Evaluating minimal important differences for the FACT-melanoma quality of life questionnaire

Value in Health

Volumn 12, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1144-1150

  Askew, Robert L ^a   Xing, Yan ^a   Palmer, J Lynn ^a   Cella, David ^b   Moye, Lemuel A ^c   Cormier, Janice N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN HEALTHCARE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Functional assessment of cancer therapy; Melanoma; Minimal important differences; Patient reported outcomes; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EASTERN COOPERATIVE ONCOLOGY GROUP PERFORMANCE STATUS SCALE; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF CANCER THERAPY MELANOMA QUESTIONNAIRE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KARNOFSKY PERFORMANCE STATUS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MELANOMA; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE;

EID: 70350761706     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00570.x     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Coates A, Gebski V, Signorini D, et al. Prognostic value of quality-of-life scores during chemotherapy for advanced Breast Cancer. Australian New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials group. J Clin Oncol 1992 10 : 1833 1838.
2. Coates A, Thomson D, McLeod GR, et al. Prognostic value of quality of life scores in a trial of chemotherapy with or without interferon in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma. Eur J Cancer 1993 29A : 1731 1734.
3. Jerkeman M, Kaasa S, Hjermstad M, et al. Health-related quality of life and its potential prognostic implications in patients with aggressive lymphoma : a Nordic Lymphoma Group Trial. Med Oncol 2001 18 : 85 94.
4. Maisey NR, Norman A, Watson M, et al. Baseline quality of life predicts survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2002 38 : 1351 1357.
5. Roychowdhury DF, Hayden A, Liepa AM. Health-related quality-of-life parameters as independent prognostic factors in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003 21 : 673 678.
6. Butow PN, Coates AS, Dunn SM. Psychosocial predictors of survival in metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 1999 17 : 2256 2263.
7. Burke L, Stifano T, Dawisha S. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006 4 : 79.
8. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol 1997 15 : 974 986. (Pubitemid 27106280)
9. Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, et al. Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manag 1997 13 : 63 74.
10. Revicki DA, Osoba D, Fairclough D, et al. Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Qual Life Res 2000 9 : 887 900.
11. Rejas J, Pardo A, Ruiz MA. Standard error of measurement as a valid alternative to minimally important difference for evaluating the magnitude of changes in patient-reported outcomes measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2008 61 : 350 356.
12. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 1999 37 : 469 478.
13. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1999 52 : 861 873.
14. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989 10 : 407 415.
15. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994 47 : 81 7.
16. Ringash J, O'Sullivan B, Bezjak A, Redelmeier DA. Interpreting clinically significant changes in patient-reported outcomes. Cancer 2007 110 : 196 202.
17. Yost KJ, Sorensen MV, Hahn EA, et al. Using multiple anchor- and distribution-based estimates to evaluate clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) instrument. Value Health 2005 8 : 117 127.
18. Yost KJ, Cella D, Chawla A, et al. Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches. J Clin Epidemiol 2005 58 : 1241 1251.
19. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007 5 : 70.
20. Kulkarni AV. Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 2006 59 : 176 184.
21. Cella D, Nichol MB, Eton D, et al. 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. Value Health 2009 12 : 124 129.
22. Cella D, Eton DT, Fairclough DL, et al. What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592. J Clinical Epidemiol 2002 55 : 285 295.
23. Barrett B, Brown R, Mundt M. Comparison of anchor-based and distributional approaches in estimating important difference in common cold. Qual Life Res 2008 17 : 75 85.
24. Eton DT, Cella D, Yost KJ, et al. A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol 2004 57 : 898 910.
25. FACIT.org. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System Overview. Available from: http://www.facit.org/about/ overview-measure.aspx [Accessed October 3, 2008 K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003 1 : 79.
26. Cella D, Nowinski CJ. Measuring quality of life in chronic illness: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy measurement system. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002 83 (12 Suppl. 2 S10 7.
27. Cormier JN, Davidson L, Xing Y, et al. Measuring quality of life in patients with melanoma: development of the FACT-melanoma subscale. J Support Oncol 2005 3 : 139 145.
28. Cormier JN, Ross MI, Gershenwald JE, et al. Prospective assessment of the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma questionnaire. Cancer 2008 112 : 2249 2257.
29. Centers AEaT. Clinical Manual for Management of the HIV-Infected Adult. AETC National Resource Center, Newark, NJ. 2006.
30. Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherpeutic agents in cancer. In : Macleod CM, ed. Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents in Cancer. New York : Columbia University Press, 1949.
31. Group ECO. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status. 2008 Available from: http://ecog.dfci.harvard.edu/general/perf-stat.html [Accessed October 3, 2008 MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982 5 : 649 655.
32. Hedeker D, Gibbons R. application of random-effects pattern-mixture models for missing data in longitudinal studies. Psychol Methods 1997 2 : 64 78.
33. Brant R, Sutherland L, Hilsden R. Examining the minimum important difference. Stat Med 1999 18 : 2593 2603.
34. Hays RD, Farivar SS, Liu H. Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD 2005 2 : 63 7.
35. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008 61 : 102 109.
36. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Rev. ed.). New York : Academic Press, 1977.
37. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989 27 (3 Suppl S178 89.
38. Wyrwich KW, Wolinsky FD. Identifying meaningful intra-individual change standards for health-related quality of life measures. J Eval Clin Pract 2000 6 : 39 49.
39. Donaldson GW, Moinpour CM. Learning to live with missing quality-of-life data in advanced-stage disease trials. J Clin Oncol 2005 23 : 7380 7384.
40. Steel JL, Eton DT, Cella D, et al. Clinically meaningful changes in health-related quality of life in patients diagnosed with hepatobiliary carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2006 17 : 304 312.
41. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, et al. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006 4 : 54.
42. Taylor AE, Olver IN, Sivanthan T, et al. Observer error in grading performance status in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 1999 7 : 332 335.
43. de Borja MT, Chow E, Bovett G, et al. The correlation among patients and health care professionals in assessing functional status using the Karnofsky and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scales. Support Care Cancer 2004 2 : 59 63.
44. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C. Outcomes Assessment in Cancer: Measures, Methods, and Applications. Cambridge, UK; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2005.
45. Fromme EK, Eilers KM, Mori M, et al. How accurate is clinician reporting of chemotherapy adverse effects? A comparison with patient-reported symptoms from the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C30. J Clin Oncol 2004 22 : 3485 3490.