nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.06.2014

Quality of life assessed with EQ-5D in patients undergoing glioma surgery: What is the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference?

verfasst von: Lisa Millgård Sagberg, Asgeir S. Jakola, Ole Solheim

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 5/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the responsiveness of EQ-5D 3L in patients undergoing intracranial glioma surgery and estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Materials and methods

EQ-5D 3L index values from 164 patients who underwent glioma surgery in the period 2007–2012 were analysed. Responsiveness and MCID were estimated using a combination of distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Karnofsky performance status served as an anchor.

Results

Patients who improved functionally did not report significantly higher EQ-5D 3L scores post operatively with a standardized response mean (SRM) of 0.04 (p = 0.13). Patients who deteriorated functionally reported significantly lower EQ-5D 3L scores post operatively with a SRM of 0.72 (p < 0.001). With different approaches, we determined a range of MCID values from 0.13 to 0.15.

Conclusions

EQ-5D 3L is responsive to changes when glioma patients are deteriorating functionally after surgery but not responsive when the patients are improving. The MCID values for EQ-5D 3L in glioma surgery seem higher than reported MCID values for other types of cancers.

Cbtrus (2012). Primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2004–2008. CBTRUS Statistical Report 2012.

Stummer, W., Reulen, H. J., Meinel, T., Pichlmeier, U., Schumacher, W., Tonn, J. C., et al. (2008). Extent of resection and survival in glioblastoma multiforme: Identification of and adjustment for bias. Neurosurgery, 62, 564–576.PubMedCrossRef

Smith, J. S., Chang, E. F., Lamborn, K. R., Chang, S. M., Prados, M. D., Cha, S., et al. (2008). Role of extent of resection in the long-term outcome of low-grade hemispheric gliomas. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, 1338–1345.PubMedCrossRef

Lacroix, M., Abi-Said, D., Fourney, D. R., Gokaslan, Z. L., Shi, W., Demonte, F., et al. (2001). A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: Prognosis, extent of resection, and survival. Journal of Neurosurgery, 95, 190–198.PubMedCrossRef

Jakola, A. S., Myrmel, K. S., Kloster, R., Torp, S. H., Lindal, S., Unsgard, G., et al. (2012). Comparison of a strategy favoring early surgical resection vs a strategy favoring watchful waiting in low-grade gliomas. JAMA, 308, 1881–1888.PubMedCrossRef

Anonymous. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol group. Health policy, 16, 199–208.CrossRef

Jakola, A. S., Unsgard, G., & Solheim, O. (2011). Quality of life in patients with intracranial gliomas: The impact of modern image-guided surgery. Journal of Neurosurgery, 114, 1622–1630.PubMedCrossRef

Jakola, A. S., Gulati, S., Weber, C., Unsgard, G., & Solheim, O. (2011). Postoperative deterioration in health related quality of life as predictor for survival in patients with glioblastoma: A prospective study. PLoS ONE, 6, e28592.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. West Sussex, England: Wiley

10.

Guyatt, G., Walter, S., & Norman, G. (1987). Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 171–178.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., Norman, G. R., & Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 371–383.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Al, E. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102–109.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Karnofsky, D. A., & Burchenal, J. H. (1949). The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In C. M. MacLeod (Ed.), Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. New York: Colombia University Press

14.

Nord, E. (1991). EuroQol: Health-related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy, 18, 25–36.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Frappaz, D., Chinot, O., Bataillard, A., Ben Hassel, M., Capelle, L., Chanalet, S., et al. (2003). Summary version of the standards, options and recommendations for the management of adult patients with intracranial glioma (2002). British Journal of Cancer, 89(Suppl 1), S73–S83.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

17.

Schag, C. C., Heinrich, R. L., & Ganz, P. A. (1984). Karnofsky performance status revisited: Reliability, validity, and guidelines. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2, 187–193.PubMed

18.

WMA. (2008). Declaration of Helsinki. WMA: Ferney-Voltaire.

19.

Husted, J. A., Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T., & Gladman, D. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 459–468.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hilsdale NJ.

21.

Mchorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4, 293–307.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Hunger, M., Sabariego, C., Stollenwerk, B., Cieza, A., & Leidl, R. (2012). Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1205–1216.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Olerud, P., Tidermark, J., Ponzer, S., Ahrengart, L., & Bergstrom, G. (2011). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in patients with proximal humeral fractures. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 20, 1200–1206.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Luo, N., Ng, W. Y., Lau, P. N., Au, W. L., & Tan, L. C. (2010). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D and 8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) in a 4-year follow-up study. Quality of Life Research, 19, 565–569.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Konig, H. H., Born, A., Gunther, O., Matschinger, H., Heinrich, S., Riedel-Heller, S. G., et al. (2010). Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with anxiety disorders. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 47.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Kvam, A. K., Fayers, P. M., & Wisloff, F. (2011). 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. European Journal of Haematology, 87, 330–337.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Kimman, M. L., Dirksen, C. D., Lambin, P., & Boersma, L. J. (2009). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in breast cancer patients in their first year after treatment. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

28.

Tidermark, J., Bergstrom, G., Svensson, O., Tornkvist, H., & Ponzer, S. (2003). Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ 5-D) and the SF-36 in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Quality of Life Research, 12, 1069–1079.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., Dziedzic, K., & Dawes, P. T. (2002). Generic measures of health-related quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Rheumatology (Oxford), 41, 1380–1387.CrossRef

30.

Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., Lall, R., Smith, J. F., & Lamb, S. E. (2008). EuroQol EQ-5D and condition-specific measures of health outcome in women with urinary incontinence: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research, 17, 475–483.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Burton, M., Walters, S. J., Saleh, M., & Brazier, J. E. (2012). An evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures in lower limb reconstruction surgery. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1731–1743.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38, 115–121.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Chang, E. F., Potts, M. B., Keles, G. E., Lamborn, K. R., Chang, S. M., Barbaro, N. M., et al. (2008). Seizure characteristics and control following resection in 332 patients with low-grade gliomas. Journal of Neurosurgery, 108, 227–235.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Pickard, A. S., Neary, M. P., & Cella, D. (2007). Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 5, 70.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

35.

Hays, R. D., & Woolley, J. M. (2000). The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? PharmacoEconomics, 18, 419–423.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Maringwa, J., Quinten, C., King, M., Ringash, J., Osoba, D., Coens, C., et al. (2011). Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients. Annals of Oncology, 22, 2107–2112.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Sprangers, M. A., Te Velde, A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1999). The construction and testing of the EORTC colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). European organization for research and treatment of cancer study group on quality of life. European Journal of Cancer, 35, 238–247.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Willan, A., & Griffith, L. E. (1994). Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 81–87.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Taphoorn, M. J., Sizoo, E. M., & Bottomley, A. (2010). Review on quality of life issues in patients with primary brain tumors. Oncologist, 15, 618–626.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

42.

Bottomley, A., Flechtner, H., Efficace, F., Vanvoorden, V., Coens, C., Therasse, P., et al. (2005). Health related quality of life outcomes in cancer clinical trials. European Journal of Cancer, 41, 1697–1709.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Osoba, D., Aaronson, N. K., Muller, M., Sneeuw, K., Hsu, M. A., Yung, W. K., et al. (1996). The development and psychometric validation of a brain cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for use in combination with general cancer-specific questionnaires. Quality of Life Research, 5, 139–150.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Drummond, M., Sculpher, M., Torrance, G., O′Brien, B., & Stoddart, G. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

45.

Slevin, M. L., Plant, H., Lynch, D., Drinkwater, J., & Gregory, W. M. (1988). Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? British Journal of Cancer, 57, 109–112.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

46.

Fisch, M. J., Titzer, M. L., Kristeller, J. L., Shen, J., Loehrer, P. J., Jung, S. H., et al. (2003). Assessment of quality of life in outpatients with advanced cancer: The accuracy of clinician estimations and the relevance of spiritual well-being–a Hoosier oncology group study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 2754–2759.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Bailey, C. S., Fehlings, M. G., Rampersaud, Y. R., Hall, H., Wai, E. K., & Fisher, C. G. (2011). Industry and evidence-based medicine: Believable or conflicted? A systematic review of the surgical literature. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 54, 321–326.PubMedCentralCrossRef

Titel: Quality of life assessed with EQ-5D in patients undergoing glioma surgery: What is the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference?
verfasst von: Lisa Millgård Sagberg
Asgeir S. Jakola
Ole Solheim
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2014
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 5/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0593-4

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2014

Framework to assess the effects of using patient-reported outcome measures in chronic care management

Effect of aerobic exercise on quality of life in population with diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes: a single blind, randomized controlled trial

Measurement properties of the Flu-Like Symptom Index from the Hepatitis Physical Symptom Severity Diary

Development, validity and reliability of the short multidimensional positive mental health instrument

The dyadic interaction of relationships and disability type on informal carer subjective well-being

Using existing data to identify candidate items for a health state classification system in multiple sclerosis