Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40205267›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025

Baseline functioning scales of quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) as a predictor of overall survival in patients with lung cancer: a meta-analysis.

Ye Zang, Wei Xu, Yue Qiu, Dandan Gong, Yu Fan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Assessing the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy on quality of life during treatment in esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ye Zang *Department of Oncology, The People'S Hospital of Danyang, Affiliated Danyang Hospital of Nantong University, Danyang, 212399, China.
Wei Xu *Cancer Institute, the Affiliated People'S Hospital, Jiangsu University, No. 8 Dianli Road, Zhenjiang, 212002, Jiangsu, China.
Yue QiuCancer Institute, the Affiliated People'S Hospital, Jiangsu University, No. 8 Dianli Road, Zhenjiang, 212002, Jiangsu, China.
Dandan GongCancer Institute, the Affiliated People'S Hospital, Jiangsu University, No. 8 Dianli Road, Zhenjiang, 212002, Jiangsu, China. gongdandanzhj@126.com.
Yu FanCancer Institute, the Affiliated People'S Hospital, Jiangsu University, No. 8 Dianli Road, Zhenjiang, 212002, Jiangsu, China. jszjfanyu@163.com.

Funding

Jiangsu 333 Talent Fund BRA2020016Zhenjiang Key Research and Development Fund SH2021038, SH2022032, SH2022090
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies have shown inconsistent associations between quality of life (QoL) and survival in patients with lung cancer (LC).

objectiveTo assess the association between baseline functioning scales from the EORTC QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and overall survival in patients with LC by conducting a meta-analysis.

methodsTwo independent authors searched PubMed and Embase databases using the following PECOS criteria: population (patients with pathological diagnosis of LC), exposure (poor health-related QoL, as measured by the functioning scales of EORTC QLQ-C30), comparator (better QoL), outcomes (overall survival), and study design (cohort studies).

resultsSixteen studies with 9429 patients were identified. Compared to the highest scores, the lowest scores on the global QoL (hazard ratios [HR] 1.59; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.38-1.84), physical functioning (HR 1.58; 95% CI 1.24-2.03), role functioning (HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.19-1.73), and emotional functioning (HR 1.29; 95% CI 1.05-1.60) scales significantly predicted poorer overall survival. A 10-point increase in the global QoL, physical functioning, and role functioning scales was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.84-0.91, HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.85-0.92, and HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-0.99, respectively). However, 10-point increases in the emotional functioning (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.92-1.01), cognitive functioning (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.95-1.00), and social functioning (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.90-1.01) scales did not significantly predict overall survival.

conclusionsBaseline QoL, specifically lower scores on the global QoL, physical functioning, and role functioning scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30, significantly predicts poorer overall survival in patients with LC.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsQuality of LifeHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesEORTC QLQ-C30Functioning scalesLung cancerMeta-analysisOverall survivalQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID40205267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.