Abstract
The Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) instrument has been commonly used in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) to assess mental status in brain cancer patients. Evaluating patient factors in relation to patterns of incomplete MMSE assessments can provide insight into predictors of missingness and optimal MMSE collection schedules in brain cancer clinical trials. This study examined eight RTOG brain cancer trials with ten treatment arms and 1,957 eligible patients. Patient data compliance patterns were categorized as: (1) evaluated at all time points (Complete), (2) not evaluated from a given time point or any subsequent time points but evaluated at all the previous time points (Monotone drop-out), (3) not evaluated at any time point (All missing), and (4) all other patterns (Mixed). Patient characteristics and reasons for missingness were summarized and compared among the missing pattern groups. Baseline MMSE scores and change scores after radiation therapy (RT) were compared between these groups, adjusting for differences in other characteristics. There were significant differences in frequency of missing patterns by age, treatment type, education, and Zubrod performance status (ZPS; P < 0.001). Ninety-two percent of patients were evaluated at least once: seven percent of patients were complete pattern, 49% were Monotone pattern, and 36% were mixed pattern. Patients who received RT only regimens were evaluated at a higher rate than patients who received RT + other treatments (49–64% vs. 27–45%). Institutional error and request to not be contacted were the most frequent known reasons for missing data, but most often, reasons for missing MMSE was unspecified. Differences in baseline mean MMSE scores by missing pattern (Complete, Monotone dropout, Mixed) were statistically significant (P < 0.001) but differences were small (<1.5 points) and significance did not persist after adjustment for age, ZPS, and other factors related to missingness. Post-RT change scores did not differ significantly by missing pattern. While baseline and change scores did not differ widely by missing pattern for available measurements, incomplete data was common and of unknown reason, and has potential to substantially bias conclusions. Higher compliance rates may be achievable by addressing institutional compliance with assessment schedules and patient refusal issues, and further exploration of how educational and health status barriers influence compliance with MMSE and other tools used in modern neurocognitive batteries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Meyers CA, Hess KR (2003) Multifaceted end points in brain tumor clinical trials: cognitive deterioration precedes MRI progression. Neurooncology 5:89–95
Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198
Brown PD, Buckner JC, O’Fallon JR, Iturria NL, O’Neill BP, Brown CA, Scheithauer BW, Dinapoli RP, Arusell RM, Curran WJ, Abrams R, Shaw EG (2003) The effects of radiotherapy on cognitive function in patients with low-grade glioma as measured by the Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination. J Clin Oncol 21:2519–2524
Heitjan DF (1997) What can be done about missing data? Approaches to Imputation. Am J Public Health 847(4):548–549
Staquet M, Berzon R, Osoba D, Machin D (1996) Guidelines for reporting results of quality of life assessments in clinical trials. Qual Life Res 5:496–502
Bernhard J, Cella DF, Coates AS, Fallowpeld L, Ganz PA, Moinpour CM, Mosconi P, Osoba D, Simes J, Hurny C (1998) Missing quality of life data in cancer clinical trials: serious problems and challenges. Stat Med 17:517–532
Regine WF, Schmitt FA, Scott CB, Dearth C, Patchell RA, Nichols RC Jr, Gore EM, Franklin RL III, Suh JH, Mehta MP (2004) Feasibility of neurocognitive outcome evaluations in patients with brain metastases in a multi-institutional cooperative group setting: results of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial BR-0018. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58(5):1346–1352
Little RJA, Rubin DB (2002) Statistical analysis with missing data, 2nd edn. John Wiley, New York
Gunnes N, Seierstad TG, Aamdal S, Brunsvig PF, Jacobsen AB, Sundstrøm S, Aalen OO (2009) Assessing quality of life in a randomized clinical trial: correcting for missing data. BMC Med Res Methodol Apr 9:28
Troxel AB, Fairclough DL, Curran D, Hahn EA (1998) Statistical analysis of quality of life with missing data in cancer clinical trials. Stat Med 17(5–7):653–666
Robins JM, Rotnitzky A, Zhao LP (1995) Analysis of semiparametric regression models for repeated outcomes in the presence of missing data. J Am Stat Assoc 90:106–121
Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM (2000) Generalized linear mixture models for handling nonignorable dropouts in longitudinal studies. Biostatistics 1(2):141–156
Little RJA (1993) Pattern-mixture models for multivariate incomplete data. J Am Stat Assoc 88:125–134
Pauler DK, McCoy S, Moinpour C (2003) Pattern mixture models for longitudinal quality of life studies in advanced stage disease. Stat Med 22(5):795–809
Troxel AB, Harrington DP, Lipsitz SR (1998) Analysis of longitudinal data with non-ignorable non-monotone missing values. Appl Statist 47:425–438
Guo X, Carlin BP (2004) Separate and joint modeling of longitudinal and event time data using standard computer packages. Am Stat 58(1):16–24
Acknowledgments
Supported by RTOG U10 CA21661 and CCOP U10 CA37422 grants from the NCI 2005 PA Department of Health Formula Grant 4100031303.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest with any of the material presented in this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bae, K., Bruner, D.W., Baek, S. et al. Patterns of missing mini mental status exam (MMSE) in radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) brain cancer trials. J Neurooncol 105, 383–395 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-011-0603-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-011-0603-8