Effect of completion-time windows in the analysis of health-related quality of life outcomes in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: We examined if cancer patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 are affected by the specific time point, before or during treatment, at which the questionnaire is completed, and whether this could bias the overall treatment comparison analyses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 'completion-time window' variable was created on three closed EORTC randomised control trials in lung (non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) to indicate when the QLQ-30 was completed relative to chemotherapy cycle dates, defined as 'before', 'on' and 'after'. HRQoL mean scores were calculated using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (P<0.05) were observed on 6 and 5 scales for 'on' and 'after' comparisons in the NSCLC and two-group CRC trial, respectively. As for the three-group CRC trial, several statistical differences were observed in the 'before' to 'on' and the 'on' to 'after' comparisons. For all three trials, including the 'completion-time window' variable in the model resulted in a better fit, but no substantial changes in the treatment effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that considering the exact timing of completion within specified windows resulted in statistical and potentially clinically significant differences, but it did not alter the conclusions of treatment comparison in these studies.

Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the smallest changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 and the Brain Cancer Module (QLQ-BN20), which could be considered as clinically meaningful in brain cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: World Health Organisation performance status (PS) and mini-mental state examination (MMSE) were used as clinical anchors appropriate to related subscales to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in HRQoL change scores (range 0-100) in the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20. A threshold of 0.2 standard deviation (SD) (small effect) was used to exclude anchor-based MCID estimates considered too small to inform interpretation. RESULTS: Based on PS, our findings support the following integer estimates of the MCID for improvement and deterioration, respectively: physical (6, 9), role (14, 12), and cognitive functioning (8, 8); global health status (7, 4*), fatigue (12, 9), and motor dysfunction (4*, 5). Anchoring with MMSE, cognitive functioning MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were (11, 2*) and for communication deficit were (9, 7). Estimates with asterisks were <0.2 SD and were excluded from our MCID range of 5-14. CONCLUSION: These estimates can help clinicians evaluate changes in HRQoL over time, assess the value of a health care intervention and can be useful in determining sample sizes in designing future clinical trials.