Alexandre Chan1, Tiffany Eri Yo2, Xiao Jun Wang3, Terence Ng3, Jung-Woo Chae3, Hui Ling Yeo2, Maung Shwe2, Yan Xiang Gan4. 1. Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Department of Pharmacy, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore. Electronic address: phaac@nus.edu.sg. 2. Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 3. Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Department of Pharmacy, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore. 4. Department of Pharmacy, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-Short Form (MFSI-SF), a questionnaire that measures cancer-related fatigue, has not been established in patients with cancer. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the MCID of the MFSI-SF. METHODS: Breast cancer patients completed the MFSI-SF and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30) before chemotherapy and at least three weeks later. The EORTC-QLQ-C30 fatigue scale (EORTC-FA) was used as an anchor, and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was also used to identify the optimal MCID cut-off for fatigue deterioration. A distribution-based approach used one-third of the SD, half of the SD, and one SEM of the total MFSI-SF score to determine the MCID. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were analyzed. Change scores of the MFSI-SF and EORTC-FA were moderately correlated (r = 0.47, P < 0.001). The EORTC-FA-anchored MCID was 8.69 points (95% CI: 4.03-13.34). The MCID attained from the ROC curve method was 4.50 points (sensitivity: 68.8%; specificity: 64.1%). For the distribution-based approach, the MCIDs corresponding to one-third of the SD, half of the SD, and one SEM were 5.39, 8.99, and 10.79 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: The MCID of the MFSI-SF identified by all approaches ranged from 4.50 to 10.79 points. The MCID can be used to interpret the clinical significance of fatigue deterioration in patients with breast cancer and to determine sample sizes for future clinical trials.
CONTEXT: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-Short Form (MFSI-SF), a questionnaire that measures cancer-related fatigue, has not been established in patients with cancer. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the MCID of the MFSI-SF. METHODS:Breast cancerpatients completed the MFSI-SF and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30) before chemotherapy and at least three weeks later. The EORTC-QLQ-C30 fatigue scale (EORTC-FA) was used as an anchor, and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was also used to identify the optimal MCID cut-off for fatigue deterioration. A distribution-based approach used one-third of the SD, half of the SD, and one SEM of the total MFSI-SF score to determine the MCID. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were analyzed. Change scores of the MFSI-SF and EORTC-FA were moderately correlated (r = 0.47, P < 0.001). The EORTC-FA-anchored MCID was 8.69 points (95% CI: 4.03-13.34). The MCID attained from the ROC curve method was 4.50 points (sensitivity: 68.8%; specificity: 64.1%). For the distribution-based approach, the MCIDs corresponding to one-third of the SD, half of the SD, and one SEM were 5.39, 8.99, and 10.79 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: The MCID of the MFSI-SF identified by all approaches ranged from 4.50 to 10.79 points. The MCID can be used to interpret the clinical significance of fatigue deterioration in patients with breast cancer and to determine sample sizes for future clinical trials.
Keywords:
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30; Minimal clinically important difference; Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-Short Form; breast cancer
Authors: Fiona Yeo; Chiu Chin Ng; Kiley W J Loh; Alex Molassiotis; Hui Lin Cheng; Joseph S K Au; Kwun To Leung; Yu Chung Li; Kam-Hung Wong; Lorna Suen; Choi Wan Chan; Janelle Yorke; Carole Farrell; Aishwarya Bandla; Emily Ang; Violeta Lopez; Raghav Sundar; Alexandre Chan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: AnnaLynn M Williams; Carly Paterson Khan; Charles E Heckler; Debra L Barton; Mary Ontko; Jodi Geer; Amber S Kleckner; Shaker Dakhil; Jerry Mitchell; Karen M Mustian; Luke J Peppone; Victor Kipnis; Charles S Kamen; Ann M O'Mara; Michelle C Janelsins Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Alexandre Chan; Claire Lew; Xiao Jun Wang; Terence Ng; Jung-Woo Chae; Hui Ling Yeo; Maung Shwe; Yan Xiang Gan Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 3.186
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: Yi Long Toh; Chia Jie Tan; Angie Hui Ling Yeo; Maung Shwe; Han Kiat Ho; Yan Xiang Gan; Koon Mian Foo; Pat Chu; Karin Olson; Alexandre Chan Journal: J Cell Mol Med Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 5.310
Authors: Julia E Inglis; Amber S Kleckner; Po-Ju Lin; Nikesha J Gilmore; Eva Culakova; Amy C VanderWoude; Karen M Mustian; I Diana Fernandez; Richard F Dunne; Jeremy Deutsch; Luke J Peppone Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 2.900