PURPOSE: Quality of life (QOL) is frequently an endpoint in clinical trials involving patients with advanced cancer. Statistical significance of minimal differences can be achieved with sufficient sample size, yet the actual clinical relevance is unknown. The purpose of this study was to establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) bone metastases module (EORTC QLQ-BM22). METHODS: Patients with bone metastases across seven countries were prospectively enrolled in a trial validating the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and completed the QLQ-BM22 and core measure (QLQ-C30) at baseline and 1-month follow-up. MCIDs were calculated for each QOL scale for both improvement and deterioration using both an anchor- (performance status) and distribution-based approach. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients completed both baseline and follow-up QOL and had recorded performance status at both intervals. Statistically significant meaningful differences were seen in seven scales. There were improvements of 30.5 (95 % confidence interval, 9.0 to 52.0), 20.1 (7.1 to 33.2), 30.5 (13.8 to 47.3) and 19.6 (5.0 to 34.3) in the pain, painful site, painful characteristic and functional interference scales, respectively, demonstrated clinical relevance. Decreases of 12.4 (0.3 to 24.6), 22.4 (11.8 to 32.9) and 13.5 (1.9 to 25.1) were required to represent clinically relevant deterioration in emotional functioning, global health status and financial issues, respectively. Minimal differences for improvement were closest to 0.5 standard deviations (SD) while for deterioration, closer to 0.3 SD on the QLQ-BM22. CONCLUSION: Identification of requirements for clinical significance can assist in determining the relevance of QOL changes after treatment and in sample size determination in future trials. Our study is limited by the small sample size. Future studies should continue to determine MCID and confirm our findings using a variety of appropriate anchors and in a larger sample.
PURPOSE: Quality of life (QOL) is frequently an endpoint in clinical trials involving patients with advanced cancer. Statistical significance of minimal differences can be achieved with sufficient sample size, yet the actual clinical relevance is unknown. The purpose of this study was to establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) bone metastases module (EORTC QLQ-BM22). METHODS:Patients with bone metastases across seven countries were prospectively enrolled in a trial validating the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and completed the QLQ-BM22 and core measure (QLQ-C30) at baseline and 1-month follow-up. MCIDs were calculated for each QOL scale for both improvement and deterioration using both an anchor- (performance status) and distribution-based approach. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients completed both baseline and follow-up QOL and had recorded performance status at both intervals. Statistically significant meaningful differences were seen in seven scales. There were improvements of 30.5 (95 % confidence interval, 9.0 to 52.0), 20.1 (7.1 to 33.2), 30.5 (13.8 to 47.3) and 19.6 (5.0 to 34.3) in the pain, painful site, painful characteristic and functional interference scales, respectively, demonstrated clinical relevance. Decreases of 12.4 (0.3 to 24.6), 22.4 (11.8 to 32.9) and 13.5 (1.9 to 25.1) were required to represent clinically relevant deterioration in emotional functioning, global health status and financial issues, respectively. Minimal differences for improvement were closest to 0.5 standard deviations (SD) while for deterioration, closer to 0.3 SD on the QLQ-BM22. CONCLUSION: Identification of requirements for clinical significance can assist in determining the relevance of QOL changes after treatment and in sample size determination in future trials. Our study is limited by the small sample size. Future studies should continue to determine MCID and confirm our findings using a variety of appropriate anchors and in a larger sample.
Authors: Edward Chow; Amanda Hird; Galina Velikova; Colin Johnson; Linda Dewolf; Andrea Bezjak; Jackson Wu; Jesmin Shafiq; Orhan Sezer; Dimitrios Kardamakis; Yvette van der Linden; Brigette Ma; Monica Castro; Palmira Foro Arnalot; Sam Ahmedzai; Mark Clemons; Peter Hoskin; Albert Yee; Michael Brundage; Andrew Bottomley Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-12-25 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Edward Chow; Peter Hoskin; Gunita Mitera; Liang Zeng; Stephen Lutz; Daniel Roos; Carol Hahn; Yvette van der Linden; William Hartsell; Eshwar Kumar Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John T Maringwa; Chantal Quinten; Madeleine King; Jolie Ringash; David Osoba; Corneel Coens; Francesca Martinelli; Jurgen Vercauteren; Charles S Cleeland; Henning Flechtner; Carolyn Gotay; Eva Greimel; Martin J Taphoorn; Bryce B Reeve; Joseph Schmucker-Von Koch; Joachim Weis; Egbert F Smit; Jan P van Meerbeeck; Andrew Bottomley Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: J Maringwa; C Quinten; M King; J Ringash; D Osoba; C Coens; F Martinelli; B B Reeve; C Gotay; E Greimel; H Flechtner; C S Cleeland; J Schmucker-Von Koch; J Weis; M J Van Den Bent; R Stupp; M J Taphoorn; A Bottomley Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
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
Authors: Srinivas Raman; Keyue Ding; Edward Chow; Ralph M Meyer; Yvette M van der Linden; Daniel Roos; William F Hartsell; Peter Hoskin; Jackson S Y Wu; Abdenour Nabid; Rick Haas; Ruud Wiggenraad; Scott Babington; William F Demas; Carolyn F Wilson; Rebecca K S Wong; Liting Zhu; Michael Brundage Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Janneke van Roij; Heidi Fransen; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Myrte Zijlstra; Natasja Raijmakers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Ahmad Ousmen; Célia Touraine; Nina Deliu; Francesco Cottone; Franck Bonnetain; Fabio Efficace; Anne Brédart; Caroline Mollevi; Amélie Anota Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 3.186