Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40397297›Full record

Trial reportJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025

Psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-OES18 in patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Lauren Podger, Daniel Serrano, Liyun Li, Lin Zhan, Boxiong Tang, Gisoo Barnes

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialClinical Trial, Phase IIIValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03430843 (A Randomized, Controlled, Open-label, Global Phase 3 Study Comparing the Efficacy of the Anti-PD-1 Antibody Tislelizumab), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT03430843 phase3completednot on this map

A Randomized, Controlled, Open-label, Global Phase 3 Study Comparing the Efficacy of the Anti-PD-1 Antibody Tislelizumab (BGB-A317) Versus Chemotherapy as Second Line Treatment in Patients With Advanced Unresectable/Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorBeiGeneRan2018 to 2022Enrolled512ConditionsEsophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESCC)ArmsTislelizumab, Paclitaxel, Docetaxel, Irinotecan
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Health-related quality of life in esophageal cancer: a state-of-the-art review of patient-reported outcomes and an evidence and gap map.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. 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

6 authors.

Lauren PodgerOpen Health Group, London, UK.
Daniel SerranoThe Psychometrics Team, Sheridan, WY, USA.
Liyun LiBeOne Medicines Ltd, San Carlos, CA, USA.
Lin ZhanBeOne Medicines Ltd, San Carlos, CA, USA.
Boxiong TangBeOne Medicines Ltd, San Carlos, CA, USA.
Gisoo BarnesBeOne Medicines Ltd, San Carlos, CA, USA. gisoo.barnes@beonemed.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5702-2903

Funding

BeiGene, Ltd BeiGene, Ltd
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe EORTC QLQ-OES18 has previously demonstrated clinical validity; however, there are limited published psychometric data for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). We evaluated the measurement properties of the QLQ-OES18 in a clinical trial population of patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC. METHODOLOGY: Analyses used data from RATIONALE 302 (NCT03430843), a randomized phase 3 study of tislelizumab versus investigator-chosen chemotherapy as second-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC. Psychometric validation of the QLQ-OES18 included tests of reliability, construct validity, ability to detect change, and estimation of anchor-based meaningful within-patient change (MWPC) thresholds-the latter two being exploratory given that the trial was not powered to detect efficacy in patient-reported outcome endpoints.

resultsIn total, 512 patients were randomized to either tislelizumab or chemotherapy; the average age was 61.5 years, and 84.4% were male. Three of the 4 QLQ-OES18 multi-item scales (dysphagia, eating, and pain) and the index scale met the prespecified criterion for acceptable internal consistency as well as acceptable test-retest reliability. Associations between baseline QLQ-OES18 scores and convergent/discriminant validators were generally as expected (i.e., the QLQ-OES18 pain score had a strong positive correlation with the QLQ-C30 pain score). For known-groups validity, 88.6% of analyses demonstrated the hypothesized direction of effect, suggesting that the expected differences in baseline QLQ-OES18 scores between prespecified groups were observed. Ability to detect change analyses indicated that several QLQ-OES18 domain scores demonstrated sensitivity in detecting possible treatment effects, although many patients reported minimal symptoms at baseline, which limited the ability to detect significant improvement.

conclusionOverall, a collection of psychometric evidence indicated that the EORTC QLQ-OES18 reliably and validly measured symptom severity in the RATIONALE 302 population. Specifically, the dysphagia domain consistently demonstrated robust psychometric properties. Limitations in data reduced the interpretability of MWPC thresholds and are discussed in detail.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeAgedAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedEORTC QLQ-OES18Esophageal squamous cell cancerHealth-related quality of lifePatient-reported outcomesPsychometricsValidation

Identifiers

PMID40397297
PMCPMC12095746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.