Quantifying bias due to missing data in quality of life surveys of advanced-stage cancer patients.

Purpose: Many studies on cancer patients investigate the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life (QoL). Typically, QoL is measured longitudinally, at baseline and at predefined timepoints thereafter. The question is whether, at a given timepoint, patients who return their questionnaire (available cases, AC) have a different QoL than those who do not return their questionnaire (non-AC).

Methods: We employed augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) to estimate the average QoL of non-AC in two studies on advanced-stage cancer patients. The AIPW estimator assumed data to be missing at random (MAR) and used machine learning (ML)-based methods to estimate answering probabilities of individuals at given timepoints as well as their reported QoL, as a function of auxiliary variables. These auxiliary variables were selected by medical oncologists based on domain expertise. We aggregated results both by timepoint and by time until death and compared AIPW estimates to the AC averages. Additionally, we used a pattern mixture model (PMM) to check sensitivity of our AIPW estimates against violation of the MAR assumption.

Results: Our study included 1927 patients with advanced pancreatic and 797 patients with advanced breast cancer. The AIPW estimate for average QoL of non-AC was below the average QoL of AC when aggregated by timepoint. The difference vanished when aggregated by time until death. PMM estimates were below AIPW estimates.

Conclusions: Our results indicate that non-AC have a lower average QoL than AC. However, estimates for QoL of non-AC are subject to unverifiable assumptions about the missingness mechanism.