OBJECTIVE: To estimate minimally important differences (MIDs) on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using anchor- and distribution-based methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Preliminary MIDs were generated for FACT-C scores based on published results for two samples (n = 60 and n = 63) from the FACT-C validation study. Preliminary MIDs were confirmed using data from a Phase II randomized controlled clinical trial (n = 104) and a population-based observational study (n = 568). MIDs were estimated for the colorectal cancer subscale (CCS); the FACT-C Trial Outcome Index (TOI-C), which is the sum of the CCS, physical well-being, and functional well-being subscales; and the FACT-C total score. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were used. RESULTS: MIDs were stable across the different patient samples. The recommended MIDs ranged from 2 to 3 points for the CCS, 4 to 6 points for the TOI-C, and 5 to 8 points for the FACT-C total score. CONCLUSIONS: MIDs can enhance the interpretability of FACT-C scores, and they can be used to provide a basis for sample size estimation and to determine clinical benefit in combination with other measures of efficacy. General guidelines for estimating MIDs for other FACT instruments are suggested.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate minimally important differences (MIDs) on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using anchor- and distribution-based methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Preliminary MIDs were generated for FACT-C scores based on published results for two samples (n = 60 and n = 63) from the FACT-C validation study. Preliminary MIDs were confirmed using data from a Phase II randomized controlled clinical trial (n = 104) and a population-based observational study (n = 568). MIDs were estimated for the colorectal cancer subscale (CCS); the FACT-C Trial Outcome Index (TOI-C), which is the sum of the CCS, physical well-being, and functional well-being subscales; and the FACT-C total score. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were used. RESULTS:MIDs were stable across the different patient samples. The recommended MIDs ranged from 2 to 3 points for the CCS, 4 to 6 points for the TOI-C, and 5 to 8 points for the FACT-C total score. CONCLUSIONS:MIDs can enhance the interpretability of FACT-C scores, and they can be used to provide a basis for sample size estimation and to determine clinical benefit in combination with other measures of efficacy. General guidelines for estimating MIDs for other FACT instruments are suggested.
Authors: Theresa A Hastert; Jaclyn M Kyko; Amanda R Reed; Felicity W K Harper; Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Tara E Baird; Ann G Schwartz Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kathryn Elizabeth Hudson; Steven Paul Wolf; Gregory P Samsa; Arif H Kamal; Amy Pickar Abernethy; Thomas William LeBlanc Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Srinivas Raman; Keyue Ding; Edward Chow; Ralph M Meyer; Abdenour Nabid; Pierre Chabot; Genevieve Coulombe; Shahida Ahmed; Joda Kuk; A Rashid Dar; Aamer Mahmud; Alysa Fairchild; Carolyn F Wilson; Jackson S Y Wu; Kristopher Dennis; Carlo DeAngelis; Rebecca K S Wong; Liting Zhu; Michael Brundage Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Vithusha Ganesh; Arnav Agarwal; Marko Popovic; David Cella; Rachel McDonald; Sherlyn Vuong; Henry Lam; Leigha Rowbottom; Stephanie Chan; Tasneem Barakat; Carlo DeAngelis; Michael Borean; Edward Chow; Andrew Bottomley Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Stephanie J Sohl; Suzanne C Danhauer; Gurjeet S Birdee; Barbara J Nicklas; George Yacoub; Mebea Aklilu; Nancy E Avis Journal: Complement Ther Med Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 2.446
Authors: Jane Young; James Harrison; Michael Solomon; Phyllis Butow; Rebecca Dennis; Daine Robson; Sally Auld Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-07-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: T Conroy; M Hebbar; J Bennouna; M Ducreux; M Ychou; G Llédo; A Adenis; R Faroux; C Rebischung; L Kockler; J Y Douillard Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Tom Stargardt; Linda Gonder-Frederick; Karl J Krobot; Charles M Alexander Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2009-10-22 Impact factor: 3.186