Identification of meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening on the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®).
Minji K Lee, Sandra A Mitchell, Ethan Basch, Gina L Mazza, Blake T Langlais, Gita Thanarajasingam, Brenda F Ginos, Lauren Rogak, Eric A Meek, Jennifer Jansen, Allison M Deal, Philip Carr, Victoria S Blinder, Mattias Jonsson, Gita N Mody, Tito R Mendoza, Antonia V Bennett, Deborah Schrag, Amylou C Dueck
{"title":"Identification of meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening on the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®).","authors":"Minji K Lee, Sandra A Mitchell, Ethan Basch, Gina L Mazza, Blake T Langlais, Gita Thanarajasingam, Brenda F Ginos, Lauren Rogak, Eric A Meek, Jennifer Jansen, Allison M Deal, Philip Carr, Victoria S Blinder, Mattias Jonsson, Gita N Mody, Tito R Mendoza, Antonia V Bennett, Deborah Schrag, Amylou C Dueck","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03819-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We derived meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening in selected patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) items and their composite scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used two data sources, the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults with advanced cancer at 26 United States (U.S.) community oncology practices and the PRO-CTCAE validation study that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at nine U.S. cancer centers or community oncology practices. Both studies administered selected PRO-CTCAE items and EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Conceptually, relevant QLQ-C30 domains were used as anchors to estimate meaningful change thresholds for deterioration in corresponding PRO-CTCAE items and their composite scores. Items or composites with ǀρǀ ≥ 0.30 correlation with QLQ-C30 scales were included. Changes in PRO-CTCAE scores and composites were estimated for patients who met or exceeded a 10-point deterioration on the corresponding QLQ-C30 scale. Change scores were computed between baseline and the 3-month timepoint in PRO-TECT, and in the PRO-CTCAE validation study between baseline and a single follow-up visit that occurred between 1 and 7 weeks later. For each PRO-CTCAE item, change scores could range from - 4 to 4; for a composite, change scores could range from - 3 to 3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Change scores in QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE were available in 406 and 792 patients in PRO-TECT and the validation study, respectively. Across QLQ-C30 scales, the proportion of patients with a 10-point or greater worsening on QLQ-C30 ranged from 15 to 30% in the PRO-TECT data and 13% to 34% in the validation data. Across PRO-CTCAE items, anchor-based meaningful change estimates for deterioration ranged from 0.05 to 0.30 (mean 0.19) in the PRO-TECT data and from 0.19 to 0.53 (mean 0.36) in the validation data. For composites, they ranged from 0.06 to 0.27 (mean 0.17) in the PRO-TECT data and 0.22 to 0.51 (mean 0.37) in the validation data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In both datasets, the minimal meaningful individual-level change threshold for worsening was one point for all items and composite scores.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov: NCT03249090 (AFT-39), NCT02158637 (MC1091).</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03819-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: We derived meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening in selected patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) items and their composite scores.
Methods: We used two data sources, the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults with advanced cancer at 26 United States (U.S.) community oncology practices and the PRO-CTCAE validation study that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at nine U.S. cancer centers or community oncology practices. Both studies administered selected PRO-CTCAE items and EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Conceptually, relevant QLQ-C30 domains were used as anchors to estimate meaningful change thresholds for deterioration in corresponding PRO-CTCAE items and their composite scores. Items or composites with ǀρǀ ≥ 0.30 correlation with QLQ-C30 scales were included. Changes in PRO-CTCAE scores and composites were estimated for patients who met or exceeded a 10-point deterioration on the corresponding QLQ-C30 scale. Change scores were computed between baseline and the 3-month timepoint in PRO-TECT, and in the PRO-CTCAE validation study between baseline and a single follow-up visit that occurred between 1 and 7 weeks later. For each PRO-CTCAE item, change scores could range from - 4 to 4; for a composite, change scores could range from - 3 to 3.
Results: Change scores in QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE were available in 406 and 792 patients in PRO-TECT and the validation study, respectively. Across QLQ-C30 scales, the proportion of patients with a 10-point or greater worsening on QLQ-C30 ranged from 15 to 30% in the PRO-TECT data and 13% to 34% in the validation data. Across PRO-CTCAE items, anchor-based meaningful change estimates for deterioration ranged from 0.05 to 0.30 (mean 0.19) in the PRO-TECT data and from 0.19 to 0.53 (mean 0.36) in the validation data. For composites, they ranged from 0.06 to 0.27 (mean 0.17) in the PRO-TECT data and 0.22 to 0.51 (mean 0.37) in the validation data.
Conclusion: In both datasets, the minimal meaningful individual-level change threshold for worsening was one point for all items and composite scores.
期刊介绍：
Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences.
Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership.
This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
