




Item type: | Article | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Journal or Publication Title: | European Journal of Cancer | ||||
Publisher: | ELSEVIER SCI LTD | ||||
Place of Publication: | OXFORD | ||||
Volume: | 188 | ||||
Page Range: | pp. 171-182 | ||||
Date: | 2023 | ||||
Institutions: | Medicine > Zentren des Universitätsklinikums Regensburg > Zentrum für Klinische Studien | ||||
Identification Number: |
| ||||
Keywords: | QUALITY-OF-LIFE; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES; CORE 30 SCORES; EUROPEAN-ORGANIZATION; END-POINTS; GUIDELINES; DECISION; LEVEL; Patient -reported; Health -related quality; Group -level change | ||||
Dewey Decimal Classification: | 600 Technology > 610 Medical sciences Medicine | ||||
Status: | Published | ||||
Refereed: | Yes, this version has been refereed | ||||
Created at the University of Regensburg: | Yes | ||||
Item ID: | 76235 |
Abstract
Introduction: Early guidelines for minimally important differences (MIDs) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 proposed & GE;10 points change as clinically meaningful for all scales. Increasing evidence that MIDs can vary by scale, direction of change, cancer type and estimation method has raised doubt about a single global standard. This paper identifies MID patterns for interpreting group-level change in ...

Abstract
Introduction: Early guidelines for minimally important differences (MIDs) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 proposed & GE;10 points change as clinically meaningful for all scales. Increasing evidence that MIDs can vary by scale, direction of change, cancer type and estimation method has raised doubt about a single global standard. This paper identifies MID patterns for interpreting group-level change in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores across nine cancer types. Methods: Data were obtained from 21 published EORTC Phase III trials that enroled 13,015 patients across nine cancer types (brain, colorectal, advanced breast, head/neck, lung, mesothelioma, melanoma, ovarian, and prostate). Anchor-based MIDs for within-group change and between-group differences in change over time were obtained via mean change method and linear regression, respectively. Separate MIDs were estimated for improvements and deteriorations. Distribution-based estimates were derived and compared with anchorbased MIDs. Results: Anchor-based MIDs mostly ranged from 5 to 10 points. Differences in MIDs for improvement vs deterioration, for both within-group and between-group, were mostly within a 2-points range. Larger differences between within-group and between-group MIDs were observed for several scales in ovarian, lung and head/neck cancer. Most anchor-based MIDs ranged between 0.3 SD and 0.5 SD distribution-based estimates. Conclusions: Our results reinforce recent claims that no single MID can be applied to all EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and disease settings. MIDs varied by scale, improvement/deterioration, within/between comparisons and by cancer type. Researchers applying commonly used rules of thumb must be aware of the risk of dismissing changes that are clinically
Metadata last modified: 18 Mar 2025 10:11