Roxanne E Jensen1,2, Carol M Moinpour3, Arnold L Potosky1,2, Tania Lobo2, Elizabeth A Hahn4, Ron D Hays5, David Cella4, Ashley Wilder Smith6, Xiao-Cheng Wu7, Theresa H M Keegan8, Lisa E Paddock9,10, Antoinette M Stroup9, David T Eton11. 1. Department of Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. 2. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, District of Columbia. 3. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 4. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 5. University of California-Los Angeles Department of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. 6. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 7. Lousiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Public Health, Louisiana Tumor Registry, New Orleans, Louisiana. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California-Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. 9. Cancer Epidemiology Services, New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, New Jersey. 10. Rutgers School of Public Health and Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 11. Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was a National Institutes of Health-funded initiative to develop measures of symptoms and function. Responsiveness is the degree to which a measure can detect underlying changes over time. The objective of the current study was to document the responsiveness of 8 PROMIS measures in a large, population-based cancer cohort. METHODS: The Measuring Your Health study recruited 2968 patients who were diagnosed with 1 of 7 cancers between 2010 and 2012 through 4 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. Participants completed a baseline survey (6-13 months after diagnosis) and a 6-month follow-up survey. Changes in 8 PROMIS scores were compared with global ratings of transition, changes in performance status, and clinical events. RESULTS: Measures were responsive to 6-month declines and improvements in performance status with small to large effect sizes (ES) (Cohen d = 0.34-0.71; P < .01). Mean changes and effect sizes were larger for participants who reported declines compared with those who reported improvements. Small-to-medium ES were observed in patients who reported being "a little" worse (d = 0.31-0.56), and medium-to-large ES were observed in those who reported being "a lot" worse (d = 0.53-0.72). Hospitalized participants reported significant score increases, resulting in worsening of pain (d = 0.51), fatigue (d = 0.35), and depression (d = 0.57; all P < .01). Cancer recurrence and progression were associated with smaller increases in pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance (d = 0.22-0.27). CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that all 8 PROMIS measures were sensitive to patient-perceived worsening and improvement and to major clinical events. These findings will be able to inform the design and interpretation of future research studies and clinical initiatives administering PROMIS measures. Cancer 2017;123:327-335.
BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was a National Institutes of Health-funded initiative to develop measures of symptoms and function. Responsiveness is the degree to which a measure can detect underlying changes over time. The objective of the current study was to document the responsiveness of 8 PROMIS measures in a large, population-based cancer cohort. METHODS: The Measuring Your Health study recruited 2968 patients who were diagnosed with 1 of 7 cancers between 2010 and 2012 through 4 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. Participants completed a baseline survey (6-13 months after diagnosis) and a 6-month follow-up survey. Changes in 8 PROMIS scores were compared with global ratings of transition, changes in performance status, and clinical events. RESULTS: Measures were responsive to 6-month declines and improvements in performance status with small to large effect sizes (ES) (Cohen d = 0.34-0.71; P < .01). Mean changes and effect sizes were larger for participants who reported declines compared with those who reported improvements. Small-to-medium ES were observed in patients who reported being "a little" worse (d = 0.31-0.56), and medium-to-large ES were observed in those who reported being "a lot" worse (d = 0.53-0.72). Hospitalized participants reported significant score increases, resulting in worsening of pain (d = 0.51), fatigue (d = 0.35), and depression (d = 0.57; all P < .01). Cancer recurrence and progression were associated with smaller increases in pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance (d = 0.22-0.27). CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that all 8 PROMIS measures were sensitive to patient-perceived worsening and improvement and to major clinical events. These findings will be able to inform the design and interpretation of future research studies and clinical initiatives administering PROMIS measures. Cancer 2017;123:327-335.
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
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
Authors: Roxanne E Jensen; Arnold L Potosky; Carol M Moinpour; Tania Lobo; David Cella; Elizabeth A Hahn; David Thissen; Ashley Wilder Smith; Jaeil Ahn; George Luta; Bryce B Reeve Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Benjamin D Schalet; Patrick Janulis; Michele D Kipke; Brian Mustanski; Steven Shoptaw; Richard Moore; Marianna Baum; Soyeon Kim; Suzanne Siminski; Amy Ragsdale; Pamina M Gorbach Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2020-11
Authors: Leigh E Charvet; Bryan Dobbs; Michael T Shaw; Marom Bikson; Abhishek Datta; Lauren B Krupp Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Angela M Stover; Daniel F Storfer; Rebecca M Saracino; Thomas A D'Agostino; Denise Pergolizzi; Konstantina Matsoukas; Yuelin Li; Ethan Basch Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Thi Xuan Mai Tran; Jungeun Park; Joonki Lee; Yuh-Seog Jung; Yoonjung Chang; Hyunsoon Cho Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Aasha I Hoogland; Hyo Sook Han; Eva Culakova; Charles Heckler; Michelle Janelsins; Geoffrey C Williams; Julienne Bower; Stephen Cole; Zeruesenay Desta; Margarita Bobonis Babilonia; Gary Morrow; Luke Peppone Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Phillip A Ianni; David S Tulsky; Tracey A Brickell; Rael T Lange; Louis M French; David Cella; Michael A Kallen; Jennifer A Miner; Anna L Kratz Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Theresa Coles; Antonia V Bennett; Xianming Tan; Claudio L Battaglini; Hanna K Sanoff; Ethan Basch; Roxanne E Jensen; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 3.603