]35.1 [16.3]44.4 [44.4]33.3 [55.5]27.7 [38.8]22.2 [27.7]33.3 [33.3]33.3 [19.4]0.110.360, 47
Náusea and vomiting4.4 [9.8]10 [22.5]6.9 [13.2]3.7 [11.1]9.2 [12.1]13.8 [26.7]0 [0]0 [16.6]0 [12.5]0 [0]0 [16.6]0 [29.1]0.640.490.67
Pain21.1 [20.3]22.2 [23.2]22.2 [25.9]27.7 [25]37 [23.2]27.7 [22.7]16.6 [33.3]16.6 [50]16.6 [33.3]33.3 [50]33.3 [41.6]25 [29.1]0.510.130.52
Dyspnoea20 [21]26.6 [28.7]11.1 [21.7]18.5 [29.3]22.2 [23.5]16.6 [18.2]33.3 [33.3]33.3 [66.6]0 [25]0 [50]33.3 [33.3]16.6 [33.3]0.640.770.39
Insomnia26.6 [25.8]22.2 [24.1]16.6 [17.40]22.2 [28.8]22.2 [24.1]16.6 [27.8]33.3 [33.3]33.3 [33.3]16.6 [33.3]0 [50]33.3 [33.3]0 [41.6]0.620.890.74
Loss of appetite24.4 [29.4]26.6 [38.2]16.6 [33.3]11.1 [23.5]14.8 [17.5]5.5 [13.6]33.3 [33.3]0 [66.6]0 [25]0 [16.6]0 [33.3]0 [8.3]0.180.730.6
Constipation24.4 [34.4]13.3 [21]25 [35.1]22.2 [33.3]22.2 [23.5]22.2 [27.2]0 [0]0 [33.3]0 [58.3]0 [66.6]33.3 [33.3]16.6 [41.6]0.830.300.95
Diarrhea17.7 [30]13.3 [21]13.8 [17.1]11.1 [16.6]7.4 [14.6]5.5 [13.6]0 [0]0 [33.3]0 [33.3]0 [33.3]0 [16.6]0 [8.3]0.820.520.3
Financial difficulties6.6 [13.8]6.6 [18.6]0 [0]7.4 [14.6]22.2 [33.3]44.4 [40.3]0 [16.6]0 [66.6]0 [0]0 [16.6]0 [66.6]50 [75]0.890.20.002
Phisical Functioning69.3 [25.2]74.6 [29.5]71.1 [34.6]76.2 [27.7]64.4 [20.8]63.3 [19.2]73.3 [33.3]80 [46.6]83.3 [61.6]80 [36.6]53.3 [33.3]70 [36.6]0.40.190.36
Role Functioning66.6 [36.7]77.7 [30.6]75 [37.2]74 [32.3]51.8 [28.1]47.2 [32.3]66.6 [50]100 [33.3]100 [58.3]100 [66.6]33.3 [41.6]41.6 [58.3]0.740.030.12
Emotional Functioning76.1 [18.5]80 [23.5]82.6 [18.9]65.7 [23.7]78.7 [17.2]77.7 [17.2]75 [25]91.6 [25]91.6 [33.3]58.3 [45.8]66.6 [33.3]66.6 [33.3]0.210.60.55
Cognitive Functioning84.4 [19.3]83.3 [25.1]79.1 [24.7]83.3 [16.6]68.5 [22.7]58.3 [36.1]83.3 [33.3]100 [33.3]83.3 [29.1]83.3 [33.3]66.6 [16.6]66.6 [62.5]0.720.070.16
Social Functioning73.3 [23.4]85.5 [26.6]79.1 [28.5]79.6 [28.5]64.8 [19.4]58.3 [22.9]83.3 [50]100 [16.6]91.6 [33.3]1001 [33.3]66.6 [33.3]58.3 [50]0.380.0070.08
Table 5. Global health status. Comparison of outcomes by age, sex, whether or not they have previously received ChT, and whether they have received CPI only or a combination of ChT and CPI.
Table 5. Global health status. Comparison of outcomes by age, sex, whether or not they have previously received ChT, and whether they have received CPI only or a combination of ChT and CPI.
Global Health Status Score p-Value
Mean ± DE Median [RIC] p Value
Start3 Months6 MonthsStart3 Months6 MonthsStart3
Months
6
Months
Age65 years or younger68 [22.1]63.1 [29.6]77.7 [27.6]66.6 [39.5]58.3 [60.4]83.3 [50]0.390.950.17
Over 65 years old60.4 [23.8]64.5 [24.6]61.1 [28.5]62.5 [50]66.6 [45.8]58.3 [28.5]
SexMale51.2 [16.2]61.1 [25.9]68.5 [31.3]50 [33.3]66.6 [54.1]83.3 [37.5]0.00210.96
Female79.5 [20.1]68.6 [28.6]70.3 [27.3]83.3 [33.3]66.6 [50]66.6 [58.3]
Previously received treatmentHave previously received chemotherapy56.2 [25]63.5 [23.5]66.6 [19.5]50 [45.8]66.6 [43.7]58.3 [29.1]0.210.900.58
Have not received chemotherapy previously68.2 [21.3]64 [28.8]70.5 [32]66.6 [31.2]58.3 [60.4]83.3 [58.3]
TreatmentCheckpoint inhibitors60 [22.3]65 [30.8]70.8 [30]58.3 [50]66.6 [66.6]75 [47.9]0.220.800.66
Checkpoint inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy71.2 [23.2]62 [19.1]66.6 [27.8]66.6 [37.5]66.6 [37.5]75 [54.1]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bibiano Guillén, L.; Recio Carrasco, C.; Cárdenas Rebollo, J.M.; van Niekerk, D.; Rodríguez Pascual, J.; Rubio-Rodríguez, M.C.; Reina, M.A. Assessment of Quality of Life and Difficulties in Recording Data from Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaires in Patients with Cancer Undergoing Immunotherapy Treatment. Healthcare 2025, 13, 1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13091002

AMA Style

Bibiano Guillén L, Recio Carrasco C, Cárdenas Rebollo JM, van Niekerk D, Rodríguez Pascual J, Rubio-Rodríguez MC, Reina MA. Assessment of Quality of Life and Difficulties in Recording Data from Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaires in Patients with Cancer Undergoing Immunotherapy Treatment. Healthcare. 2025; 13(9):1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13091002

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bibiano Guillén, Laura, Cristina Recio Carrasco, José Miguel Cárdenas Rebollo, Dihan van Niekerk, Jesús Rodríguez Pascual, María Carmen Rubio-Rodríguez, and Miguel A. Reina. 2025. "Assessment of Quality of Life and Difficulties in Recording Data from Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaires in Patients with Cancer Undergoing Immunotherapy Treatment" Healthcare 13, no. 9: 1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13091002

APA Style

Bibiano Guillén, L., Recio Carrasco, C., Cárdenas Rebollo, J. M., van Niekerk, D., Rodríguez Pascual, J., Rubio-Rodríguez, M. C., & Reina, M. A. (2025). Assessment of Quality of Life and Difficulties in Recording Data from Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaires in Patients with Cancer Undergoing Immunotherapy Treatment. Healthcare, 13(9), 1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13091002

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop