Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
In cancer clinical trials, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a major outcome measure. It is generally assessed at specified time intervals by filling out a questionnaire with ordered response categories. Despite recent advances in the statistical methodology for handling ordinal longitudinal outcome data, most users keep treating HRQoL scales as continuous rather than ordinal variables regardless of the number of categories. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of analyzing HRQoL longitudinal data under both approaches, continuous and ordinal.
The EORTC QLQ-C30 scores of two EORTC randomized brain cancer clinical trials (26951 and 26981) were analyzed using the two approaches. In the 26951 trial, a total of 368 patients were randomly assigned to receive either radiotherapy (RT) or the same RT plus procarbazine, CCNU, and vincristine. In the 26981 trial, 573 patients were randomly allocated to RT or RT plus temozolomide. Comparison of the two treatment arms was done using methods for longitudinal quantitative and longitudinal ordinal data. Both statistical methods were adapted to account for missing data and compared in terms of statistical significance of the results (p values) but also with respect to data interpretation.
Three scales, i.e., appetite loss, insomnia, and drowsiness, presenting four response categories ("Not at all", "A little", "Quite a bite", and "Very much") were analyzed in each trial. Both statistical methods (continuous and ordinal) showed statistically significant differences between the two treatments, not only globally but also at the same assessment time points. The magnitude of the p values, however, varied at some time points and was less pronounced in the ordinal approach.
The analysis of the two clinical trials showed that treating the HRQoL scales by a quantitative or an ordinal method did not make much difference as far as statistical significance was concerned. The interpretation of results, however, was easier under the ordinal approach. Treatment effects may be more meaningful when expressed in terms of odds ratios than as mean values, particularly when the number categories is small.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Cox, D. R., & Snell, E. J. (1989). The Analysis of Binary Data (2nd ed.). London: Chapman & Hall.
Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Agresti, A. (2010). Analysis of ordinal categorical data (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. CrossRef
Taphoorn, M. J., Stupp, R., Coens, C., Osoba, D., Kortmann, R., van den Bent, M. J., et al. (2005). Health-related quality of life in patients with glioblastoma: A randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncology, 6(12), 937–944. CrossRef
Taphoorn, M. J., van den Bent, M. J., Mauer, M., Coens, C., Delattre, J. Y., Brandes, A., et al. (2007). Health-related quality of life in patients treated for anaplastic oligodendroglioma with adjuvant chemotherapy: Results of a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25(38), 5723–5730. PubMedCrossRef
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376. PubMedCrossRef
Taphoorn, M. J., Claassens, L., Aaronson, N. K., Coens, C., Mauer, M., Osoba, D., et al. (2010). An international validation study of the EORTC brain cancer module (EORTC QLQ-BN20) for assessing health-related quality of life and symptoms in brain cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer, 46, 1033–1040. PubMedCrossRef
Osoba, D., Aaronson, N. K., Muller, M., Sneeuw, K., Hsu, M. A., Yung, W., et al. (1996). The development and psychometric validation of a brain cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for use in combination with general cancer-specific questionnaires. Quality of Life Research, 5(1), 139–150. PubMedCrossRef
Van den Bent, M. J., Carpentier, A. F., Brandes, A., Sanson, M., Taphoorn, M. J. B., Bernsen, H., et al. (2006). Adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine improves progression-free survival but not overall survival in newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas: A randomized european organisation for research and treatment of cancer phase III trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24, 2715–2722. PubMedCrossRef
Verbeke, G., & Molenberghs, G. (2000). Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. New York: Springer.
McCullagh, P. (1980). Regression models for ordinal data (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 42, 109–142.
Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581–592. CrossRef
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New-York: Wiley.
Donneau, A. F. (2013). Contribution to the statistical analysis of incomplete longitudinal ordinal data. PhD thesis, University of Liège, Belgium.
Rubin, D. B. (1978). Multiple imputation in sample surveys—A phenomenological Bayesian approach to nonresponse. Imputation and Editing of Faulty or Missing Survey Data, Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, pp. 1–32.
Carpenter, J. R., & Kenward, M. G. (2013). Multiple imputation and its application. New York: Wiley. CrossRef
Donneau, A. F., Mauer, M., Molenberghs, G., & Albert, A. (2013). A simulation study comparing multiple imputation methods for incomplete longitudinal ordinal data. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation (in press).
Donneau, A. F., Mauer, M., Lambert P., Molenberghs, G., & Albert, A. (2013). Simulation-based study comparing multiple imputation methods for non-monotone missing ordinal data in longitudinal settings Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics (in press).
Gorlia, T., van den Bent, M. J., Hegi, M. E., Mirimanoff, R. O., Weller, M., Cairncross, J. G., et al. (2008). Nomograms for predicting survival of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: A prognostic factor analysis of EORTC/NCIC trial 26981–22981/CE. The Lancet Oncology, 9, 29–38. PubMedCrossRef
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputations for nonresponse in survey. New York: Wiley. CrossRef
Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2008). EORTC QLQ-C30 reference values. Brussels: EORTC Quality of Life Group Publications.
US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient report outcome measures: use in clinical medical product development to support labelling claims: Draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 79. CrossRef
Sprangers, M. A. G., Cull, A., Bjordal, K., et al., & for the EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. (1994). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer approach to the quality of life (QOL) assessment: Guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. Quality of Life Research, 3, 67–68.
Horton, N., Lipsitz, S., & Parzen, M. (2003). A potential for bias when rounding in multiple imputation. The American Statistician, 57, 229–232. CrossRef
Allison, P. (2005). Imputation of categorical variables with PROC MI. Paper presented at SAS Users Group International, Annual conference, Philadelphia.
- Longitudinal quality of life data: a comparison of continuous and ordinal approaches
A. F. Donneau
- Springer International Publishing