4.5 Article

Minimal important differences of EORTC QLQ-C30 for metastatic breast cancer patients: Results from a randomized clinical trial

Journal

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 1829-1836

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-021-03074-y

Keywords

Anchoring; EORTC QLQ-C30; Health-related quality of life; Minimal important difference; Patient-reported outcomes

Funding

  1. Comprehensive Support Project for Oncology Research (CSPOR) of the Public Health Research Foundation
  2. Taiho Pharmaceutical Company Limited

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to establish minimal important differences (MIDs) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Using data from a randomized clinical trial, we estimated MIDs for 8 scales of the QLQ-C30. Patient-reported anchors were found to be more sensitive to early changes in health status.
Purpose To establish minimal important differences (MIDs) for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Methods The dataset was obtained from the SELECT BC-CONFIRM randomized clinical trial. Anchors obtained from patients (transition items) and clinicians (performance status) were used for anchor-based methods. Anchors obtained through 6 months after starting treatment were used for this analysis. Correlation coefficients of anchor and change in QLQ-C30 and effect size were used to qualify for estimating MIDs. Mean change method and generalized estimating equation were applied to estimate MIDs. Distribution-based methods were used for comparison. Results We analyzed a dataset of 154 metastatic breast cancer patients. MIDs were estimated in 8 of 15 scales of QLQ-C30. Estimated MIDs for within-group improvement varied from 7 to 15 and those for deterioration varied from - 7 to - 17. Estimated MIDs for between-group improvement varied from 5 to 11 and those for deterioration varied from - 5 to - 8 across QLQ-C30 scales. Patient-reported anchors were more susceptible to early changes in health status than clinician-reported anchors. Conclusion We provided the MIDs of the QLQ-C30 using both patient- and clinicians-reported anchors measured in a randomized trial of Japanese patients with metastatic breast cancer. We recommend patient-reported anchors for anchor-based estimation of MID. Our results can aid patients and clinicians, as well as researchers, in the interpretation of QLQ-C30.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available