Dataset Information

Minimally important differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in prostate cancer clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aim of the study was to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for interpreting group-level change over time, both within a group and between groups, for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with prostate cancer.

Methods

We used data from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors were selected by strength of correlations with QLQ-C30 scales. In addition, clinicians' input was obtained with regard to plausibility of the selected anchors. The mean change method was applied for interpreting change over time within a group of patients and linear regression models were fitted to estimate MIDs for between-group differences in change over time. Distribution-based estimates were also evaluated.

Results

Two clinical anchors were eligible for MID estimation; performance status and the CTCAE diarrhoea domain. MIDs were developed for 7 scales (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, pain, fatigue, global quality of life, diarrhoea) and varied by scale and direction (improvement vs deterioration). Within-group MIDs ranged from 4 to 14 points for improvement and - 13 to - 5 points for deterioration and MIDs for between-group differences in change scores ranged from 3 to 13 for improvement and - 10 to - 5 for deterioration.

Conclusions

Our findings aid the meaningful interpretation of changes on a set of EORTC QLQ-C30 scale scores over time, both within and between groups, and for performing more accurate sample size calculations for clinical trials in prostate cancer.

SUBMITTER: Gamper EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8496068 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe types of outcomes measured collected in clinical studies and those required for cost-effectiveness analysis often differ. Decision makers routinely use quality adjusted life years (QALYs) to compare the benefits and costs of treatments across different diseases and treatments using a common metric. QALYs can be calculated using preference-based measures (PBMs) such as EQ-5D-3L, but clinical studies often focus on objective clinician or laboratory measured outcomes and non-preference-based patient outcomes, such as QLQ-C30. We model the relationship between the generic, preference-based EQ-5D-3L and the cancer specific quality of life questionnaire, QLQ-C30 in patients with breast cancer. This will result in a mapping that allows users to convert QLQ-C30 scores into EQ-5D-3L scores for the purposes of cost-effectiveness analysis or economic evaluation.MethodsWe use data from a randomized trial of 602 patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer provided 3766 EQ-5D-3L observations. Direct mapping using adjusted, limited dependent variable mixture models (ALDVMM) is compared to a random effects linear regression and indirect mapping using seemingly unrelated ordered probit models. EQ-5D-3L was estimated as a function of the summary scales of the QLQ-C30 and other patient characteristics.ResultsA four component mixture model outperformed other models in terms of summary fit statistics. A close fit to the observed data was observed across the range of disease severity. Simulated data from the model closely aligned to the original data and showed that mapping did not significantly underestimate uncertainty. In the simulated data, 22.15% were equal to 1 compared to 21.93% in the original data. Variance was 0.0628 in the simulated data versus 0.0693 in the original data. The preferred mapping is provided in Excel and Stata files for the ease of users.ConclusionA four component adjusted mixture model provides reliable, non-biased estimates of EQ-5D-3L from the QLQ-C30, to link clinical studies to economic evaluation of health technologies for breast cancer. This work adds to a growing body of literature demonstrating the appropriateness of mixture model based approaches in mapping.

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.