Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 9/2023

29-04-2023

Psychometrics of patient-reported bother from side effects of treatment single-items in industry-sponsored oncology trials

Auteurs: Peter C. Trask, Tracy Holt, Timothy Pearman

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2023

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Background

Improvements in cancer treatment have increased the number of cancer survivors, but also increased the long-term and late effects from cancer therapy. Patient reported “side effect bother” could be used to measure the burden of treatment, and the risk for negative outcomes such as dose reduction, treatment delay or discontinuation. The current study addresses the psychometric properties of a single item, determines what represents a “meaningful change”, and evaluates the correlation to safety endpoints and functioning.

Methods

Results from 5911 patients enrolled in 8 clinical trials representing 5 disease types in oncology and hematology who completed either the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) GP5 item or a modified bother item (MBI) were assessed.

Results

Patients ranged in age from 18 to 93 years, with all cancer stages represented and approximately equal numbers of males and females. Test–retest reliability was acceptable, as were convergent and known groups validity. The GP5 and MBI effectively demonstrated sensitivity to change over time and established meaningful thresholds.

Conclusions

The results indicate that these single-items are psychometrically sound, capable of distinguishing known groups, responsive to change and can identify meaningful change over time in terms of treatment-related symptoms. It extends the findings of recent scientific groups by providing analyses not included in prior studies, and further supports the FDA’s recommendation to include a single item question in clinical trials.
vorige artikel Caregivers of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: who provides care, what care do they provide and what burden do they experience?
volgende artikel Characteristics of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer who access palliative care: An observational study
Literatuur
1.
American Cancer Society. (2022). Cancer facts & figures 2022. American Cancer Society.
2.
Sciotto, F., Py, C., & Tsantoulis, P. (2017). Follow up of the long-term cancer survivor. Revue Médicale Suisse, 13, 1044–1048.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Pearman, T. P., Garcia, S., Penedo, F., Yanez, B., Wagner, L. I., & Cella, D. (2015). Implementation of distress screening in an oncology setting. The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, 13, 423–428.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Schirrmacher, V. (2019). From chemotherapy to biological therapy: A review of novel concepts to reduce the side effects of systemic cancer treatment. International Journal of Oncology, 54, 407–419.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Cheung, W. Y., White, M. K., Bayliss, M. S., Stroupe, A., Lovley, A., King-Kalimannis, B. L., & Lasch, K. (2019). Patient-reported treatment-related symptom burden for patients with advanced melanoma in Canada. Supportive Care in Cancer, 27, 219–227.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Bernhard, J., Maibach, R., Thurlimann, B., Sessa, C., & Aapro, M. S. (2002). Patients’ estimation of overall treatment burden: Why not ask the obvious? Journal of Clinical Oncology., 20(1), 65–72.PubMed
7.
Griffin, A. M., Butow, P. N., Coates, A. S., Childs, A. M., Ellis, P. M., Dunn, S. M., & Tattersall, M. H. (1996). On the receiving end: Patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy in 1993. Annals of Oncology, 7, 189–195.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Portenoy, R. K., Thaler, H. T., Kornblith, A. B., Lepore, J. M., Friedlander-Klar, H., Coyle, N., Smart-Curley, T., Kemeny, N., Norton, L., & Hoskins, W. (1994). Symptom prevalence, characteristics and distress in a cancer population. Quality of Life Research, 3, 183–189.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Slevin, M. L., Plant, H., Lynch, D., Drinkwater, J., & Gregory, W. M. (1988). Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? British Journal of Cancer, 1988(57), 109–112.CrossRef
10.
Sprangers, M. A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1992). The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: A review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 743–760.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Pearman, T. P., Beaumont, J. L., Mroczek, D., O’Connor, M., & Cella, D. (2018). Validity and usefulness of a single-item measure of patient-reported bother from side effects of cancer therapy. Cancer, 124, 991–997.CrossRefPubMed
12.
FDA. (2021, June). Core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials guidance for industry. Draft guidance. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE).
13.
Bennett, B. K., Park, S. B., Lin, C. S., Friedlander, M. L., Kiernan, M. C., & Goldstein, D. (2012). Impact of oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy: A patient perspective. Supportive Care Cancer., 20, 2959–2967.CrossRef
14.
Basch, E., Iasonos, A., McDonough, T., Barz, A., Culkin, A., Kris, M. G., Scher, H. I., & Schrag, D. (2006). Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the national cancer institute common terminology criteria for adverse events: Results of a questionnaire-based study. The lancet Oncology, 7, 903–909.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Nyrop, K. A., Deal, A. M., et al. (2020). Congruence of patient- and clinician-reported toxicity in women receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Cancer, 126, 3084–3093.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Schuurhuizen, C., Marino, P., Braamse, A., et al. (2018). Impact of patient- and clinician-reported cumulative toxicity on quality of life in patients with metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 16, 1481–1488.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Basch, E., Reeve, B. B., & Mitchell, S. A. (2014). Development of the national cancer institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). JNCI: Journal of National Cancer Institue., 106, 244.CrossRef
18.
Dueck, A. C., Mendoza, T. R., Mitchell, S. A., et al. (2015). Validity and reliability of the US national cancer institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). JAMA Oncology, 1, 1051–1059.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Griffiths, P., Peipert, J. D., Leith, A., Rider, A., Morgan, L., Cella, D., & Cocks, K. (2022). Validity of a single-item indicator of treatment side effect bother in a diverse sample of cancer patients. Support Care Cancer; online ahead of print.
20.
Roydhouse, J. K., King-Kallimanis, B. L., Roy, P., Weinstock, C., Krol, D., Daniels, S. R., Suzman, D. L., Beaver, J. A., & Kluetz, P. G. (2020). Exploration of baseline patient-reported side effect bother from cancer therapy. Clinical Trials, 17, 332–337.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., Silberman, M., Yellen, S. B., Winicour, P., & Brannon, J. (1993). The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11, 570–579.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Hlubocky, F. J., Webster, K., Cashy, J., Beaumont, J., Cella, D. (2013). The development and validation of a measure of health-related quality of life for non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Lymphoma (FACT-Lym). Lymphoma.
23.
Basen-Engquist, K., Bodurka-Bevers, D., & Fitzgerald, M. A. (2001). Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-ovarian. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 1809–1817.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., & Bergman, B. (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.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Sprangers, M. A., Groenvold, M., Arraras, J. I., Franklin, J., teVelde, A., Muller, M., Franzini, L., Williams, A., de Haess, H. C., Hopwood, P., Cull, A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1996). The EORTC breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: First results from a three-country field study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 14, 2756–2768.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Greimel, E., Bottomley, A., Cull, A., Waldenstrom, A.-C., Arraras, J., Chauvenet, L., Holzner, B., Kuljanic, K., Lebrec, J., & D’haese, S. (2003). EORTC Quality of Life Group and the Quality of Life Unit: An international field study of the reliability and validity of a disease-specific questionnaire module (the QLQ-OV28) in assessing the quality of life of patients with ovarian cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 39, 1402–1408.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Nieuwada, M., Scalone, M., Swinburn, P., & Bussbach, J. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1717–1727.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33, 337–343.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Cella, D., Hahn, E. A., & Dineen, K. (2022). Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: Differences between improvement and worsening. Quality of Life Research, 11, 207–221.CrossRef
31.
Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., & Pater, J. (1998). Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16, 139–144.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Botsch, R. (2011). Chapter 12: Significance and measures of association. Scopes and Methods of Political Science
34.
Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W., Jr., & Schuler, T. C. (2007). Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. Spine J., 7(5), 541–546.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Ousmen, A., Touraine, C., Deliu, N., Cottone, F., Bonnetain, F., Efficace, F., Brédart, A., Mollevi, C., & Anota, A. (2018). Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: A structured review. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16, 228.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology., 61, 102–109.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Wyrwich, K. W., Norquist, J. M., Lenderking, W. R., & Acaster, S. (2013). Industry advisory committee of international society for quality of life R: Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 22, 475–483.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Lee, K. M., Lee, J., & Chung, C. Y. (2012). Pitfalls and important issues in testing reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients in orthopaedic research. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery, 4, 149–155.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metagegevens
Titel
Psychometrics of patient-reported bother from side effects of treatment single-items in industry-sponsored oncology trials
Auteurs
Peter C. Trask
Tracy Holt
Timothy Pearman
Publicatiedatum
29-04-2023
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03426-w

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2023

Quality of Life Research 9/2023 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

China Health Related Outcomes Measures (CHROME): development of a descriptive system to support cardiovascular disease specific preference-based measure for the Chinese population

OriginalPaper

Normative profile of the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS scores for the general Thai population

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland: a cross-sectional study

OriginalPaper

Patients’ perspectives on irritable bowel syndrome: a qualitative analysis based on social media in China

OriginalPaper

A comparison of the Child Health Utility 9D and the Health Utilities Index for estimating health utilities in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease

OriginalPaper

Health utilities and willingness to pay in adult patients with coeliac disease in Hungary