Literature DB >> 25663577

Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-BN20 in patients with brain metastases.

Erin Wong1, Liying Zhang, Marc Kerba, Palmira Foro Arnalot, Brita Danielson, May Tsao, Gillian Bedard, Nemica Thavarajah, Paul Cheon, Cyril Danjoux, Natalie Pulenzas, Edward Chow.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Quality of life (QOL) is an important treatment endpoint in advanced cancer patients with brain metastases. In clinical trials, statistically significant changes can be reached in a large enough population; however, these changes may not be clinically relevant.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire brain module (EORTC QLQ-BN20) in patients with brain metastases.
METHODS: Patients undergoing radiotherapy for brain metastases completed the EORTC QLQ-BN20 and QLQ-C30/C15-PAL at baseline and 1-month follow-up. MCIDs were calculated for both improvement and deterioration using anchor- and distribution-based approaches. The anchor of overall QOL (as assessed by question 30 or question 15 on the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-C15-PAL, respectively) was used to determine meaningful change.
RESULTS: A total of 99 patients were included. The average age was 61 years, and the most common primary cancer sites were the lung and breast. Statistically significant meaningful differences were seen on two scales. A decrease of 6.1 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 11.4) units and 13.8 (0.2 to 27.4) units was required to represent clinically relevant deterioration of seizures and weakness of legs, respectively. Distribution-based MCID estimates tended to be closer to 0.5 SD on the EORTC QLQ-BN20.
CONCLUSION: Understanding MCIDs allows physicians to determine the impact of treatment on patients' QOL and allows for determination of sample sizes for clinical trials. Future studies should be conducted to validate our findings in a larger population of patients with brain metastases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25663577     DOI: 10.1007/s00520-015-2637-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Support Care Cancer        ISSN: 0941-4355            Impact factor:   3.603


  26 in total

1.  Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Ross D Crosby; Ronette L Kolotkin; G Rhys Williams
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 2.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Brain metastases: epidemiology and pathophysiology.

Authors:  Igor T Gavrilovic; Jerome B Posner
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.130

4.  Minimal important differences for interpreting health-related quality of life scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 in lung cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials.

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

5.  What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592.

Authors:  David Cella; David T Eton; Diane L Fairclough; Philip Bonomi; Anne E Heyes; Cheryl Silberman; Michael K Wolf; David H Johnson
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 6.  Whole brain radiotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases.

Authors:  May N Tsao; Nancy Lloyd; Rebecca K S Wong; Edward Chow; Eileen Rakovitch; Normand Laperriere; Wei Xu; Arjun Sahgal
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-04-18

7.  Symptom response after palliative radiotherapy for patients with brain metastases.

Authors:  A Bezjak; J Adam; R Barton; T Panzarella; N Laperriere; C S Wong; W Mason; C Buckley; W Levin; M McLean; J S Y Wu; M Sia; P Kirkbride
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  The Quality of Life Committee of the Clinical Trials Group of the National Cancer Institute of Canada: organization and functions.

Authors:  D Osoba
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 9.  The role of chemotherapy in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

Authors:  Minesh P Mehta; Nina A Paleologos; Tom Mikkelsen; Paula D Robinson; Mario Ammirati; David W Andrews; Anthony L Asher; Stuart H Burri; Charles S Cobbs; Laurie E Gaspar; Douglas Kondziolka; Mark E Linskey; Jay S Loeffler; Michael McDermott; Jeffrey J Olson; Roy A Patchell; Timothy C Ryken; Steven N Kalkanis
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 4.130

10.  Quality of life in brain metastases radiation trials: a literature review.

Authors:  J Wong; A Hird; A Kirou-Mauro; J Napolskikh; E Chow
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.677

View more
  6 in total

1.  Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-C30 and brief pain inventory in patients undergoing re-irradiation for painful bone metastases.

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

2.  Measuring health-related quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review of self-administered measurement instruments.

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

Review 3.  The Independent Effects of Strength Training in Cancer Survivors: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Erik D Hanson; Chad W Wagoner; Travis Anderson; Claudio L Battaglini
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 4.  Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review.

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

5.  Health-related quality of life in patients with primary brain tumors during and three months after treatment with proton beam therapy.

Authors:  Ulrica Langegård; Per Fransson; Thomas Bjork-Eriksson; Birgitta Johansson; Emma Ohlsson-Nevo; Katarina Sjövall; Karin Ahlberg
Journal:  Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-02-12

Review 6.  How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods.

Authors:  Yosra Mouelhi; Elisabeth Jouve; Christel Castelli; Stéphanie Gentile
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 3.186

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.