Bronwen E Shaw1, Karen L Syrjala2, Lynn E Onstad2, Eric J Chow3, Mary E Flowers2, Heather Jim4, K Scott Baker2, Sarah Buckley5, Diane L Fairclough6, Mary M Horowitz1, Stephanie J Lee2. 1. Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 2. Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 3. Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 4. Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 5. Hematology/Oncology Fellowship Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 6. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) survivors are well characterized with established measures; however, there is little experience with the new, freely available Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in this population. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the PROMIS measures in the HCT setting with the performance of the commonly used 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). METHODS: Adult HCT survivors from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (n = 4446) were mailed a survey that included the following as part of an annual follow-up survey: the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Global Health (PROMIS-GH; 10 questions), the 29-Item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Profile (PROMIS-29), and the SF-36. RESULTS: Both the SF-36 and PROMIS measures were available for 1634 HCT recipients (503 autologous recipients and 1131 allogeneic recipients). The overall response rate was 46%. The median time after transplantation for allogeneic and autologous recipients was 12.0 years (range, 0.4-44.1 years) and 6.1 years (range, 0.4-30.1 years), respectively. With the SF-36 or PROMIS-GH, overall physical functioning was somewhat lower in comparison with the general population, but mental functioning was similar. Component and domain scores with similar contents were strongly correlated by Pearson correlation coefficients: the Global Health-Physical and SF-36 Physical Component Summary scores for autologous (r = 0.82) and allogeneic recipients (r = 0.83) and the PROMIS-29 and SF-36 physical function, pain, and vitality/fatigue scores for allogeneic (0.87, -0.82, and -0.82, respectively) and autologous recipients (0.84, -0.82, and -0.81, respectively). The correlation between the Global Health-Mental and SF-36 Mental Component Summary scores was lower (0.70 for autologous recipients and 0.72 for allogeneic recipients). CONCLUSIONS: Physical and mental symptoms and function in autologous and allogeneic HCT survivors can be adequately assessed with PROMIS-29 and PROMIS-GH. Cancer 2018;124:841-9.
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcomes for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) survivors are well characterized with established measures; however, there is little experience with the new, freely available Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in this population. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the PROMIS measures in the HCT setting with the performance of the commonly used 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). METHODS: Adult HCT survivors from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (n = 4446) were mailed a survey that included the following as part of an annual follow-up survey: the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Global Health (PROMIS-GH; 10 questions), the 29-Item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Profile (PROMIS-29), and the SF-36. RESULTS: Both the SF-36 and PROMIS measures were available for 1634 HCT recipients (503 autologous recipients and 1131 allogeneic recipients). The overall response rate was 46%. The median time after transplantation for allogeneic and autologous recipients was 12.0 years (range, 0.4-44.1 years) and 6.1 years (range, 0.4-30.1 years), respectively. With the SF-36 or PROMIS-GH, overall physical functioning was somewhat lower in comparison with the general population, but mental functioning was similar. Component and domain scores with similar contents were strongly correlated by Pearson correlation coefficients: the Global Health-Physical and SF-36 Physical Component Summary scores for autologous (r = 0.82) and allogeneic recipients (r = 0.83) and the PROMIS-29 and SF-36 physical function, pain, and vitality/fatigue scores for allogeneic (0.87, -0.82, and -0.82, respectively) and autologous recipients (0.84, -0.82, and -0.81, respectively). The correlation between the Global Health-Mental and SF-36 Mental Component Summary scores was lower (0.70 for autologous recipients and 0.72 for allogeneic recipients). CONCLUSIONS: Physical and mental symptoms and function in autologous and allogeneic HCT survivors can be adequately assessed with PROMIS-29 and PROMIS-GH. Cancer 2018;124:841-9.
Keywords:
36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36); Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS); convergent validity; hematopoietic cell transplantation; patient-reported outcomes; quality of life
Authors: John R Wingard; I-Chan Huang; Kathleen A Sobocinski; Michael A Andrykowski; David Cella; J Douglas Rizzo; Marianne Brady; Mary M Horowitz; Michelle M Bishop Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: William A Wood; Allison M Deal; Amy Abernethy; Ethan Basch; Claudio Battaglini; Yoon Hie Kim; Julia Whitley; Charlotte Shatten; Jon Serody; Thomas Shea; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2012-12-16 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Antonia V Bennett; Bryce B Reeve; Ethan M Basch; Sandra A Mitchell; Mathew Meeneghan; Claudio L Battaglini; Abbie E Smith-Ryan; Brett Phillips; Thomas C Shea; William A Wood Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Julie M Cessna; Heather S L Jim; Steven K Sutton; Yasmin Asvat; Brent J Small; John M Salsman; Babu Zachariah; Mayer Fishman; Teresa Field; Hugo Fernandez; Lia Perez; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Jacquelyn S Pennings; Clinton J Devin; Inamullah Khan; Mohamad Bydon; Anthony L Asher; Kristin R Archer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Maria Papaleontiou; Josh M Evron; Nazanene H Esfandiari; David Reyes-Gastelum; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Francis Worden; Megan R Haymart Journal: Thyroid Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Christopher A Barnes; Nicole L Stout; Thomas K Varghese; Cornelia M Ulrich; Daniel R Couriel; Catherine J Lee; Christopher S Noren; Paul C LaStayo Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2020-03-10