Establishing anchor-based minimally important differences (MID) with the EORTC quality-of-life measures: a meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: As patient assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in cancer clinical trials has increased over the years, so has the need to attach meaningful interpretations to differences in HRQOL scores between groups and changes within groups. Determining what represents a minimally important difference (MID) in HRQOL scores is useful to clinicians, patients and researchers, and can be used as a benchmark for assessing the success of a healthcare intervention. Our objective is to provide an evidence-based protocol to determine MIDs for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). We will mainly focus on MID estimation for group-level comparisons. Responder thresholds for individual-level change will also be estimated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Data will be derived from published phase II and III EORTC trials that used the QLQ-C30 instrument, covering several cancer sites. We will use individual patient data to estimate MIDs for different cancer sites separately. Focus is on anchor-based methods. Anchors will be selected per disease site from available data. A disease-oriented and methodological panel will provide independent guidance on anchor selection. We aim to construct multiple clinical anchors per QLQ-C30 scale and also to compare with several anchor-based methods. The effects of covariates, for example, gender, age, disease stage and so on, will also be investigated. We will examine how our estimated MIDs compare with previously published guidelines, hence further contributing to robust MID guidelines for the EORTC QLQ-C30. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All patient data originate from completed clinical trials with mandatory written informed consent, approved by local ethical committees. Our findings will be presented at scientific conferences, disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and also compiled in a MID 'blue book' which will be made available online on the EORTC Quality of Life Group website as a free guideline document

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 trial

Health-related quality-of-life results from the randomised phase II TAVAREC trial on temozolomide with or without bevacizumab in 1p/19q intact first-recurrence World Health Organization grade 2 and 3 glioma (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 26091)

Background: In an international randomised controlled phase II study of temozolomide (TMZ) versus TMZ in combination with bevacizumab (BEV) in locally diagnosed non-1p/19q co-deleted World Health Organization grade 2 or 3 gliomas with a first and contrast-enhancing recurrence after initial radiotherapy, and overall survival at 12 months was not significantly different (61% in the TMZ arm and 55% in the TMZ + BEV arm). Objectives: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a key secondary end-point in this trial, and the main objective of this study was to determine the impact of the addition of BEV to TMZ on HRQoL. Methods: HRQoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 (version 3) and QLQ-BN20 at baseline, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression. The pre-selected primary HRQoL end-point was the QLQ-C30 global health scale, with self-perceived cognitive functioning and pain selected as secondary HRQoL issues. Analysis was undertaken using linear mixed modelling and complemented with sensitivity analyses using summary statistics. A difference was considered clinically relevant with ≥10 points difference on a 100-point scale. Results: Baseline compliance was high at 94% and remained above 60% until 72 weeks, limiting the analysis to 60 weeks. Compliance was similar in both arms. We found no statistically significant or clinically significant differences between the primary HRQoL end-point in both treatment arms (p = 0.2642). The sensitivity analyses confirmed this finding. The overall test for post-baseline differences between the two treatment arms also showed no statistically or clinically significant differences regarding the selected secondary end-point scales. Interpretation: The addition of BEV to TMZ in this patient group neither improves nor negatively impacts HRQoL.</p

TQM and performance appraisal : complementary or incompatible?

Despite the scholarly interest in performance management as a key determinant of the effectiveness of enterprise process improvement methods such as total quality management (TQM) and its derivatives, few empirical studies have explicitly explored the practice of performance management systems in TQM‐focused organizations. In order to redress this imbalance, this study aims to describe how organizational and managerial forces led to a performance management systems failing to embrace the core principles of process improvement methods such as TQM. Using a qualitative study of six large UK‐based automobile and auto parts manufacturers, our results illustrate how manager‐controlled, individual‐focused, past‐oriented, long‐cycle, and narrowly defined performance appraisal (PA) systems can intervene to underline the ultimate potential of TQM. The paper concludes with the discussion of implications for theory and practice of TQM and human resource performance management

Current state of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes research

The 5th EORTC Quality of Life in Cancer Clinical Trials Conference presented the current state of quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) research from the perspectives of researchers, regulators, industry representatives, patients and patient advocates and health care professionals. A major theme was the assessment of the burden of cancer treatments, and this was discussed in terms of regulatory challenges in using PRO assessments in clinical trials, patients' experiences in cancer clinical trials, innovative methods and standardisation in cancer research, innovative methods across the disease sites or populations and cancer survivorship. Conferees demonstrated that PROs are becoming more accepted and major efforts are ongoing internationally to standardise PROs measurement, analysis and reporting in trials. Regulators are keen to collaborate with all stakeholders to ensure that the right questions are asked and the right answers are communicated. Improved technology and increased flexibility of measurement instruments are making PROs data more robust. Patients are being encouraged to be patient partners. International collaborations are essential, because this work cannot be accomplished on a national level

Replication and validation of higher order models demonstrated that a summary score for the EORTC QLQ-C30 is robust.

Objective: To further evaluate the higher-order measurement structure of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) questionnaire, with the aim of generating a summary score. Study design and setting: Using pretreatment QLQ-C30 data (N=3,282), we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to test seven previously evaluated higher-order models. We compared the summary score(s) derived from the best performing higher-order model with the original QLQ-C30 scale scores, using tumor stage, performance status and change over time (N=244) as grouping variables. Results: Whereas all models showed acceptable fit, we continued in the interest of parsimony with known-groups validity and responsiveness analyses using a summary score derived from the single higher-order factor model. The validity and responsiveness of this QLQ-C30 Summary Score was equal to, and in many cases superior to the original, underlying QLQ-C30 scale scores. Conclusion: Our results provide empirical support for a measurement model for the QLQ-C30 yielding a single summary score. The availability of this Summary Score can avoid problems with potential Type I errors that arise due to multiple testing when making comparisons based on the 15 outcomes generated by this questionnaire, and may reduce sample size requirements for HRQL studies using the QLQ-C30 questionnaire when an overall summary score is a relevant primary outcome