Ambulatory cancer and US general population reference values and cutoff scores for the functional assessment of cancer therapy

Cancer

Volumn 120, Issue 18, 2014, Pages 2902-2909

  Pearman, Timothy ^a   Yanez, Betina ^a   Peipert, John ^b   Wortman, Katy ^a   Beaumont, Jennifer ^a   Cella, David ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Health related quality of life; Oncology; Patient reported outcomes; Reference values

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER STAGING; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF CANCER THERAPY GENERAL 7 SCORE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF CANCER THERAPY GENERAL SCORE; HEALTH STATUS; HISPANIC; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METASTASIS; POPULATION RESEARCH; QUALITY OF LIFE; REFERENCE VALUE; SCORING SYSTEM; UNITED STATES; AMBULATORY CARE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM; ONCOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES; PROGNOSIS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE;

HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE; ONCOLOGY; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES; REFERENCE VALUES;

ADULT; AMBULATORY CARE; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; PROGNOSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REFERENCE VALUES; RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84908010996     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28758     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bruera E. Routine symptom assessment: good for practice and good for business. Support Care Cancer. 2008;16:537-538.
2. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder CF. Patient reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:278-300.
3. Reeve B, Mitchell S, Dueck A, et al. Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in adult cancer treatment trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; doi:10.1093/jnci/.
4. Minasian LM, O'Mara AM, Reeve BB, et al; National Cancer Institute. Health-related quality of life and symptom management research sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5128-5132.
5. Gotay CC, Kawamoto CT, Bottomley A, Efficace F. The prognostic significance of patient reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1355-1363.
6. Berry DL, Blumenstein BA, Halpenny B, et al. Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1029-1035.
7. Gabrilove JL, Perez EA, Tomita DK, Rossi G, Cleeland CS. Assessing symptom burden using the MD Anderson symptom inventory in patients with chemotherapy induced anemia. Cancer. 2007;110: 1629-1640.
8. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, et al; ISPOR ePRO Task Force. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper based patient reported outcomes (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12:419-429.
9. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:570-579.
10. Yanez B, Pearman T, Lis CG, Beaumont JL, Cella D. The FACT-G7: a rapid version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general (FACT-G) for monitoring symptoms and concerns in oncology practice and research. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:1073-1078.
11. Butt Z, Peipert J, Webster K, Chen C, Cella D. General population norms for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI). Cancer. 2013;119:429-437.
12. Brucker PS, Yost K, Cashy J, Webster K, Cella D. General population and cancer patient norms for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Eval Health Prof. 2005;28:192-211.
13. Dennis JM. KnowledgePanel: Processes & procedures contributing to sample representativeness & tests for self-selection bias. Menlo Park, CA: Knowledge Networks, Inc; 2010. www.knowledgenetworks. com/ganp/docs/KnowledgePanelR-Statistical-Methods-Note.pdf Accessed August 8, 2013.
14. Dennis JM, Chatt C, Li R, Motta-Stanko A, Pulliam P. Data collection mode effects controlling for sample origins in a panel survey: Telephone versus internet. Menlo Park, CA: Knowledge Networks, Inc; 2005. www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/Research-0105.pdf Accessed August 8, 2013.
15. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria for the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5:649-655.
16. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2013. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2013.
17. National Cancer Institute. Cancer trends progress report-2011/2012 update. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS; August 2012. http://progressreport.cancer.gov.
18. Cella D, Eton DT, Lai JS, Peterman AH, Merkel DE. Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2002;24:547-561.
19. Webster 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.
20. Yost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28:172-191.
21. 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.
22. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. ed 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
23. Arora NK, Finney Rutten LJ, Gustafson GH, Moser R, Hawkins RP. Perceived helpfulness and impact of social support provided by family, friends and healthcare providers to women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2007;16:474-486.
24. Connerty TJ, Knott V. Promoting positive change in the face of adversity: experiences of cancer and post-traumatic growth. Eur J Cancer Care. 2013;22:334-344.