What changes in health-related quality of life matter to multiple myeloma patients? A prospective study

European Journal of Haematology

Volumn 84, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 345-353

  Kvam, Ann K ^a,b   Fayers, Peter ^c,d   Wisloff, Finn ^a,b  

^a ULLEVÅL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

EORTC QLQ C30; Minimal important difference; Multiple myeloma; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RATING SCALE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM; STRUCTURED INTERVIEW;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; EUROPE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 77949449401     PISSN: 09024441     EISSN: 16000609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2009.01404.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Kumar SK, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, et al. Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood 2008;1:111.
2. Sirohi B, Powles R. Epidemiology and outcomes research for MGUS, myeloma and amyloidosis. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:1671-83.
3. Rajkumar SV. Treatment of myeloma: cure vs control. Mayo Clin Proc 2008;83:1142-5.
4. Kvam AK, Fayers P, Hjermstad M, Gulbrandsen N, Wisloff F. Health-related quality of life assessment in randomized controlled trials in multiple myeloma: a critical review of methodology and impact on treatment recommendations. Eur J Haematol 2009;25:83.
5. King MT. The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 1996;5:555-67.
6. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
7. Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, Williams GR, Lipscomb J, Matchar D. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics 1999;15:141-55.
8. Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:70.
9. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-oflife scores. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:139-44.
10. Rodrigues G, Bezjak A, Osoba D, Catton P, Tsuji D, Taylor D, Warde P. The relationship of changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores to ratings on the Subjective Significance Questionnaire in men with localized prostate cancer. Qual Life Res 2004;1:13.
11. Lydick E, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res 1993;2:221-6.
12. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum, 1988.
13. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:371-83.
14. Gulbrandsen N, Hjermstad MJ, Wisloff F. Interpretation of quality of life scores in multiple myeloma by comparison with a reference population and assessment of the clinical importance of score differences. Eur J Haematol 2004;72:172-80.
15. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtne H, Fleishman SB, de Haes JC. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;3:85.
16. Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A, on behalf of the EORTC Quality of life group. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual, 3rd edn. Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, 2001.
17. Wisloff F, Eika S, Hippe E, Hjorth M, Holmberg E, Kaasa S, Palva I, Westin J. Measurement of health-related quality of life in multiple myeloma. Nordic Myeloma Study Group. Br J Haematol 1996;92:604-13.
18. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 1986;39:897-906.
19. Wisloff F, Gulbrandsen N, Hjorth M, Lenhoff S, Fayers P. Quality of life may be affected more by disease parameters and response to therapy than by haemoglobin changes. Eur J Haematol 2005;75:293-8.
20. Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K. Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Qual Life Res 2002;11:207-21.
21. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:395-407.
22. Vogelzang NJ, Breitbart W, Cella D, Curt GA, Groopman JE, Horning SJ, Itri LM, Johnson DH, Scherr SL, Portenoy RK. Patient, caregiver, and oncologist perceptions of cancer-related fatigue: results of a tripart assessment survey. The fatigue coalition. Semin Hematol 1997;3(Suppl 2):4-12.
23. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis, and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes. Chichester: J Wiley, 2007.
24. Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics 2000;18:419-23.
25. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003;41:582-92.
26. Sackett DL. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown and Company, 1985.
27. Yost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution- and anchorbased approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof 2005;28:172-91.
28. Kemmler G, Zabernigg A, Gattringer K, Rumpold G, Giesinger J, Sperner-Unterweger B, Holzner B. A new approach to combining clinical relevance and statistical significance for evaluation of quality of life changes in the individual patient. J Clin Epidemiol 2009.
29. de Vet HC, Terluin B, Knol DL, Roorda LD, Mokkink LB, Ostelo RW, Hendriks EJ, Bouter LM, Terwee CB. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied "minimally important change" values. J Clin Epidemiol 2009.
30. Yost KJ, Sorensen MV, Hahn EA, Glendenning GA, Gnanasakthy A, Cella D. 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;8:117-27.
31. Pool JJ, Ostelo RW, Hoving JL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for patients with neck pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;15:32.
32. Quittner AL, Modi AC, Wainwright C, Otto K, Kirihara J, Montgomery AB. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference scores for the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised respiratory symptom scale in two populations of patients with cystic fibrosis and chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa airway infection. Chest 2009;135:1610-18.
33. Schwartz CE, Sprangers MA. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal healthrelated quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:1531-48.
34. 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.
35. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1523-32.