Fiona Yeo1, Chiu Chin Ng1, Kiley W J Loh2, Alex Molassiotis3, Hui Lin Cheng3, Joseph S K Au4, Kwun To Leung4, Yu Chung Li4, Kam-Hung Wong4, Lorna Suen3, Choi Wan Chan3, Janelle Yorke5, Carole Farrell5, Aishwarya Bandla6, Emily Ang7, Violeta Lopez7, Raghav Sundar8,9,10, Alexandre Chan11. 1. Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore, Blk S4A Level 3, 18 Science Drive 4, Singapore, 117543, Singapore. 2. Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 3. School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, SAR, China. 4. Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, SAR, China. 5. Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 6. Singapore Institute for Neurotechnology (SINAPSE), Singapore, Singapore. 7. Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 8. Department of Haematology-Oncology, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore. raghav_sundar@nuhs.edu.sg. 9. National University Cancer Institute, Singapore, Singapore. raghav_sundar@nuhs.edu.sg. 10. National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. raghav_sundar@nuhs.edu.sg. 11. Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore, Blk S4A Level 3, 18 Science Drive 4, Singapore, 117543, Singapore. phaac@nus.edu.sg.
Abstract
CONTEXT/ OBJECTIVES: This is the first study to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-CIPN twenty-item scale (EORTC QLQ-CIPN20), a validated instrument designed to elicit cancer patients' experience of symptoms and functional limitations related to chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: Cancer patients receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy completed EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity [FACT/GOG-NTX] at baseline, second cycle of chemotherapy (T2, n = 287), and 12 months after chemotherapy (T3, n = 191). Anchor-based approach used the validated FACT/GOG-NTX neurotoxicity (Ntx) subscale to identify optimal MCID cutoff for deterioration. Distribution-based approach used one-third standard deviation (SD), half SD, and one standard error of measurement of the total EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 score. RESULTS: There was a moderate correlation between the change scores of the Ntx subscale and sensory and motor subscales of QLQ-CIPN20 (T2: r = - 0.722, p < 0.001 and r = - 0.518, p < 0.001, respectively; T3: r = - 0.699; p < 0.001 and r = - 0.523, p < 0.001, respectively). The correlation between the change scores of the Ntx subscale and the QLQ-CIPN20 autonomic subscale was poor (T2: r = - 0.354, p < 0.001; T3: r = 0.286, p < 0.001). Based on the MCID derived using distribution-based method, the MCID for the QLQ-CIPN20 sensory subscale was 2.5-5.9 (6.9% to 16.4% of the subdomain score) and for motor subscale was 2.6-5.0 (8.1%-15.6% of the subdomain score). CONCLUSION: The MCID for the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 established using distribution-based approaches was 2.5-5.9 for the sensory subscale and 2.6-5.0 for the motor subscale. When noted in assessments even with small change in scores, clinicians can be alerted for appropriate intervention.
CONTEXT/ OBJECTIVES: This is the first study to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-CIPN twenty-item scale (EORTC QLQ-CIPN20), a validated instrument designed to elicit cancer patients' experience of symptoms and functional limitations related to chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: Cancer patients receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy completed EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity [FACT/GOG-NTX] at baseline, second cycle of chemotherapy (T2, n = 287), and 12 months after chemotherapy (T3, n = 191). Anchor-based approach used the validated FACT/GOG-NTX neurotoxicity (Ntx) subscale to identify optimal MCID cutoff for deterioration. Distribution-based approach used one-third standard deviation (SD), half SD, and one standard error of measurement of the total EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 score. RESULTS: There was a moderate correlation between the change scores of the Ntx subscale and sensory and motor subscales of QLQ-CIPN20 (T2: r = - 0.722, p < 0.001 and r = - 0.518, p < 0.001, respectively; T3: r = - 0.699; p < 0.001 and r = - 0.523, p < 0.001, respectively). The correlation between the change scores of the Ntx subscale and the QLQ-CIPN20 autonomic subscale was poor (T2: r = - 0.354, p < 0.001; T3: r = 0.286, p < 0.001). Based on the MCID derived using distribution-based method, the MCID for the QLQ-CIPN20 sensory subscale was 2.5-5.9 (6.9% to 16.4% of the subdomain score) and for motor subscale was 2.6-5.0 (8.1%-15.6% of the subdomain score). CONCLUSION: The MCID for the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 established using distribution-based approaches was 2.5-5.9 for the sensory subscale and 2.6-5.0 for the motor subscale. When noted in assessments even with small change in scores, clinicians can be alerted for appropriate intervention.
Authors: E A Calhoun; E E Welshman; C-H Chang; J R Lurain; D A Fishman; T L Hunt; D Cella Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2003 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: G Cavaletti; D R Cornblath; I S J Merkies; T J Postma; E Rossi; B Frigeni; P Alberti; J Bruna; R Velasco; A A Argyriou; H P Kalofonos; D Psimaras; D Ricard; A Pace; E Galiè; C Briani; C Dalla Torre; C G Faber; R I Lalisang; W Boogerd; D Brandsma; S Koeppen; J Hense; D Storey; S Kerrigan; A Schenone; S Fabbri; M G Valsecchi; A Mazzeo; A Pace; A Pessino; A Schenone; A Toscano; A A Argyriou; B Brouwer; B Frigeni; B Piras; C Briani; C Dalla Torre; C Dominguez Gonzalez; C G Faber; C Tomasello; D Binda; D Brandsma; D Cortinovis; D Psimaras; D Ricard; D Storey; D R Cornblath; E Galiè; E Lindeck Pozza; E Rossi; E K Vanhoutte; F Lanzani; F Pastorelli; G Altavilla; G Cavaletti; G Granata; H P Kalofonos; I Ghignotti; I S J Merkies; J Bruna; J Hense; J J Heimans; L Mattavelli; L Padua; L Reni; M Bakkers; M Boogerd; M Campagnolo; M Cazzaniga; M Eurelings; M Leandri; M Lucchetta; M Penas Prado; M Russo; M G Valsecchi; M L Piatti; P Alberti; P Bidoli; R Grant; R Plasmati; R Velasco; R I Lalisang; R J Meijer; S Fabbri; S G Dorsey; S Galimberti; S Kerrigan; S Koeppen; T J Postma; W Boogerd; W Grisold Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Deirdre R Pachman; James C Watson; Maryam B Lustberg; Nina D Wagner-Johnston; Alexandre Chan; Larry Broadfield; Yin Ting Cheung; Christopher Steer; Dawn J Storey; Kavita D Chandwani; Judith Paice; Pascal Jean-Pierre; Jeong Oh; Jayesh Kamath; Marie Fallon; Herwig Strik; Susanne Koeppen; Charles L Loprinzi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-05-31 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Ellen M Lavoie Smith; Robert Knoerl; James J Yang; Grace Kanzawa-Lee; Deborah Lee; Celia M Bridges Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2018 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: Cynthia S Bonhof; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Dareczka K Wasowicz; Laurens V Beerepoot; Gerard Vreugdenhil; Floortje Mols Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Tiffany Li; Susanna B Park; Eva Battaglini; Madeleine T King; Matthew C Kiernan; David Goldstein; Claudia Rutherford Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Marlou-Floor Kenkhuis; Eline H van Roekel; Janna L Koole; José J L Breedveld-Peters; Stéphanie O Breukink; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Eric T P Keulen; Fränzel J B van Duijnhoven; Floortje Mols; Matty P Weijenberg; Martijn J L Bours Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Marlou-Floor Kenkhuis; Floortje Mols; Eline H van Roekel; José J L Breedveld-Peters; Stéphanie O Breukink; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Eric T P Keulen; Fränzel J B van Duijnhoven; Matty P Weijenberg; Martijn J L Bours Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 6.639