Literature DB >> 24656406

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the functional assessment of cancer therapy: cognitive function (FACT-Cog) in breast cancer patients.

Yin Ting Cheung1, Yu Lee Foo2, Maung Shwe2, Yee Pin Tan3, Gilbert Fan3, Wei Sean Yong4, Preetha Madhukumar4, Wei Seong Ooi5, Wen Yee Chay5, Rebecca A Dent6, Soo Fan Ang5, Soo Kien Lo5, Yoon Sim Yap5, Raymond Ng6, Alexandre Chan7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This is the first reported study to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog), a validated subjective neuropsychological instrument designed to evaluate cancer patients' perceived cognitive deterioration. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Breast cancer patients (n = 220) completed FACT-Cog and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30) at baseline and at least 3 months later. Anchor-based approach used the validated EORTC-QLQ-C30-Cognitive Functioning scale (EORTC-CF) as the anchor for patients who showed minimal deterioration and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to identify the optimal MCID cutoff for deterioration. Distribution-based approach used one-third standard deviation (SD), half SD, and one standard error of measurement (SEM) of the total FACT-Cog score (148 points).
RESULTS: There was a moderate correlation between changes in FACT-Cog and EORTC-CF scores (r = 0.43; P < 0.001). The EORTC-CF-anchored MCID was 9.6 points (95% confidence interval: 4.4, 14.8). The MCID from the ROC method was 7.5 points (area under the curve: 0.75; sensitivity: 75.6%; specificity: 68.8%). For the distribution-based approach, the MCIDs corresponding to one-third SD, half SD, and one SEM were 6.9, 10.3, and 10.6 points, respectively. Combining the approaches, the MCID identified for FACT-Cog ranged from 6.9 to 10.6 points (4.7-7.2% of the total score).
CONCLUSION: The estimates of 6.9-10.6 points as MCID can facilitate the interpretation of patient-reported cognitive deterioration and sample size estimates in future studies.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Chemotherapy; Cognitive function; FACT-Cog; Minimal clinically important difference; Quality of life

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24656406     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.011

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


  43 in total

Review 1.  Cancer-related cognitive impairment: an update on state of the art, detection, and management strategies in cancer survivors.

Authors:  M Lange; F Joly; J Vardy; T Ahles; M Dubois; L Tron; G Winocur; M B De Ruiter; H Castel
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 32.976

2.  Individual patient monitoring in daily clinical practice: a critical evaluation of minimal important change.

Authors:  Jos Hendrikx; Jaap Fransen; Wietske Kievit; Piet L C M van Riel
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  A randomized trial comparing live and telemedicine deliveries of an imagery-based behavioral intervention for breast cancer survivors: reducing symptoms and barriers to care.

Authors:  Lyn W Freeman; Rebecca White; Chelsea G Ratcliff; Sue Sutton; Mary Stewart; J Lynn Palmer; Judith Link; Lorenzo Cohen
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 3.894

4.  Positive Outcomes of Varicose Vein Surgery: The Patient Perspective.

Authors:  Wei-Han Cheng; Haridarshan Patel; Wan-Ju Lee; Fang-Ju Lin; A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Patient-Reported Cognitive Impairment Among Women With Early Breast Cancer Randomly Assigned to Endocrine Therapy Alone Versus Chemoendocrine Therapy: Results From TAILORx.

Authors:  Lynne I Wagner; Robert J Gray; Joseph A Sparano; Timothy J Whelan; Sofia F Garcia; Betina Yanez; Amye J Tevaarwerk; Ruth C Carlos; Kathy S Albain; John A Olson; Matthew P Goetz; Kathleen I Pritchard; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; E Claire Dees; Worta J McCaskill-Stevens; Lori M Minasian; George W Sledge; David Cella
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Incidence and predictors of cognitive decline in patients with left ventricular assist devices.

Authors:  Timothy J Fendler; John A Spertus; Kensey L Gosch; Philip G Jones; Jared M Bruce; Michael E Nassif; Kelsey M Flint; Shannon M Dunlay; Larry A Allen; Suzanne V Arnold
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2015-04-29

7.  Cognitive function and its relationship to other psychosocial factors in lymphoma survivors.

Authors:  Dorothy Krolak; Barbara Collins; Lorelle Weiss; Cheryl Harris; Richard Van der Jagt
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Systematic review of self-reported cognitive function in cancer patients following chemotherapy treatment.

Authors:  Victoria J Bray; Haryana M Dhillon; Janette L Vardy
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 4.442

9.  Identifying cytokine predictors of cognitive functioning in breast cancer survivors up to 10 years post chemotherapy using machine learning.

Authors:  Ashley M Henneghan; Oxana Palesh; Michelle Harrison; Shelli R Kesler
Journal:  J Neuroimmunol       Date:  2018-04-19       Impact factor: 3.478

Review 10.  Chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment in older patients with cancer.

Authors:  Kah Poh Loh; Michelle C Janelsins; Supriya G Mohile; Holly M Holmes; Tina Hsu; Sharon K Inouye; Meghan S Karuturi; Gretchen G Kimmick; Stuart M Lichtman; Allison Magnuson; Mary I Whitehead; Melisa L Wong; Tim A Ahles
Journal:  J Geriatr Oncol       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 3.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.