Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
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®).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Minji K, Mitchell Sandra A, Basch Ethan, Mazza Gina L, Langlais Blake T, Thanarajasingam Gita, Ginos Brenda F, Rogak Lauren, Meek Eric A, Jansen Jennifer, Deal Allison M, Carr Philip, Blinder Victoria S, Jonsson Mattias, Mody Gita N, Mendoza Tito R, Bennett Antonia V, Schrag Deborah, Dueck Amylou C
Аннотация
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.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT03249090 (AFT-39), NCT02158637 (MC1091).
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.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT03249090 (AFT-39), NCT02158637 (MC1091).
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAntineoplastic AgentsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsNeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPsychometricsQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesMulticenter Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicObservational Studies as Topic