Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

01-12-2014

Setting standards for severity of common symptoms in oncology using the PROMIS item banks and expert judgment

Auteurs: David Cella, Seung Choi, Sofia Garcia, Karon F. Cook, Sarah Rosenbloom, Jin-Shei Lai, Donna Surges Tatum, Richard Gershon

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2014

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

Abstract

Background

Although the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) has increased markedly, clinical interpretation of scores remains lacking. We developed a method to identify clinical severity thresholds for pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety in people with cancer.

Methods

Using available Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) item bank response data collected on 840 cancer patients, symptom vignettes across a range of symptom severity were developed and placed on index cards. Cards represented symptom severity at five-point intervals differences on the T score metric [mean = 50; standard deviation (SD) = 10]. Symptom vignettes for each symptom were anchored on these standardized scores at 0.5 SD increments across the full range of severity. Clinical experts, blind to the PROMIS score associated with each vignette, rank-ordered the vignettes by severity, then arrived at consensus regarding which two vignettes were at the upper and lower boundaries of normal and mildly symptomatic for each symptom. The procedure was repeated to identify cut scores separating mildly from moderately symptomatic, and moderately from severely symptomatic scores. Clinician severity rankings were then compared to the T scores upon which the vignettes were based.

Results

For each of the targeted PROs, the severity rankings reached by clinician consensus perfectly matched the numerical rankings of their associated T scores. Across all symptoms, the thresholds (cut scores) identified to differentiate normal from mildly symptomatic were near a T score of 50. Cut scores differentiating mildly from moderately symptomatic were at or near 60, and those separating moderately from severely symptomatic were at or near 70.

Conclusions

The study results provide empirically generated PROMIS T score thresholds that differentiate levels of symptom severity for pain interference, fatigue, anxiety, and depression. The convergence of clinical judgment with self-reported patient severity scores supports the validity of this methodology to derive clinically relevant symptom severity levels for PROMIS symptom measures in other settings.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Carlson, L. E., Groff, S. L., Maciejewski, O., & Bultz, B. D. (2010). Screening for distress in lung and breast cancer outpatients: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28(33), 4884–4891.PubMedCrossRef Carlson, L. E., Groff, S. L., Maciejewski, O., & Bultz, B. D. (2010). Screening for distress in lung and breast cancer outpatients: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28(33), 4884–4891.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Snyder, C., Jensen, R., Geller, G., Carducci, M., & Wu, A. (2010). Relevant content for a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire for use in oncology clinical practice: Putting doctors and patients on the same page. Quality of Life Research, 19(7), 1045–1055.PubMedCrossRef Snyder, C., Jensen, R., Geller, G., Carducci, M., & Wu, A. (2010). Relevant content for a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire for use in oncology clinical practice: Putting doctors and patients on the same page. Quality of Life Research, 19(7), 1045–1055.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Bennett, A. V., Jensen, R. E., & Basch, E. (2012). Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62(5), 336–347. Bennett, A. V., Jensen, R. E., & Basch, E. (2012). Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62(5), 336–347.
4.
go back to reference Abernethy, A. P., Herndon Ii, J. E., Wheeler, J. L., Day, J. M., Hood, L., Patwardhan, M., et al. (2009). Feasibility and acceptability to patients of a longitudinal system for evaluating cancer-related symptoms and quality of life: Pilot study of an e/tablet data-collection system in academic oncology. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 37(6), 1027–1038.PubMedCrossRef Abernethy, A. P., Herndon Ii, J. E., Wheeler, J. L., Day, J. M., Hood, L., Patwardhan, M., et al. (2009). Feasibility and acceptability to patients of a longitudinal system for evaluating cancer-related symptoms and quality of life: Pilot study of an e/tablet data-collection system in academic oncology. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 37(6), 1027–1038.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Berry, D. L., Blumenstein, B. A., Halpenny, B., Wolpin, S., Fann, J. R., Austin-Seymour, M., et al. (2011). Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: A randomized trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(8), 1029–1035.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Berry, D. L., Blumenstein, B. A., Halpenny, B., Wolpin, S., Fann, J. R., Austin-Seymour, M., et al. (2011). Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: A randomized trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(8), 1029–1035.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Basch, E., & Abernethy, A. P. (2011). Supporting clinical practice decisions with real-time patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(8), 954–956.PubMedCrossRef Basch, E., & Abernethy, A. P. (2011). Supporting clinical practice decisions with real-time patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(8), 954–956.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cella, D., Gershon, R., Lai, J.-S., & Choi, S. (2007). The future of outcomes measurement: Item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 133–141.PubMedCrossRef Cella, D., Gershon, R., Lai, J.-S., & Choi, S. (2007). The future of outcomes measurement: Item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 133–141.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap Cooperative Group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap Cooperative Group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Riley, W. T., Rothrock, N., Bruce, B., Christodolou, C., Cook, K., Hahn, E. A., et al. (2010). Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks. Quality of Life Research, 19(9), 1311–1321.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Riley, W. T., Rothrock, N., Bruce, B., Christodolou, C., Cook, K., Hahn, E. A., et al. (2010). Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks. Quality of Life Research, 19(9), 1311–1321.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Liu, H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W., et al. (2010). Representativeness of the PROMIS internet panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1169–1178.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Liu, H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W., et al. (2010). Representativeness of the PROMIS internet panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1169–1178.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Jensen, M. P., Smith, D. G., Ehde, D. M., & Robinsin, L. R. (2001). Pain site and the effects of amputation pain: Further clarification of the meaning of mild, moderate, and severe pain. Pain, 91(3), 317–322.PubMedCrossRef Jensen, M. P., Smith, D. G., Ehde, D. M., & Robinsin, L. R. (2001). Pain site and the effects of amputation pain: Further clarification of the meaning of mild, moderate, and severe pain. Pain, 91(3), 317–322.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Paul, S. M., Zelman, D. C., Smith, M., & Miaskowski, C. (2005). Categorizing the severity of cancer pain: Further exploration of the establishment of cutpoints. Pain, 113(1), 37–44.PubMedCrossRef Paul, S. M., Zelman, D. C., Smith, M., & Miaskowski, C. (2005). Categorizing the severity of cancer pain: Further exploration of the establishment of cutpoints. Pain, 113(1), 37–44.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Serlin, R. C., Mendoza, T. R., Nakamura, Y., Edwards, K. R., & Cleeland, C. S. (1995). When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain, 61(2), 277–284.PubMedCrossRef Serlin, R. C., Mendoza, T. R., Nakamura, Y., Edwards, K. R., & Cleeland, C. S. (1995). When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain, 61(2), 277–284.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Zelman, D., Hoffman, D., Reed, P., Edwards, L., & Dukes, E. (2003). Quantifying a “day of manageable pain control:” The relationship between pain severity and patient daily functional expectations. Journal of Pain, 4(Suppl 1), 1. Zelman, D., Hoffman, D., Reed, P., Edwards, L., & Dukes, E. (2003). Quantifying a “day of manageable pain control:” The relationship between pain severity and patient daily functional expectations. Journal of Pain, 4(Suppl 1), 1.
16.
go back to reference Zelman, D. C., Dukes, E., Brandenburg, N., Bostrom, A., & Gore, M. (2005). Identification of cut-points for mild, moderate and severe pain due to diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pain, 115(1), 29–36.PubMedCrossRef Zelman, D. C., Dukes, E., Brandenburg, N., Bostrom, A., & Gore, M. (2005). Identification of cut-points for mild, moderate and severe pain due to diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pain, 115(1), 29–36.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Wang, X. S., Zhao, F., Fisch, M. J., O’Mara, A. M., Cella, D., Mendoza, T. R., et al. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of moderate to severe fatigue. Cancer, 120(3), 425–432.PubMedCrossRef Wang, X. S., Zhao, F., Fisch, M. J., O’Mara, A. M., Cella, D., Mendoza, T. R., et al. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of moderate to severe fatigue. Cancer, 120(3), 425–432.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Given, B., Sikorskii, A., Given, C. W., Jeon, S., McCorkle, R., Champion, V., et al. (2008). Establishing mild, moderate, and severe scores for cancer-related symptoms: How consistent and clinically meaningful are interference-based severity cut-points? Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 35(2), 126–135.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Given, B., Sikorskii, A., Given, C. W., Jeon, S., McCorkle, R., Champion, V., et al. (2008). Establishing mild, moderate, and severe scores for cancer-related symptoms: How consistent and clinically meaningful are interference-based severity cut-points? Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 35(2), 126–135.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
go back to reference Angoff, W. H., & Thorndike, R. L. (1971). Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In Educational measurement. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Angoff, W. H., & Thorndike, R. L. (1971). Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In Educational measurement. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
21.
go back to reference Lewis, D., Mitzel, H. C., & Green, D. R. (1996). Standard setting: A bookmark approach. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large Scale Assessment Phoenix, AZ. Lewis, D., Mitzel, H. C., & Green, D. R. (1996). Standard setting: A bookmark approach. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large Scale Assessment Phoenix, AZ.
22.
go back to reference Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (1977). Standard setting: An alternative approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 355–368. Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (1977). Standard setting: An alternative approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 355–368.
23.
go back to reference Baghaei, P. (2007). Applying The Rasch Rating-Scale model to set multiple cut-offs. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20(4), 1075–1076. Baghaei, P. (2007). Applying The Rasch Rating-Scale model to set multiple cut-offs. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20(4), 1075–1076.
24.
go back to reference Lai, J. S., Cella, D., Choi, S. W., Junghaenel, D. U., Christodolou, C., Gershon, R., et al. (2011). How item banks and their application can influence measurement practice in rehabilitation medicine: A PROMIS fatigue item bank example. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(10 Supplement), S20–S27.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Lai, J. S., Cella, D., Choi, S. W., Junghaenel, D. U., Christodolou, C., Gershon, R., et al. (2011). How item banks and their application can influence measurement practice in rehabilitation medicine: A PROMIS fatigue item bank example. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92(10 Supplement), S20–S27.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Jensen, M. P., Chen, W.-H., Choi, S., Revicki, D., et al. (2010). Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference. Pain, 150(1), 173–182.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Amtmann, D., Cook, K. F., Jensen, M. P., Chen, W.-H., Choi, S., Revicki, D., et al. (2010). Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference. Pain, 150(1), 173–182.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., & Cella, D. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS):depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263–283.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., & Cella, D. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS):depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18(3), 263–283.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31.PubMedCrossRef Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S22–S31.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference King, M. T., Cella, D., Osoba, D., Stockler, M., Eton, D., Thompson, J., et al. (2010). Meta-analysis provides evidence-based interpretation guidelines for the clinical significance of mean differences for the FACT-G, a cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 1(1), 119–126.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef King, M. T., Cella, D., Osoba, D., Stockler, M., Eton, D., Thompson, J., et al. (2010). Meta-analysis provides evidence-based interpretation guidelines for the clinical significance of mean differences for the FACT-G, a cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 1(1), 119–126.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Setting standards for severity of common symptoms in oncology using the PROMIS item banks and expert judgment
Auteurs
David Cella
Seung Choi
Sofia Garcia
Karon F. Cook
Sarah Rosenbloom
Jin-Shei Lai
Donna Surges Tatum
Richard Gershon
Publicatiedatum
01-12-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0732-6