PURPOSE: To compare pain assessment questionnaires commonly used in advanced prostate cancer trials and to determine the psychometric characteristics and longitudinal relationships by contrasting questionnaire data from two international phase 2 trials. METHODS: Scores from the Present Pain Intensity (PPI) question of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the pain intensity scale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) were analyzed using Pearson correlation, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Cronbach's α, respectively. Concordance was evaluated with Cohen's kappa coefficient and McNemar test at baseline (n = 224) and two subsequent observations. RESULTS: PPI and FACT-P scores were associated with the BPI score at baseline for Trials 1 and 2: PPI r = 0.66 and 0.80, respectively (P < 0.001); FACT-P (pain scale) r = -0.76 and -0.82, respectively (P < 0.001). However, concordance analysis revealed that the BPI identified pain (score > 0) at higher rates than the PPI: at baseline, BPI: 89 % (64/72) and 77 % (95/124), PPI: 68 % (49/72) and 64 % (79/124) [Trials 1 and 2, respectively; McNemar test (P < 0.001) for both studies]. The FACT-P pain scale identified pain similarly to the BPI pain intensity scale; longitudinal analysis produced comparable findings. All pain scales met standard psychometric acceptability criteria, but the BPI and FACT-P performed better than the PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest the BPI pain intensity and FACT-P pain scales are better than the PPI question at capturing the pain experience among patients with advanced prostate cancer. Additional comparative research is needed in larger population samples.
PURPOSE: To compare pain assessment questionnaires commonly used in advanced prostate cancer trials and to determine the psychometric characteristics and longitudinal relationships by contrasting questionnaire data from two international phase 2 trials. METHODS: Scores from the Present Pain Intensity (PPI) question of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the pain intensity scale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) were analyzed using Pearson correlation, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Cronbach's α, respectively. Concordance was evaluated with Cohen's kappa coefficient and McNemar test at baseline (n = 224) and two subsequent observations. RESULTS: PPI and FACT-P scores were associated with the BPI score at baseline for Trials 1 and 2: PPI r = 0.66 and 0.80, respectively (P < 0.001); FACT-P (pain scale) r = -0.76 and -0.82, respectively (P < 0.001). However, concordance analysis revealed that the BPI identified pain (score > 0) at higher rates than the PPI: at baseline, BPI: 89 % (64/72) and 77 % (95/124), PPI: 68 % (49/72) and 64 % (79/124) [Trials 1 and 2, respectively; McNemar test (P < 0.001) for both studies]. The FACT-P pain scale identified pain similarly to the BPI pain intensity scale; longitudinal analysis produced comparable findings. All pain scales met standard psychometric acceptability criteria, but the BPI and FACT-P performed better than the PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest the BPI pain intensity and FACT-P pain scales are better than the PPI question at capturing the pain experience among patients with advanced prostate cancer. Additional comparative research is needed in larger population samples.
Authors: Pia Bader; Dieter Echtle; Valerie Fonteyne; Kostas Livadas; Gert De Meerleer; Alvaro Paez Borda; Eleni G Papaioannou; Jan H Vranken Journal: World J Urol Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Tito R Mendoza; Laura Sit; Steven Passik; Howard I Scher; Charles Cleeland; Ethan Basch Journal: Pain Med Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Dominik R Berthold; Gregory R Pond; Martin Roessner; Ronald de Wit; Mario Eisenberger; And Ian F Tannock Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ian F Tannock; Ronald de Wit; William R Berry; Jozsef Horti; Anna Pluzanska; Kim N Chi; Stephane Oudard; Christine Théodore; Nicholas D James; Ingela Turesson; Mark A Rosenthal; Mario A Eisenberger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544