Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes That Are Most Frequently Detected in Randomized Controlled Trials in Patients With Solid Tumors: A Pooled Analysis of 229 Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements used in cancer research can assess a number of health domains. Our primary objective was to investigate which broad types of PRO domains (namely, functional health, symptoms, and global quality of life [QoL]) most frequently yielded significant differences between treatments in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A total of 229 RCTs published between January 2004 and February 2019, conducted on patients diagnosed with the most common solid malignancies and assessed using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30, were considered. Studies were identified systematically using literature searches in key electronic databases. Unlike other PRO measurements typically used in RCTs, the scoring algorithm of the multidimensional EORTC QLQ-C30 allowed us to clearly distinguish the 3 broad types of PRO domains. RESULTS: In total, 134 RCTs (58.5%) reported statistically significant differences between treatment arms for at least 1 of the QLQ-C30 domains. Most frequently, differences were reported for 2 or all 3 broad types of PRO domains (78 of 134 trials; 58.2%). In particular, 35 trials (26.1%) found significant differences for symptoms, functional health, and global QoL, 24 trials (17.9%) for symptoms and functional health, 11 trials (8.2%) for functional health and global QoL, and 8 trials (6.0%) for symptoms and global QoL. The likelihood of finding a statistically significant difference between treatment arms was not associated with key study characteristics, such as study design (ie, open-label vs blinded trials) and industry support. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings emphasize the importance of a multidimensional PRO assessment to most comprehensively capture the overall burden of therapy from the patients' standpoint.

The EORTC CAT Core-The computer adaptive version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: To optimise measurement precision, relevance to patients and flexibility, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should ideally be adapted to the individual patient/study while retaining direct comparability of scores across patients/studies. This is achievable using item banks and computerised adaptive tests (CATs). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) is one of the most widely used PROMs in cancer research and clinical practice. Here we provide an overview of the research program to develop CAT versions of the QLQ-C30's 14 functional and symptom domains. METHODS: The EORTC Quality of Life Group's strategy for developing CAT item banks consists of: literature search to identify potential candidate items; formulation of new items compatible with the QLQ-C30 item style; expert evaluations and patient interviews; field-testing and psychometric analyses, including factor analysis, item response theory calibration and simulation of measurement properties. In addition, software for setting up, running and scoring CAT has been developed. RESULTS: Across eight rounds of data collections, 9782 patients were recruited from 12 countries for the field-testing. The four phases of development resulted in a total of 260 unique items across the 14 domains. Each item bank consists of 7-34 items. Psychometric evaluations indicated higher measurement precision and increased statistical power of the CAT measures compared to the QLQ-C30 scales. Using CAT, sample size requirements may be reduced by approximately 20-35% on average without loss of power. CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC CAT Core represents a more precise, powerful and flexible measurement system than the QLQ-C30. It is currently being validated in a large independent, international sample of cancer patients.

Australian Utility Weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30.

BACKGROUND: The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the widely used cancer-specific quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. The QLU-C10D contains ten dimensions (Physical, Role, Social and Emotional Functioning; Pain, Fatigue, Sleep, Appetite, Nausea, Bowel Problems), each with four levels. To be used in cost-utility analysis, country-specific valuation sets are required. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide Australian utility weights for the QLU-C10D. METHODS: An Australian online panel was quota-sampled to ensure population representativeness by sex and age (≥ 18 years). Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of 16 choice-pairs. Each pair comprised two QLU-C10D health states plus life expectancy. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression, parameterised to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework. Utility weights were calculated as the ratio of each QOL dimension-level coefficient to the coefficient on life expectancy. RESULTS: A total of 1979 panel members opted in, 1904 (96%) completed at least one choice-pair, and 1846 (93%) completed all 16 choice-pairs. Dimension weights were generally monotonic: poorer levels within each dimension were generally associated with greater utility decrements. The dimensions that impacted most on choice were, in order, Physical Functioning, Pain, Role Functioning and Emotional Functioning. Oncology-relevant dimensions with moderate impact were Nausea and Bowel Problems. Fatigue, Trouble Sleeping and Appetite had relatively small impact. The value of the worst health state was -0.096, somewhat worse than death. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first country-specific value set for the QLU-C10D, which can facilitate cost-utility analyses when applied to data collected with the EORTC QLQ-C30, prospectively and retrospectively.

The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System: Poor performance as screener for major depression in patients with incurable cancer.

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms are prevalent in patients with advanced cancer, sometimes of a severity that fulfil the criteria for a major depressive episode. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate how the item on depression in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System with a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale performed as a screener for major depressive episode. A possible improved performance by adding the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Anxiety item was also examined. DESIGN: An international cross-sectional study including patients with incurable cancer was conducted. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System score was compared against major depressive episode as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Screening performance was examined by sensitivity, specificity and the kappa coefficient. SETTING: Patients with incurable cancer (n = 969), median age 63 years and from eight nationalities provided report. Median Karnofsky Performance Status was 70. Median survival was 229 days (205-255 days). RESULTS: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 major depressive episode was present in 133 of 969 patients (13.7%). Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Depression screening ability for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 major depressive episode was limited. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.71 (0.66-0.76). Valid detection or exclusion of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 major depressive episode could not be concluded at any Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Depression cut-off; by the cut-off Numerical Rating Scale ⩾ 2, sensitivity was 0.69 and specificity was 0.60. By the cut-off Numerical Rating Scale ⩾ 4, sensitivity was 0.51 and specificity was 0.82. Combined mean ratings by Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Depression and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Anxiety revealed similar limited screening ability. CONCLUSION: The depression and anxiety items of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, a frequently used assessment tool in palliative care settings, seem to measure a construct other than major depressive episode as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 instrument.

Quality of life and symptom assessment in randomized clinical trials of bladder cancer: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) help patients, caretakers, clinicians, and policy makers make informed decisions regarding treatment effectiveness. Our objective was to assess the quality of PRO reporting and methodological strengths and weaknesses in randomized controlled trials (RCT) in bladder cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search of bladder cancer RCT published between January 2004 and March 2014 was performed. Relevant studies were evaluated using a predetermined extraction form that included trial demographics, clinical and PRO characteristics, and standards of PRO reporting based on recommendations of the International Society for Quality of Life Research. RESULTS: In total, 9 RCTs enrolling 1,237 patients were evaluated. All studies were in patients with nonmetastatic disease. In 5 RCTs, a PRO was the primary end point. Most RCTs did not report the mode of administration of the PRO instrument or the methods of collecting data. No RCT addressed the statistical approaches for missing data. CONCLUSIONS: We found that few RCTs in bladder cancer report PRO as an outcome. Efforts to expand PRO reporting to more RCTs and improve the quality of PRO reporting according to recognized standards are necessary for facilitating clinical decision making.

Assessing methods to specify the target difference for a randomised controlled trial: DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review.

BACKGROUND: The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is widely considered to be the gold standard study for comparing the effectiveness of health interventions. Central to the design and validity of a RCT is a calculation of the number of participants needed (the sample size). The value used to determine the sample size can be considered the 'target difference'. From both a scientific and an ethical standpoint, selecting an appropriate target difference is of crucial importance. Determination of the target difference, as opposed to statistical approaches to calculating the sample size, has been greatly neglected though a variety of approaches have been proposed the current state of the evidence is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to provide an overview of the current evidence regarding specifying the target difference in a RCT sample size calculation. The specific objectives were to conduct a systematic review of methods for specifying a target difference; to evaluate current practice by surveying triallists; to develop guidance on specifying the target difference in a RCT; and to identify future research needs. DESIGN: The biomedical and social science databases searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Methodology Register, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, EconLit, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Scopus for in-press publications. All were searched from 1966 or the earliest date of the database coverage and searches were undertaken between November 2010 and January 2011. There were three interlinked components: (1) systematic review of methods for specifying a target difference for RCTs - a comprehensive search strategy involving an electronic literature search of biomedical and some non-biomedical databases and clinical trials textbooks was carried out; (2) identification of current trial practice using two surveys of triallists - members of the Society for Clinical Trials (SCT) were invited to complete an online survey and respondents were asked about their awareness and use of, and willingness to recommend, methods; one individual per triallist group [UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs), Medical Research Council (MRC) UK Hubs for Trials Methodology Research and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK Research Design Services (RDS)] was invited to complete a survey; (3) production of a structured guidance document to aid the design of future trials - the draft guidance was developed utilising the results of the systematic review and surveys by the project steering and advisory groups. SETTING: Methodological review incorporating electronic searches, review of books and guidelines, two surveys of experts (membership of an international society and UK- and Ireland-based triallists) and development of guidance. PARTICIPANTS: The two surveys were sent out to membership of the SCT and UK- and Ireland-based triallists. INTERVENTIONS: The review focused on methods for specifying the target difference in a RCT. It was not restricted to any type of intervention or condition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Methods for specifying the target difference for a RCT were considered. RESULTS: The search identified 11,485 potentially relevant studies. In total, 1434 were selected for full-text assessment and 777 were included in the review. Seven methods to specify the target difference for a RCT were identified - anchor, distribution, health economic, opinion-seeking, pilot study, review of evidence base (RoEB) and standardised effect size (SES) - each having important variations in implementation. A total of 216 of the included studies used more than one method. A total of 180 (15%) responses to the SCT survey were received, representing 13 countries. Awareness of methods ranged from 38% (n =69) for the health economic method to 90% (n =162) for the pilot study. Of the 61 surveys sent out to UK triallist groups, 34 (56%) responses were received. Awareness ranged from 97% (n =33) for the RoEB and pilot study methods to only 41% (n =14) for the distribution method. Based on the most recent trial, all bar three groups (91%, n =30) used a formal method. Guidance was developed on the use of each method and the reporting of the sample size calculation in a trial protocol and results paper. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear need for greater use of formal methods to determine the target difference and better reporting of its specification. Raising the standard of RCT sample size calculations and the corresponding reporting of them would aid health professionals, patients, researchers and funders in judging the strength of the evidence and ensuring better use of scarce resources. FUNDING: The Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research Joint Methodology Research programme.

Validation and reliability testing of the EORTC QLQ-NMIBC24 questionnaire module to assess patient-reported outcomes in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Well-developed and well-tested patient-reported outcome measures for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) are required. OBJECTIVE: To test and adapt the scale structure and explore the psychometric properties of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire for NMIBC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 433 patients in the Bladder COX-2 Inhibition Trial (BOXIT) completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and NMIBC questionnaires. BOXIT is evaluating the addition of celecoxib to standard treatment in high- and intermediate-risk NMIBC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multitrait scaling investigated and adapted the questionnaire scale structure and evaluated the reliability and validity of the revised scales, as well as responsiveness to change. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 410 patients (94.7%) (79.3% men, 74.6% high risk) returned baseline forms, and the questionnaire response rate was 88.2%. Multitrait scaling confirmed six scales and five single items. Scales and items demonstrated significant differences between patients with good and poor performance status scores (p<0.001). Men reported better sexual function than women (p<0.001). Scale and single-item module scores were not highly correlated with QLQ-C30 scores (evidence of discriminant validity), and the module was responsive to changes in health over time. International and test-retest data are required. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the evidence-driven adapted scale structure and psychometric data of the EORTC QLQ-NMIBC24 module to use in clinical trials of patients with high- or intermediate-risk bladder cancer.

Should linking replace regression when mapping from profile-based measures to preference-based measures?

BACKGROUND: Profile instruments are frequently used to assess health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes. However, preference-based measures are required for health-economic cost-utility evaluations. RESULTS: Although regression-based approaches are commonly used to map from profile measures to preference measures, we show that this results in biased estimates because of regression to the mean. CONCLUSIONS: Linking (scale-aligning) is proposed as an alternative.

Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: the MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Despite being a core business of medicine, end of life care (EoLC) is neglected. It is hampered by research that is difficult to conduct with no common standards. We aimed to develop evidence-based guidance on the best methods for the design and conduct of research on EoLC to further knowledge in the field. METHODS: The Methods Of Researching End of life Care (MORECare) project built on the Medical Research Council guidance on the development and evaluation of complex circumstances. We conducted systematic literature reviews, transparent expert consultations (TEC) involving consensus methods of nominal group and online voting, and stakeholder workshops to identify challenges and best practice in EoLC research, including: participation recruitment, ethics, attrition, integration of mixed methods, complex outcomes and economic evaluation. We synthesised all findings to develop a guidance statement on the best methods to research EoLC. RESULTS: We integrated data from three systematic reviews and five TECs with 133 online responses. We recommend research designs extending beyond randomised trials and encompassing mixed methods. Patients and families value participation in research, and consumer or patient collaboration in developing studies can resolve some ethical concerns. It is ethically desirable to offer patients and families the opportunity to participate in research. Outcome measures should be short, responsive to change and ideally used for both clinical practice and research. Attrition should be anticipated in studies and may affirm inclusion of the relevant population, but careful reporting is necessitated using a new classification. Eventual implementation requires consideration at all stages of the project. CONCLUSIONS: The MORECare statement provides 36 best practice solutions for research evaluating services and treatments in EoLC to improve study quality and set the standard for future research. The statement may be used alongside existing statements and provides a first step in setting common, much needed standards for evaluative research in EoLC. These are relevant to those undertaking research, trainee researchers, research funders, ethical committees and editors.

Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: a comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to (i) compare the responsiveness of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire and the generic questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D used for economic evaluation of healthcare interventions and (ii) determine the minimal important differences (MIDs) in these questionnaires. The MID is the smallest change in a quality-of-life score considered important to patients. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2008, 239 patients with multiple myeloma completed the questionnaires at inclusion (T1) and after 3 months (T2). At T2, patients were asked whether they had noticed any change in their quality of life. Responsiveness and MIDs were determined by mean score changes (T2-T1) for patients who, in the interview, stated they had improved, deteriorated, or were unchanged. Responsiveness was also assessed using standardized response means. Wilcoxon tests for pair differences were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the changes. RESULTS: Patients who improved had significantly (P < 0.01) higher scores at T2 in all three questionnaires. Patients who deteriorated reported lower scores at T2; however, for the 15D, the differences in score were not statistically significant. The MIDs for the QLQ-C30, EQ-5D, and 15D were 8, 0.08, and 0.03 in patients who improved and 12, 0.10 and 0.02 in patients who deteriorated, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All three questionnaires showed an acceptable responsiveness in patients who improved. However, the 15D did not respond optimally in patients who deteriorate and cannot be recommended for use in patients with myeloma.

Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review.

CONTEXT: The use of unidimensional pain scales such as the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) is recommended for assessment of pain intensity (PI). A literature review of studies specifically comparing the NRS, VRS, and/or VAS for unidimensional self-report of PI was performed as part of the work of the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative on pain assessment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the use and performance of unidimensional pain scales, with specific emphasis on the NRSs. METHODS: A systematic search was performed, including citations through April 2010. All abstracts were evaluated by two persons according to specified criteria. RESULTS: Fifty-four of 239 papers were included. Postoperative PI was most frequently studied; six studies were in cancer. Eight versions of the NRS (NRS-6 to NRS-101) were used in 37 studies; a total of 41 NRSs were tested. Twenty-four different descriptors (15 for the NRSs) were used to anchor the extremes. When compared with the VAS and VRS, NRSs had better compliance in 15 of 19 studies reporting this, and were the recommended tool in 11 studies on the basis of higher compliance rates, better responsiveness and ease of use, and good applicability relative to VAS/VRS. Twenty-nine studies gave no preference. Many studies showed wide distributions of NRS scores within each category of the VRSs. Overall, NRS and VAS scores corresponded, with a few exceptions of systematically higher VAS scores. CONCLUSION: NRSs are applicable for unidimensional assessment of PI in most settings. Whether the variability in anchors and response options directly influences the numerical scores needs to be empirically tested. This will aid in the work toward a consensus-based, standardized measure.

Multi-centred mixed-methods PEPFAR HIV care & support public health evaluation: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: A public health response is essential to meet the multidimensional needs of patients and families affected by HIV disease in sub-Saharan Africa. In order to appraise current provision of HIV care and support in East Africa, and to provide evidence-based direction to future care programming, and Public Health Evaluation was commissioned by the PEPFAR programme of the US Government. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper described the 2-Phase international mixed methods study protocol utilising longitudinal outcome measurement, surveys, patient and family qualitative interviews and focus groups, staff qualitative interviews, health economics and document analysis. Aim 1) To describe the nature and scope of HIV care and support in two African countries, including the types of facilities available, clients seen, and availability of specific components of care [Study Phase 1]. Aim 2) To determine patient health outcomes over time and principle cost drivers [Study Phase 2]. The study objectives are as follows. 1) To undertake a cross-sectional survey of service configuration and activity by sampling 10% of the facilities being funded by PEPFAR to provide HIV care and support in Kenya and Uganda (Phase 1) in order to describe care currently provided, including pharmacy drug reviews to determine availability and supply of essential drugs in HIV management. 2) To conduct patient focus group discussions at each of these (Phase 1) to determine care received. 3) To undertake a longitudinal prospective study of 1200 patients who are newly diagnosed with HIV or patients with HIV who present with a new problem attending PEPFAR care and support services. Data collection includes self-reported quality of life, core palliative outcomes and components of care received (Phase 2). 4) To conduct qualitative interviews with staff, patients and carers in order to explore and understand service issues and care provision in more depth (Phase 2). 5) To undertake document analysis to appraise the clinical care procedures at each facility (Phase 2). 6) To determine principle cost drivers including staff, overhead and laboratory costs (Phase 2). DISCUSSION: This novel mixed methods protocol will permit transparent presentation of subsequent dataset results publication, and offers a substantive model of protocol design to measure and integrate key activities and outcomes that underpin a public health approach to disease management in a low-income setting.

Minimal important differences and response shift in health-related quality of life; a longitudinal study in patients with multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that changes of 6-17 percent in the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores are regarded important by patients with multiple myeloma and thus may be considered as Minimal Important Differences (MIDs). However, patients' internal standard of measurement may have changed over time (response shift, RS). In the present work, we evaluated whether myeloma patients experience RS and if this could affect the MID-estimates. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2008, 239 patients with multiple myeloma completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline (T1) and after three months (T2). At T2, patients were asked if they had noticed any change in the domains pain, fatigue, physical function and global quality of life. They were also asked to give a retrospective judgment of their baseline values on all the four domains. RESULTS: We found clear evidence of RS in myeloma patients. However, there were differences in both magnitude and direction between patients who stated that they improved and those who deteriorated. Deteriorating patients retrospectively reported better health-related quality of life at T1 for the domains pain, fatigue and physical function. In these patients, MIDs adjusted for RS were observed to increase up to 12 percentage points. In contrast, for patients stating that they improved, we only found evidence of statistically significant RS in the domain global quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: MIDs estimated from pre-test/post-test data appeared to be robust against RS in patients reporting improvement over 3-months. This could indicate that RS has a minimal impact on the results in patients who respond to treatment, and that RS may not have an important impact on interpretation of changes reported in clinical trials where an improvement occurs.Although the effect sizes of the RSs were small, RS in deteriorating patients may have an important impact on the interpretation of changes reported in clinical trials.

Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses of health-related quality of life instruments using logistic regression.

BACKGROUND: Differential item functioning (DIF) methods can be used to determine whether different subgroups respond differently to particular items within a health-related quality of life (HRQoL) subscale, after allowing for overall subgroup differences in that scale. This article reviews issues that arise when testing for DIF in HRQoL instruments. We focus on logistic regression methods, which are often used because of their efficiency, simplicity and ease of application. METHODS: A review of logistic regression DIF analyses in HRQoL was undertaken. Methodological articles from other fields and using other DIF methods were also included if considered relevant. RESULTS: There are many competing approaches for the conduct of DIF analyses and many criteria for determining what constitutes significant DIF. DIF in short scales, as commonly found in HRQL instruments, may be more difficult to interpret. Qualitative methods may aid interpretation of such DIF analyses. CONCLUSIONS: A number of methodological choices must be made when applying logistic regression for DIF analyses, and many of these affect the results. We provide recommendations based on reviewing the current evidence. Although the focus is on logistic regression, many of our results should be applicable to DIF analyses in general. There is a need for more empirical and theoretical work in this area.

Assessment of body image in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This study tested the scale properties and validity of the ten-item body image scale (BIS) in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Patients completed the BIS and a validated measure of health-related quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30) after open or laparoscopic resection. A sample of the patients had also previously completed questionnaires before and after surgery. Multi-trait scaling and factor analysis were used to examine the questionnaire scaling, and tests of reliability, clinical and construct validity were performed. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (48 male, 59 open, 23 laparoscopic) participated. Scaling analyses suggested a nine-item scale and one single item. This revised scale structure demonstrated good test-retest reliability (r = 0.94) and no overlap with the key domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (r < 0.40). Patients with a stoma reported significantly poorer BIS scores than those undergoing simple resection (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides psychometric and clinical evidence for a revised scale structure for the BIS in CRC, and the questionnaire is suitable to assess body image in CRC clinical trials.

The practical impact of differential item functioning analyses in a health-related quality of life instrument.

INTRODUCTION: Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses are commonly used to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. There is, however, a lack of consensus as to how to assess the practical impact of statistically significant DIF results. METHODS: Using our previously published ordinal logistic regression DIF results for the Fatigue scale of a HRQoL instrument as an example, the practical impact on a particular Norwegian clinical trial was investigated. The results were used to determine the difference in mean Fatigue scores assuming that the same trial was conducted in the UK. The results were then compared with published information on what would be considered a clinically important change in scores. RESULTS: The item with the largest DIF effect resulted in differences between the mean English and Norwegian Fatigue scores that, although small, could be considered clinically important. Sensitivity analyses showed that larger differences were found for shorter scales, and when the proportions in each response category were equal. DISCUSSION: Our scenarios suggest that translation differences in an item can result in small, but clinically important, differences at the scale score level. This is more likely to be problematic for observational studies than for clinical trials, where randomised groups are stratified by centre.

Health-related quality of life assessment in randomised controlled trials in multiple myeloma: a critical review of methodology and impact on treatment recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) often have pronounced symptoms and substantially reduced quality of life. The aims of treatment are to control disease, maximise quality of life and prolong survival. Hence, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) should be an important end-point in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in addition to traditional endpoints. We wanted to evaluate whether trials reporting HRQOL outcomes have influenced clinical decision making and whether HRQOL was assessed robustly according to predefined criteria. METHODS: A systematic review identified RCTs in MM with HRQOL assessment as a study end-point. The methodological quality of these studies was assessed according to a checklist developed for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in clinical trials. The impact of the HRQOL results on clinical decision making was assessed, using published clinical guidelines as a reference. RESULTS: Fifteen publications presenting RCTs with HRQOL as a study end-point were identified. In 13 trials, the author stated that HRQOL results should influence clinical decision making. We found, however, that the HRQOL data only had a limited impact on published treatment guidelines for bisphosphonates, high-dose treatment, interferon, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and novel agents. CONCLUSION: The present review indicates that the there are still few RCTs in MM including HRQOL as a study end-point. Systematic incorporation of HRQOL measures into clinical trials allows for a comparison of treatment arms that includes the patients' perspective. Before the full impact on clinical decisions can be realised, the quality and methodology of collecting HRQOL data must be further improved and the results rendered more comprehensible to clinicians.

Symptom assessment in palliative care: a need for international collaboration.

This article describes the research strategy for the development of a computerized assessment tool as part of a European Union (EU)-funded project, the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC). The EPCRC is funded through the Sixth Framework Program of the EU with major objectives to develop a computer-based assessment and classification tool for pain, depression, and cachexia. A systematic approach will be applied for the tool development with emphasis on multicultural and multilanguage challenges across Europe. The EPCRC is based on a long lasting collaboration within the European Association for Palliative Care Research Network. The ongoing change in society towards greatly increased use of communication as well as information transfer via digital systems will rapidly change the health care system. Therefore, patient-centered outcome assessment tools applicable for both clinic and research should be developed. Report of symptoms via digital media provides a start for face-to-face communication, treatment decisions, and assessment of treatment effects. The increased use of electronic media for exchange of information may facilitate the development and use of electronic assessment tools and decision-making systems in oncology. In the future, patients may find that a combination of a face-to-face interview plus a transfer of information of subjective symptoms by electronic means will optimize treatment.

The relationship between overall quality of life and its subdimensions was influenced by culture: analysis of an international database.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether geographic and cultural factors influence the relationship between the global health status quality of life (QL) scale score of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire and seven other subscales representing fatigue, pain, physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A large international database of QLQ-C30 responses was assembled. A linear regression model was developed predicting the QL scale score and including interactions between geographical/cultural groupings and the seven other scale scores. RESULTS: The pain subscale appeared to have relatively greater influence and fatigue relatively lower influence for those from other European regions compared with respondents from the UK when predicting overall quality of life (QoL). For Scandinavia physical functioning appeared to contribute relatively less. There was evidence of greater emphasis on cognitive functioning for those from South Asia and Latin America compared with the UK, whereas for those from Islamic countries, the role functioning scale appeared to have less influence and physical and social functioning more influence. CONCLUSION: These results provide evidence that different cultural groups may emphasize different aspects of their QoL. This has implications for studies using QoL questionnaires in international comparisons.

Doloplus-2, a valid tool for behavioural pain assessment?

BACKGROUND: The Doloplus-2 is used for behavioural pain assessment in cognitively impaired patients. Little data exists on the psychometric properties of the Doloplus-2. Our objectives were to test the criterion validity and inter-rater reliability of the Doloplus-2, and to explore a design for validations of behavioural pain assessment tools. METHODS: Fifty-one nursing home patients and 22 patients admitted to a geriatric hospital ward were included. All were cognitively impaired and unable to self-report pain. Each patient was examined by an expert in pain evaluation and treatment, who rated the pain on a numerical rating scale. The ratings were based on information from the medical record, reports from nurses and patients (if possible) about pain during the past 24 hours, and a clinical examination. These ratings were used as pain criterion. The Doloplus-2 was administered by the attending nurse. Regression analyses were used to estimate the ability of the Doloplus-2 to explain the expert's ratings. The inter-rater reliability of the Doloplus-2 was evaluated in 16 patients by comparing the ratings of two nurses administrating the Doloplus-2. RESULTS: There was no association between the Doloplus-2 and the expert's pain ratings (R2 = 0.02). There was an association (R2 = 0.54) between the expert's ratings and the Doloplus-2 scores in a subgroup of 16 patients assessed by a geriatric expert nurse (the most experienced Doloplus-2 administrator). The inter-rater reliability between the Doloplus-2 administrators assessed by the intra-class coefficient was 0.77. The pain expert's ratings were compared with ratings of two independent geriatricians in a sub sample of 15, and were found satisfactory (intra-class correlation 0.74). CONCLUSION: It was challenging to conduct such a study in patients with cognitive impairment and the study has several limitations. The results do not support the validity of the Doloplus-2 in its present version and they indicate that it demands specific administration skills.