Srinivas Raman1, Keyue Ding2, Edward Chow3,4, Ralph M Meyer5, Abdenour Nabid6, Pierre Chabot7, Genevieve Coulombe8, Shahida Ahmed9, Joda Kuk10, A Rashid Dar11, Aamer Mahmud12, Alysa Fairchild13, Carolyn F Wilson2, Jackson S Y Wu14, Kristopher Dennis15, Carlo DeAngelis1, Rebecca K S Wong16, Liting Zhu2, Michael Brundage17. 1. Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Canadian Clinical Trials Group, Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada. 3. Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Edward.Chow@sunnybrook.ca. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. Edward.Chow@sunnybrook.ca. 5. Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 6. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. 7. Hopital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montreal, QC, Canada. 8. CHUM-Hopital Notre-Dame, Montreal, QC, Canada. 9. CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 10. Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, Grand River Hospital, Kitchener, ON, Canada. 11. London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON, Canada. 12. Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada. 13. Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 14. Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 15. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 16. Radiation Medicine Program, Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 17. Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Validated tools for evaluating quality of life (QOL) in patients with bone metastases include the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL modules. A statistically significant difference in metric scores may not be clinically significant. To aid in their interpretation, we performed analyses to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these QOL instruments. METHODS: Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to determine the MCID among patients with bone metastases enrolled in a randomized phase III trial. For the anchor-based approach, overall QOL as measured by the QLQ-C15-PAL module was used as the anchor and only the subscales with moderate or better correlation were used for subsequent MCID analysis. In the anchor-based approach, patients were classified as improved, stable or deteriorated by the change in the overall QOL score from baseline to follow-up after 42 days. The MCID and confidence interval was then calculated for all subscales. In the distribution-based approach, the MCID was expressed as a proportion of the standard deviation and standard error measurement from the subscale score distribution. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. Only the dyspnea and insomnia subscales did not have at least moderate correlation with the overall QOL anchor. Using the anchor-based approach, 10/11 subscales had an MCID score significantly different than 0 for improvement and 3/11 subscales had a significant MCID score for deterioration. The magnitude of MCID scores was higher for improvement in comparison with deterioration. For improvement, the anchor-based approach showed good agreement with the distribution-based approach when using 0.5 SD as the MCID. However, there was greater lack of agreement between these approaches for deterioration. CONCLUSION: We present the MCID scores for the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL QOL instruments. The results of this study can guide clinicians in the interpretation of these instruments. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT01248585.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Validated tools for evaluating quality of life (QOL) in patients with bone metastases include the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL modules. A statistically significant difference in metric scores may not be clinically significant. To aid in their interpretation, we performed analyses to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these QOL instruments. METHODS: Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to determine the MCID among patients with bone metastases enrolled in a randomized phase III trial. For the anchor-based approach, overall QOL as measured by the QLQ-C15-PAL module was used as the anchor and only the subscales with moderate or better correlation were used for subsequent MCID analysis. In the anchor-based approach, patients were classified as improved, stable or deteriorated by the change in the overall QOL score from baseline to follow-up after 42 days. The MCID and confidence interval was then calculated for all subscales. In the distribution-based approach, the MCID was expressed as a proportion of the standard deviation and standard error measurement from the subscale score distribution. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. Only the dyspnea and insomnia subscales did not have at least moderate correlation with the overall QOL anchor. Using the anchor-based approach, 10/11 subscales had an MCID score significantly different than 0 for improvement and 3/11 subscales had a significant MCID score for deterioration. The magnitude of MCID scores was higher for improvement in comparison with deterioration. For improvement, the anchor-based approach showed good agreement with the distribution-based approach when using 0.5 SD as the MCID. However, there was greater lack of agreement between these approaches for deterioration. CONCLUSION: We present the MCID scores for the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL QOL instruments. The results of this study can guide clinicians in the interpretation of these instruments. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT01248585.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone metastases; EORTC QLQ-BM22 module; EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL module; Minimal clinically important differences; Radiation
Authors: Edward Chow; Amanda Hird; Galina Velikova; Colin Johnson; Linda Dewolf; Andrea Bezjak; Jackson Wu; Jesmin Shafiq; Orhan Sezer; Dimitrios Kardamakis; Yvette van der Linden; Brigette Ma; Monica Castro; Palmira Foro Arnalot; Sam Ahmedzai; Mark Clemons; Peter Hoskin; Albert Yee; Michael Brundage; Andrew Bottomley Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-12-25 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: A Caissie; L Zeng; J Nguyen; L Zhang; F Jon; K Dennis; L Holden; S Culleton; K Koo; M Tsao; E Barnes; C Danjoux; A Sahgal; C Simmons; E Chow Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 4.126
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: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
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: D Harding; S L Giles; M R D Brown; G R Ter Haar; M van den Bosch; L W Bartels; Y-S Kim; M Deppe; N M deSouza Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 4.126
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: Harma Johanna Alma; Corina de Jong; Danijel Jelusic; Michael Wittmann; Michael Schuler; Robbert Sanderman; Konrad Schultz; Janwillem Kocks; Thys van der Molen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 2.692