4.6 Article

Estimating Clinically Meaningful Changes for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate: Results from a Clinical Trial of Patients with Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer

期刊

VALUE IN HEALTH
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 124-129

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00409.x

关键词

clinically meaningful change; heath-related quality of life; minimally important difference; prostate cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To determine clinically meaningful changes (CMCs) for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). We obtained data from a Phase III trial of atrasentan in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients (n = 809). We determined anchor-based differences using Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP), hemoglobin, time to disease progression (TTP), adverse events (AE), and survival. One-third and one-half standard deviation and standard error of measurement (SEM) were used as distribution-based criteria for CMCs. Comparison across baseline FACT-P domains and derived scales [FACT-P total score, Trial Outcome Index (TOI) score, prostate cancer subscale (PCS) score, pain-related score, and FACT Advanced Prostate Symptom Index (FAPSI)] were conducted for KPS, BAP, and hemoglobin using Student's t tests. Twelve-week change scores were compared for TTP, AE, and survival using ANCOVA. CMCs were estimated as 6 to 10 for FACT-P total score, 5 to 9 for FACT-P TOI score, 2 to 3 for FACT-P PCS, 1 to 2 for the 4 PCS pain-related questions, and 2 to 3 for FAPSI. CMCs were also estimated using distribution-based criteria. Kappa statistics were computed to determine the degree of correspondence between the recommended guideline of 1.0 SEM and empirically derived standards. Most of the kappas for health-related quality of life domains and SEM standards had substantial to almost perfect concordance. The significant relationship between clinical and quality of life data provides support for the use of CMCs to increase interpretability of FACT-P scores.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据