Determining Clinically Important Differences in Health-related Quality of Life in Older Patients with Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy or Surgery

Overview

Journal Qual Life Res

Specialties Pharmacology
Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2018 Dec 5

PMID 30511255

Citations 9

Authors

C Quinten

C Kenis

L Decoster

P R Debruyne

I De Groof

C Focan

F Cornelis

V Verschaeve

C Bachmann

D Bron

S Luce

G Debugne

H Van Den Bulck

J C Goeminne

A Baitar

K Geboers

B Petit

C Langenaeken

R Van Rijswijk

P Specenier

G Jerusalem

J P Praet

K Vandenborre

M Lycke

J Flamaing

K Milisen

J P Lobelle

H Wildiers

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Using the EORTC Global Health Status (GHS) scale, we aimed to determine minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) changes for older cancer patients with a geriatric risk profile, as defined by the geriatric 8 (G8) health screening tool, undergoing treatment. Simultaneously, we assessed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes.

Methods: Our analysis included 1424 (G8 ≤ 14) older patients with cancer scheduled to receive chemotherapy (n = 683) or surgery (n = 741). Anchor-based methods, linking the GHS score to clinical indicators, were used to determine MCID between baseline and follow-up at 3 months. A threshold of 0.2 standard deviation (SD) was used to exclude MCID estimates too small for interpretation. Logistic regressions analysed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes.

Results: The 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS15), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Fatigue and ECOG Performance Status (PS) were selected as clinical anchors. In the surgery group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (5*, 11*), GDS15 (5*, 2) and VAS Fatigue (3, 9*). In the chemotherapy group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (8*, 7*), GDS15 (5, 4) and VAS Fatigue (5, 5*). Estimates with * were > 0.2 SD threshold. Patients experiencing pain or malnutrition (surgery group) or fatigue (chemotherapy group) at baseline showed a significantly stable or improved HRQOL (p < 0.05) after their treatment.

Conclusion: The reported MCID for improvement and deterioration depended on the anchor used and treatment received. The estimates can be used to evaluate significant changes in HRQOL and to determine sample sizes in clinical trials.

Citing Articles

Effectiveness of geriatric rehabilitation in inpatient and day hospital settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wong E, Hoang P, Kouri A, Gill S, Huang Y, Lee J BMC Med. 2024; 22(1):551.

PMID: 39578865 PMC: 11583748. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03764-7.

Safety and Efficacy of Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Long COVID Patients Experiencing Long-Lasting Symptoms.

Moine E, Molinier V, Castanyer A, Calvat A, Coste G, Vernet A Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024; 21(2).

PMID: 38397731 PMC: 10888408. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21020242.

Assessment of health-related quality of life and its determinants among COVID-19 intensive care unit survivors.

Neelima M, Chivukula S J Family Med Prim Care. 2024; 12(12):3319-3325.

PMID: 38361881 PMC: 10866247. DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_739_23.

Associations of frailty with symptoms, and HRQOL in older cancer survivors after cancer treatments: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

Han C, Rosko A, Spakowicz D, Hammer M, Von Ah D Qual Life Res. 2023; 33(3):583-598.

PMID: 37897643 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-023-03537-4.

Frailty and its association with health-related quality of life among older cancer patients: an evidence-based study from China.

Su M, Yao N, Shang M, Shen Y, Qin T, Wang J Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2022; 20(1):124.

PMID: 35986354 PMC: 9389706. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-022-02032-7.

References

Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman M, Williams G, Lipscomb J, Matchar D . Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999; 15(2):141-55. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199915020-00003. View

Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh P . "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975; 12(3):189-98. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6. View

Cella D, Eton D, Lai J, Peterman A, Merkel D . Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003; 24(6):547-61. DOI: 10.1016/s0885-3924(02)00529-8. View

Norman G, Sloan J, Wyrwich K . Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003; 41(5):582-92. DOI: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C. View

Jensen M, Chen C, Brugger A . Interpretation of visual analog scale ratings and change scores: a reanalysis of two clinical trials of postoperative pain. J Pain. 2003; 4(7):407-14. DOI: 10.1016/s1526-5900(03)00716-8. View

Vinkers D, Gussekloo J, Stek M, Westendorp R, van der Mast R . The 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) detects changes in depressive symptoms after a major negative life event. The Leiden 85-plus Study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004; 19(1):80-4. DOI: 10.1002/gps.1043. View

Eton D, Cella D, Yost K, Yount S, Peterman A, Neuberg D . A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004; 57(9):898-910. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.01.012. View

Oort F, Visser M, Sprangers M . An application of structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change in quality of life data from cancer patients undergoing invasive surgery. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14(3):599-609. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-0831-x. View

Wedding U, Rohrig B, Klippstein A, Brix C, Pientka L, Hoffken K . Co-morbidity and functional deficits independently contribute to quality of life before chemotherapy in elderly cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2007; 15(9):1097-104. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-007-0228-9. View

10.

Ringash J, OSullivan B, Bezjak A, Redelmeier D . Interpreting clinically significant changes in patient-reported outcomes. Cancer. 2007; 110(1):196-202. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22799. View

11.

Revicki D, Hays R, Cella D, Sloan J . Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(2):102-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012. View

12.

Kane R . The clinical significance of statistical significance. Oncologist. 2008; 13(11):1129-33. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0186. View

13.

Tashjian R, Deloach J, Porucznik C, Powell A . Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18(6):927-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.021. View

14.

Terwee C, Roorda L, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Peat G, Jordan K . Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 63(5):524-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.010. View

15.

Scott N, Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bottomley A, de Graeff A, Groenvold M . Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses of health-related quality of life instruments using logistic regression. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010; 8:81. PMC: 2924271. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-81. View

16.

Szumilas M . Explaining odds ratios. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010; 19(3):227-9. PMC: 2938757. View

17.

King M . A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011; 11(2):171-84. DOI: 10.1586/erp.11.9. View

18.

Cocks K, King M, Velikova G, de Castro Jr G, Martyn St-James M, Fayers P . 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(11):1713-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.059. View

19.

Bedard G, Zeng L, Lam H, Cella D, Zhang L, Lauzon N . Meaningful change in oncology quality-of-life instruments: a systematic literature review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012; 12(4):475-83. DOI: 10.1586/erp.12.34. View

20.

Bedard G, Zeng L, Zhang L, Lauzon N, Holden L, Tsao M . Minimal important differences in the EORTC QLQ-C30 in patients with advanced cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2013; 10(2):109-17. DOI: 10.1111/ajco.12070. View