Background. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has been shown to be a prognostic factor for cancer survival in randomized clinical trials and observational "real-world" cohort studies; however, it remains unclear which HRQoL domains are the best prognosticators. The primary aims of this populationbased, observational study were to (a) investigate the association between the novel European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core30 (QLQ-C30) summary score and all-cause mortality, adjusting for the more traditional sociodemographic and clinical prognostic factors; and (b) compare the prognostic value of the QLQ-C30 summary score with the global quality of life (QoL) and physical functioning scales of the QLQ-C30. Materials and Methods. Between 2008 and 2015, patients with cancer (12 tumor types) were invited to participate in PRO-FILES disease-specific registry studies (response rate, 69%). In this secondary analysis of 6,895 patients, multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to investigate the association between the QLQ-C30 scores and all-cause mortality.Results. In the overall Cox regression model including sociodemographic and clinical variables, the QLQ-C30 summary score was associated significantly with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.82). In stratified analyses, significant associations between the summary score and all-cause mortality were observed for colon, rectal, and prostate cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and multiple myeloma. The QLQ-C30 summary score had a stronger association with all-cause mortality than the global QoL scale (HR, 0.82; 99% CI, 0.77-0.86) or the physical functioning scale (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85). Conclusion. In a real-world setting, the QLQ-C30 summary score has a strong prognostic value for overall survival for a number of populations of patients with cancer above and beyond that provided by clinical and sociodemographic variables. The QLQ-C30 summary score appears to have more prognostic value than the global QoL, physical functioning, or any other scale within the QLQ-C30. The Oncologist 2020;25:e722-e732 Implications for Practice: The finding that health-related quality of life provides distinct prognostic information beyond known sociodemographic and clinical measures, not only around cancer diagnosis (baseline) but also at follow-up, has implications for clinical practice. Implementation of cancer survivorship monitoring systems for ongoing surveillance may improve post-treatment rehabilitation that leads to better outcomes.

IMPORTANCE As the resolution of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis is unforeseeable, and/or a second wave of infections may arrive in the fall of 2020, it is important to evaluate patients' perspectives to learn from this. OBJECTIVE To assess how Dutch patients with cancer perceive cancer treatment and follow-up care (including experiences with telephone and video consultations [TC/VC]) and patients' well-being in comparison with a norm population during the COVID-19 crisis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional study of patients participating in the Dutch Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry and a norm population who completed a questionnaire from April to May 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Logistic regression analysis assessed factors associated with changes in cancer care (treatment or follow-up appointment postponed/canceled or changed to TC/VC). Differences in quality of life, anxiety/depression, and loneliness between patients and age-matched and sex-matched norm participants were evaluated with regression models. RESULTS The online questionnaire was completed by 4094 patients (48.6% response), of whom most were male (2493 [60.9%]) and had a mean (SD) age of 63.0 (11.1) years. Of these respondents, 886 (21.7%) patients received treatment; 2725 (55.6%) received follow-up care. Treatment or follow-up appointments were canceled for 390 (10.8%) patients, whereas 160 of 886 (18.1%) in treatment and 234 of 2725 (8.6%) in follow-up had it replaced by a TC/VC. Systemic therapy, active surveillance, or surgery were associated with cancellation of treatment or follow-up appointment. Younger age, female sex, comorbidities, metastasized cancer, being worried about getting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and receiving supportive care were associated with replacement of a consultation with a TC/VC. Patients and norm participants reported that the COVID-19 crisis made them contact their general practitioner (852 of 4068 [20.9%] and 218 of 979 [22.3%]) or medical specialist/nurse (585 of 4068 [14.4%] and 144 of 979 [14.7%]) less quickly when they had physical complaints or concerns. Most patients who had a TC/VC preferred a face-to-face consultation, but 151 of 394 (38.3%) were willing to use a TC/VC again. Patients with cancer were more worried about getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with the 977 norm participants (917 of 4094 [22.4%] vs 175 of 977 [17.9%]). Quality of life, anxiety, and depression were comparable, but norm participants more often reported loneliness (114 of 977 [11.7%] vs 287 of 4094 [7.0%]) than patients with cancer (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with cancer in the Netherlands, 1 in 3 reported changes in cancer care in the first weeks of the COVID-19 crisis. Long-term outcomes need to be monitored. The crisis may affect the mental well-being of the general population relatively more than that of patients with cancer.

No abstract