PURPOSE: The brief pain inventory (BPI) is often used to assess pain and functional interference as a result of pain in cancer patients. Minor improvements or deteriorations in BPI may be statistically significant due to large sample sizes but may not necessarily be clinically relevant. The purpose of this study was to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in the functional BPI in patients with pain due to bone metastases. METHODS: BPI scores were collected from patients with painful bone metastases who visited the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program for palliative radiotherapy. Pain and functional interferences scores were also collected monthly for three months. Patients were categorized into "complete or partial response," "pain progression," and "indeterminate response" based on their pain scores as recommended by the latest consensus definitions. Anchor-based determination of MCIDs of functional interference scores was calculated by determining the difference between the mean follow-up scores and the mean baseline scores for patients from each of the three response groups. Distribution-based estimates were obtained utilizing 0.2, 0.3, and 0.5 standard deviation (SD) effect sizes and the standard error of measurement. The anchor-based method results were compared with the distribution-based method results. RESULTS: Statistically significant MCIDs were determined for all of the functional interference items of BPI for patients with "complete or partial response"; whereas, no statistically significant MCIDs in BPI scores could be determined for patients with "pain progression." Some of the functional interference items of BPI had statistically significant MCIDs for patients with "indeterminate response," although these were generally smaller than patients with complete or partial response. Using the distribution-based approach, an effect size of 0.5 SD was the closest estimate for determining the MCID for both patients with complete or partial response and those with indeterminate response. CONCLUSIONS: The MCIDs determined for pain improvement were rather large, where as statistically significant MCIDs could not be detected for pain deterioration. Knowledge of MCIDs utilizing the BPI will allow physicians to evaluate the impact of treatment (or no treatment) on a patient's functional abilities. Knowledge of MCIDs may allow for sample size determination in future clinical trials.
PURPOSE: The brief pain inventory (BPI) is often used to assess pain and functional interference as a result of pain in cancerpatients. Minor improvements or deteriorations in BPI may be statistically significant due to large sample sizes but may not necessarily be clinically relevant. The purpose of this study was to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in the functional BPI in patients with pain due to bone metastases. METHODS: BPI scores were collected from patients with painful bone metastases who visited the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program for palliative radiotherapy. Pain and functional interferences scores were also collected monthly for three months. Patients were categorized into "complete or partial response," "pain progression," and "indeterminate response" based on their pain scores as recommended by the latest consensus definitions. Anchor-based determination of MCIDs of functional interference scores was calculated by determining the difference between the mean follow-up scores and the mean baseline scores for patients from each of the three response groups. Distribution-based estimates were obtained utilizing 0.2, 0.3, and 0.5 standard deviation (SD) effect sizes and the standard error of measurement. The anchor-based method results were compared with the distribution-based method results. RESULTS: Statistically significant MCIDs were determined for all of the functional interference items of BPI for patients with "complete or partial response"; whereas, no statistically significant MCIDs in BPI scores could be determined for patients with "pain progression." Some of the functional interference items of BPI had statistically significant MCIDs for patients with "indeterminate response," although these were generally smaller than patients with complete or partial response. Using the distribution-based approach, an effect size of 0.5 SD was the closest estimate for determining the MCID for both patients with complete or partial response and those with indeterminate response. CONCLUSIONS: The MCIDs determined for pain improvement were rather large, where as statistically significant MCIDs could not be detected for pain deterioration. Knowledge of MCIDs utilizing the BPI will allow physicians to evaluate the impact of treatment (or no treatment) on a patient's functional abilities. Knowledge of MCIDs may allow for sample size determination in future clinical trials.
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: Dennis A Revicki; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Jeff A Sloan; William R Lenderking; Neil K Aaronson Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2006-09-27 Impact factor: 3.186
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: Edward Chow; Ralph M Meyer; Bingshu E Chen; Yvette M van der Linden; Daniel Roos; William F Hartsell; Peter Hoskin; Jackson S Y Wu; Abdenour Nabid; Caroline J A Tissing-Tan; Bing Oei; Scott Babington; William F Demas; Carolyn F Wilson; Rebecca K S Wong; Michael Brundage Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ilya Laufer; Simon S Lo; Eric L Chang; Jason Sheehan; Matthias Guckenberger; Moon-Jun Sohn; Samuel Ryu; Matthew Foote; Alexander Muacevic; Scott G Soltys; Samuel Chao; Sten Myrehaug; Peter C Gerszten; Eric Lis; Pejman Maralani; Mark Bilsky; Charles Fisher; Laurence Rhines; Jorrit-Jan Verlaan; David Schiff; Michael G Fehlings; Lijun Ma; Susan Chang; Wendy R Parulekar; Michael A Vogelbaum; Arjun Sahgal Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Weidong Lu; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Rachel A Freedman; Im Hee Shin; Nancy U Lin; Ann H Partridge; David S Rosenthal; Jennifer A Ligibel Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-10-14
Authors: Alicia K Morgans; Yu-Hui Chen; Christopher J Sweeney; David F Jarrard; Elizabeth R Plimack; Benjamin A Gartrell; Michael A Carducci; Maha Hussain; Jorge A Garcia; David Cella; Robert S DiPaola; Linda J Patrick-Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Weidong Lu; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Rachel A Freedman; Im Hee Shin; Nancy U Lin; Ann H Partridge; David S Rosenthal; Jennifer A Ligibel Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-10-14
Authors: Matthew C Mauck; Chloe E Barton; Andrew S Tungate; Jeffrey W Shupp; Rachel Karlnoski; David J Smith; Felicia N Williams; Samuel W Jones; Christopher Sefton; Kyle McGrath; Bruce A Cairns; Samuel A McLean Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 1.845