Dataset Information

Establishing anchor-based minimally important differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in glioma patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Minimally important differences (MIDs) allow interpretation of the clinical relevance of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results. This study aimed to estimate MIDs for all European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) scales for interpreting group-level results in brain tumor patients.

Methods

Clinical and HRQOL data from three glioma trials were used. Clinical anchors were selected for each EORTC QLQ-C30 scale, based on correlation (>0.30) and clinical plausibility of association. Changes in both HRQOL and the anchors were calculated, and for each scale and time period, patients were categorized into one of the three clinical change groups: deteriorated by one anchor category, no change, or improved by one anchor category. Mean change method and linear regression were applied to estimate MIDs for interpreting within-group change and between-group differences in change over time, respectively. Distribution-based methods were applied to generate supportive evidence.

Results

A total of 1687 patients were enrolled in the three trials. The retained anchors were performance status and eight Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales. MIDs for interpreting within-group change ranged from 4 to 12 points for improvement and -4 to -14 points for deterioration. MIDs for between-group difference in change ranged from 4 to 9 for improvement and -4 to -16 for deterioration. Most anchor-based MIDs were closest to the 0.3 SD distribution-based estimates (range: 3-10).

Conclusions

MIDs for the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales generally ranged between 4 and 11 points for both within-group mean change and between-group mean difference in change. These results can be used to interpret QLQ-C30 results from glioma trials.

SUBMITTER: Dirven L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8328025 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:As patient assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in cancer clinical trials has increased over the years, so has the need to attach meaningful interpretations to differences in HRQOL scores between groups and changes within groups. Determining what represents a minimally important difference (MID) in HRQOL scores is useful to clinicians, patients and researchers, and can be used as a benchmark for assessing the success of a healthcare intervention. Our objective is to provide an evidence-based protocol to determine MIDs for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). We will mainly focus on MID estimation for group-level comparisons. Responder thresholds for individual-level change will also be estimated.Data will be derived from published phase II and III EORTC trials that used the QLQ-C30 instrument, covering several cancer sites. We will use individual patient data to estimate MIDs for different cancer sites separately. Focus is on anchor-based methods. Anchors will be selected per disease site from available data. A disease-oriented and methodological panel will provide independent guidance on anchor selection. We aim to construct multiple clinical anchors per QLQ-C30 scale and also to compare with several anchor-based methods. The effects of covariates, for example, gender, age, disease stage and so on, will also be investigated. We will examine how our estimated MIDs compare with previously published guidelines, hence further contributing to robust MID guidelines for the EORTC QLQ-C30.All patient data originate from completed clinical trials with mandatory written informed consent, approved by local ethical committees. Our findings will be presented at scientific conferences, disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and also compiled in a MID 'blue book' which will be made available online on the EORTC Quality of Life Group website as a free guideline document.

Project description:In oncology, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data are often collected using disease-specific patient questionnaires while generic, patient-level utility data required for health economic modeling are often not collected.We developed a mapping algorithm for multiple myeloma that relates HRQoL scores from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 to a utility value from the European QoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Data were obtained from 154 multiple myeloma patients who had participated in a multicenter cohort study in the UK or Germany. All three questionnaires were administered at a single time point. Scores from all 19 domains of the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 instruments were univariately tested against EQ-5D values and retained in a multivariate regression model if statistically significant. A 10-fold cross-validation model selection method was also used as an alternative testing means. Two models were developed: one based on QLQ-C30 plus QLQ-MY20 scores and one based on QLQ-C30 scores alone. Adjusted R-squared, correlation coefficients, and plots of observed versus predicted EQ-5D values were presented for both models.Mapping revealed that Global Health Status/QoL, Physical Functioning, Pain, and Insomnia were significant predictors of EQ-5D utility values. Similar results were observed when QLQ-MY20 scores were excluded from the model, except that Emotional Functioning and became a significant predictor and Insomnia was no longer a significant predictor. Adjusted R-squared values were of similar magnitude with or without inclusion of QLQ-MY20 scores (0.70 and 0.69, respectively), suggesting that the EORTC QLQ-MY20 adds little in terms of predicting utility values in multiple myeloma.This algorithm successfully mapped EORTC HRQoL data onto EQ-5D utility in patients with multiple myeloma. Current mapping will aid in the analysis of cost-effectiveness of novel therapies for this indication.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 is a widely used cancer-specific questionnaire assessing 15 domains of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Our aim was to facilitate the interpretation of scores on this questionnaire by providing Austrian normative data based on a general population sample. METHODS:The calculation of normative data was based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 data collected from an Austrian general population sample that was part of an international online panel study on the development of European normative data. Data reported herein were stratified and weighted by age and sex. Normative data were calculated for all 15 HRQoL domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30. For precise predictions of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores, a regression model based on sex, age and the presence of health conditions was built. RESULTS:The Austrian sample comprised 1002 Austrian participants (50.1% female, 51.4% when weighted by age and sex based on United Nation statistics). The mean age was 53.7?years (weighted: 47.7?years) and 53.6% (weighted: 47.4%) reported at least one health condition. Men reported better physical (Cohen's d?=?0.17) and emotional (Cohen's d?=?0.17) functioning as well as less fatigue (Cohen's d?=?0.18) and insomnia (Cohen's d?=?0.25) compared with women. Younger individuals (<?40?years) reported less dyspnea (Cohen's d?=?0.61) and pain (Cohen's d?=?0.51), whereas older individuals (?60?years) reported better emotional functioning (Cohen's d?=?0.55). CONCLUSIONS:We present Austrian normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Differences by age and sex are mostly in line with the findings of other European normative studies. The Austrian population sample shows higher HRQoL and lower morbidity compared with other European countries. The normative data in this study will facilitate the interpretation of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in oncological practice and research at a national and international level (including cross-cultural comparisons).

Project description:BackgroundParoxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare, life-threatening terminal-complement-mediated disease resulting in intravascular hemolysis and thrombosis with significant morbidity and premature mortality. There exists no disease-specific quality-of-life (QOL) measure for PNH. Its QOL effects resemble those of hematologic cancers, which supports the use of cancer-specific QOL measures in PNH clinical trials. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 has published norms for many European and North American countries, but not for Asian countries. We investigated differences by Asian ethnicity in scores and item function on the EORTC QLQ-C30.MethodsThis secondary analysis focused on two non-inferiority PNH trials (301 and 302) comparing eculizumab and ravulizumab (n = 441). Analysis of covariance examined the main effect of Asian ethnicity on baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 scores, after adjusting for propensity scores encompassing trial, demographic and clinical factors. Mixed modeling of longitudinal data compared subscale scores in Asian vs. non-Asian patients, after propensity adjustment. Differential item function (DIF) was examined using ordinal regression models at baseline and longitudinally, to predict item score from total score, ethnicity, and their interaction to test for uniform DIF (significant main effect for Asian) and non-uniform DIF (significant Asian-by-total-score interaction).ResultsOf the 15 baseline domains, Asian patients scored slightly better on role and emotional functioning and slightly worse on constipation and diarrhea (0.22 < Cohen's d < 0.36). In longitudinal models, Asians reported slightly higher appetite loss, diarrhea, and financial difficulties than non-Asians (R2 increment < 0.0005). There was negligible uniform and non-uniform DIF, i.e., R2 0 to 0.018, far below Zumbo's (1999) criterion of 0.13. On average there were larger differences from norms for Asians (mean = 0.05, sd = 0.44) than non-Asians (mean = -0.07, sd = 0.36), but the size and direction of the differences varied considerably by domain, age, and gender.ConclusionWhen compared to norms, Asian patients showed no systematic biases. DIF results supported this finding. We conclude that Asian ethnicity does not impact interpretation of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores.