Literature DB >> 11864800

What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592.

David Cella1, David T Eton, Diane L Fairclough, Philip Bonomi, Anne E Heyes, Cheryl Silberman, Michael K Wolf, David H Johnson.   

Abstract

To assess the impact of disease and treatment on patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we set out to determine a clinically meaningful change (CMC) on the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS) and the Trial Outcome Index (TOI) of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) questionnaire. We used data from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study 5592 (E5592), a randomized trial comparing three chemotherapeutic regimens in 599 advanced NSCLC patients. Patients completed the FACT-L at baseline (pretreatment), 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months. Comparing across baseline performance status (0 vs. 1), prior weight loss (<5% vs. > or = 5%), and primary disease symptoms (< or = 1 vs. >1), LCS and TOI score differences ranged from 2.4 to 3.6 and 6.5 to 9.2, respectively (all Ps <.001). Mean improvement in LCS score from baseline to 12 weeks was 2.4 points in patients who had responded to treatment versus 0.0 points in patients who had progressive disease. Twelve-week LCS change scores for patients progressing early were 3.1 points worse than those of patients progressing later (mean = -1.2 vs.1.9, respectively). Similarly, the average TOI change score from baseline to 12 weeks was -6.1 for patients who had progressive disease versus -0.8 points for patients who had responded to treatment. Twelve-week TOI change scores for patients progressing early (mean = -8.1) were 5.7 points worse than those of patients progressing later (mean = -8.1 vs. -2.4, respectively). Analyses assuming nonrandom missing data resulted in slightly larger differences. Clinically relevant change scores were estimated as two to three points for the LCS and five to seven points for the TOI, setting upper limits for minimal CMCs. These values were comparable to suggested distribution-based criteria of a minimally important difference. These results support use of a two to three point change in the LCS and five to six point change on the TOI of the FACT-L as a CMC, and offer practical direction for inclusion of important patient-based endpoints in lung cancer clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11864800     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00477-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  97 in total

1.  Statistical considerations for use of composite health-related quality-of-life scores in randomized trials.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Quality-of-life comparisons in a randomized trial of interval secondary cytoreduction in advanced ovarian carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

Authors:  Lari Wenzel; Helen Q Huang; Bradley J Monk; Peter G Rose; David Cella
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-08-20       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  A Randomized Study of Electronic Diary versus Paper and Pencil Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Alistair E Ring; Kerry A Cheong; Claire L Watkins; David Meddis; David Cella; Peter G Harper
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes.

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich; Monika Bullinger; Neil Aaronson; Ron D Hays; Donald L Patrick; Tara Symonds
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: a summary for clinicians.

Authors:  Jeff A Sloan; Marlene H Frost; Rick Berzon; Amylou Dueck; Gordon Guyatt; Carol Moinpour; Mirjam Sprangers; Carol Ferrans; David Cella
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2006-06-23       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Korean translation and validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-lung (FACT-L) version 4.

Authors:  Heejung Yoo; Cheolwon Suh; Sangwee Kim; Sonya Eremenco; Hwan Kim; Seongyoon Kim
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-BN20 in patients with brain metastases.

Authors:  Erin Wong; Liying Zhang; Marc Kerba; Palmira Foro Arnalot; Brita Danielson; May Tsao; Gillian Bedard; Nemica Thavarajah; Paul Cheon; Cyril Danjoux; Natalie Pulenzas; Edward Chow
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 8.  Paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria.

Authors:  Anita Hill; Amy E DeZern; Taroh Kinoshita; Robert A Brodsky
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 52.329

9.  Translation and Evaluation of a Lung Cancer, Palliative Care Intervention for Community Practice.

Authors:  Huong Q Nguyen; Nora Ruel; Mayra Macias; Tami Borneman; Melissa Alian; Mark Becher; Kathy Lee; Betty Ferrell
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 3.612

10.  Responsiveness of 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in a large, community-based cancer study cohort.

Authors:  Roxanne E Jensen; Carol M Moinpour; Arnold L Potosky; Tania Lobo; Elizabeth A Hahn; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Ashley Wilder Smith; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Theresa H M Keegan; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette M Stroup; David T Eton
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.