Minimally important differences for interpreting the EORTC QLQ-C30 in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy.
Advanced colorectal cancer
EORTC QLQ-C30
clinical anchors
health-related quality of life (HRQOL)
minimally important difference (MID)
Journal
Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland
ISSN: 1463-1318
Titre abrégé: Colorectal Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100883611
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
11
05
2020
accepted:
28
07
2020
pubmed:
9
8
2020
medline:
20
8
2021
entrez:
9
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) assesses the health-related quality of life of patients in cancer trials. There are currently no minimally important difference (MID) guidelines for the EORTC QLQ-C30 for colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aims to estimate MIDs for the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales in patients with advanced CRC treated with chemotherapy and enrolled in clinical trials. The data were obtained from three published EORTC trials that treated CRC patients using chemotherapy. Potential anchors were selected from clinical variables based on their correlation with EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change and between-group change were estimated via the mean change method and linear regression, respectively, and summarized using weighted correlation. Distribution-based MIDs were also examined. Anchor-based MIDs were determined for deterioration in 8 of the 14 EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and in 9 scales for improvement, and varied by scale, direction of change and anchor. MIDs for improvement (deterioration) ranged from 6 to 18 (-11 to -5) points for within-group change and 5 to 15 (-10 to -4) for between-group change. Summarized MIDs (in absolute values) per scale mostly ranged from 5 to 10 points. These findings have clinical relevance for the interpretation of treatment efficacy and the design of clinical trials by informing sample size requirements.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2278-2287Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.
Références
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61: 69-90.
Young A, Rea D. ABC of colorectal cancer: treatment of advanced disease. BMJ 2000; 321: 1278-81.
Bottomley A, Flechtner H, Efficace F et al. Health related quality of life outcomes in cancer clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 2005; 41: 1697-709.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg131/evidence/full-guideline-pdf-183509680
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Nordlinger B, Arnold D. Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2014; 25(suppl 3): iii1-9.
Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res 2005; 40: 593-7.
King MT. The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 555-67.
Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J et al. Interpreting the significance of changes in health related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 139-44.
Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G et al. Evidence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the european organisation for the research and treatment of cancer quality of life questionnaire core 30. J Clin Oncol 2010; 29: 89-96.
Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G et al. Evidence-based guidelines for interpreting change scores for the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48: 1713-21.
Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D. Sloan J Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 102-9.
Musoro ZJ, Bottomley A, Coens C et al. Interpreting European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 scores as minimally importantly different for patients with malignant melanoma. Eur J Cancer 2018; 104: 169-81.
Maringwa JT, Quinten C, King M et al. Minimal important differences for interpreting health-related quality of life scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 in lung cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials. Support Care Cancer 2011; 19: 1753-60.
Maringwa J, Quinten C, King M et al. Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 2107-12.
Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 861-73.
Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, 2nd edn. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fayers P, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K et al. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring manual (3rd edn). Brussels: EORTC Quality of Life Group, 2001.
Nolte S, Liegl G, Petersen MA et al. General population normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire based on 15,386 persons across 13 European countries, Canada and the Unites States. Eur J Cancer 2019; 107: 153-63.
Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G et al. Quality, interpretation and presentation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire core 30 data in randomised controlled trials. Eur J Cancer 2008; 44: 1793-8.
Musoro J, Coens C, Fiteni F et al. EORTC breast and quality of life groups, minimally important differences for interpreting EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in patients with advanced breast cancer. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2019; 3: pkz037.
King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcome Res. 2011; 11: 171-84.
Musoro ZJ, Hamel J-F, Ediebah DE et al. Establishing anchor-based minimally important differences (MID) with the EORTC quality of life measures: a meta-analysis protocol. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e019117.
Innominato PF, Giacchetti S, Moreau T et al. Prediction of survival by neutropenia according to delivery schedule of oxaliplatin-5-Fluorouracil-leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer in a randomized international trial (EORTC 05963). Chronobiol Int. 2011; 28: 586-600.
Köhne C-H, Wils J, Lorenz M et al. Randomized phase III study of high-dose fluorouracil given as a weekly 24-hour infusion with or without leucovorin versus bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancer: European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Group Study 40952. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3721-8.
Köhne C-H, van Cutsem E, Wils J et al. Phase III study of weekly high-dose infusional fluorouracil plus folinic acid with or without irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Group Study 40986. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4856-65.
Liang KY, Zeger SL. Regression analysis for correlated data. Annu Rev Pub Health 1993; 14: 43-68.
Ying GS, Maguire MG, Glynn R, Rosner B. Tutorial on biostatistics: linear regression analysis of continuous correlated eye data. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2017; 24: 130-40.
Institute Inc. Base SAS® 9.4 Procedures Guide, 2013. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
King MT, Dueck AC, Revicki DA. Can methods developed for interpreting group-level patient-reported outcome data be applied to individual patient management? Med Care 2019; 57(supp 1): S38-45.
Giesinger JM, Kuijpers W, Young T et al. Thresholds for clinical importance for four key domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30: physical functioning, emotional functioning, fatigue and pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016; 14: 87.
Basch E, Dueck AC, Rogak LJ et al. Feasibility assessment of patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events in multicenter cancer clinical trials. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3: 1043-50.