INTRODUCTION: Current standard evaluation of Peripheral Neuropathy (PN) is based on an investigator-reported classification system that is commonly unable to correctly reflect the subjective symptoms for patients. Thus more reliable methods to assess PN are needed. This study assessed alternative methods of assessing patient-reported PN in 5 North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) clinical trials. METHOD: Two single-item assessments relating to numbness and tingling were used to measure PN. Patients' Quality Of Life (QOL) was also assessed using the Uniscale, Symptom Distress Scale (SDS), Profile of Mood States (POMS), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Subject Global Impression of Change (SGIC). Wilcoxon tests compared QOL scores between patients with PN (score > 50) vs. no PN (score ≤ 50). Changes from baseline in QOL were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum test with a 20-point change in PN defined as clinically meaningful. Both distribution-based and anchor-based approaches were used to derive estimates of Minimal Important Differences (MID). Standardized Response Means (SRM), Effect Sizes (ES) and Guyatt's responsiveness statistic were used to measure responsiveness. RESULTS: The proportion of patients reporting numbness (tingling) at baseline was 10.7% (10.0%) and 18.4% (17.8%) at last assessment. The correlation between numbness and tingling at baseline was 0.81, and at last assessment was 0.83. Patients with substantial PN reported an average of 10 points lower overall QOL, mood and worse symptom distress and 20 points lower in the BPI interference items. Patients having a ≤ 20 point worsening in PN score reported significantly worse in symptom distress and BPI worst pain, but not in POMS or overall QOL. The MID estimates were similar between numbness and tingling items but varied depending on the approach used. Responsiveness statistics indicated that the two PN assessments are sensitive and responsive instruments for cancer patients with PN. CONCLUSIONS: The two PN items for numbness and tingling were redundant. Evidence of criterion validity and responsiveness indicates that these simple measures of PN can be used successfully in cancer clinical trials.
INTRODUCTION: Current standard evaluation of Peripheral Neuropathy (PN) is based on an investigator-reported classification system that is commonly unable to correctly reflect the subjective symptoms for patients. Thus more reliable methods to assess PN are needed. This study assessed alternative methods of assessing patient-reported PN in 5 North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) clinical trials. METHOD: Two single-item assessments relating to numbness and tingling were used to measure PN. Patients' Quality Of Life (QOL) was also assessed using the Uniscale, Symptom Distress Scale (SDS), Profile of Mood States (POMS), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Subject Global Impression of Change (SGIC). Wilcoxon tests compared QOL scores between patients with PN (score > 50) vs. no PN (score ≤ 50). Changes from baseline in QOL were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum test with a 20-point change in PN defined as clinically meaningful. Both distribution-based and anchor-based approaches were used to derive estimates of Minimal Important Differences (MID). Standardized Response Means (SRM), Effect Sizes (ES) and Guyatt's responsiveness statistic were used to measure responsiveness. RESULTS: The proportion of patients reporting numbness (tingling) at baseline was 10.7% (10.0%) and 18.4% (17.8%) at last assessment. The correlation between numbness and tingling at baseline was 0.81, and at last assessment was 0.83. Patients with substantial PN reported an average of 10 points lower overall QOL, mood and worse symptom distress and 20 points lower in the BPI interference items. Patients having a ≤ 20 point worsening in PN score reported significantly worse in symptom distress and BPI worst pain, but not in POMS or overall QOL. The MID estimates were similar between numbness and tingling items but varied depending on the approach used. Responsiveness statistics indicated that the two PN assessments are sensitive and responsive instruments for cancerpatients with PN. CONCLUSIONS: The two PN items for numbness and tingling were redundant. Evidence of criterion validity and responsiveness indicates that these simple measures of PN can be used successfully in cancer clinical trials.
Entities:
Keywords:
Minimum Importance Difference; Oncology Trials; Peripheral Neuropathy; Pooled Analysis; Quality of Life
Authors: J A Sloan; C L Loprinzi; S A Kuross; A W Miser; J R O'Fallon; M R Mahoney; I M Heid; M E Bretscher; N L Vaught Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer Le-Rademacher; Rahul Kanwar; Drew Seisler; Deirdre R Pachman; Rui Qin; Alexej Abyzov; Kathryn J Ruddy; Michaela S Banck; Ellen M Lavoie Smith; Susan G Dorsey; Neil K Aaronson; Jeff Sloan; Charles L Loprinzi; Andreas S Beutler Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rafaela Soares Rech; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Brittney S Lange-Maia; Fernando Neves Hugo; Bárbara Niegia Garcia de Goulart; Juliana Balbinot Hilgert; Eleanor M Simonsick Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2020-04-10 Impact factor: 3.636
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
Authors: Julia Mo; Amy K Darke; Katherine A Guthrie; Jeff A Sloan; Joseph M Unger; Dawn L Hershman; Mark O'Rourke; Marie Bakitas; Robert S Krouse Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-07-13