Response shift in patient-reported outcomes:definition, theory, and a revised model

International audiencePurpose The extant response shift definitions and theoretical response shift models, while helpful, also introduce predicaments and theoretical debates continue. To address these predicaments and stimulate empirical research, we propose a more specific formal definition of response shift and a revised theoretical model. Methods This work is an international collaborative effort and involved a critical assessment of the literature. Results Three main predicaments were identified. First, the formal definitions of response shift need further specification and clarification. Second, previous models were focused on explaining change in the construct intended to be measured rather than explaining the construct at multiple time points and neglected the importance of using at least two time points to investigate response shift. Third, extant models do not explicitly distinguish the measure from the construct. Here we define response shift as an effect occurring whenever observed change (e.g., change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) scores) is not fully explained by target change (i.e., change in the construct intended to be measured). The revised model distinguishes the measure (e.g., PROM) from the underlying target construct (e.g., quality of life) at two time points. The major plausible paths are delineated, and the underlying assumptions of this model are explicated. Conclusion It is our hope that this refined definition and model are useful in the further development of response shift theory. The model with its explicit list of assumptions and hypothesized relationships lends itself for critical, empirical examination. Future studies are needed to empirically test the assumptions and hypothesized relationships

Quality of Life During and After Completion of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal and Junctional Cancer

Background. The course of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during and after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for esophageal or junctional carcinoma is unknown. Methods. This study was a multicenter prospective cohort investigation. Patients with esophageal or cancer to be treated with nCRT plus esophagectomy were eligible for inclusion in the study. The HRQOL of the patients was measured with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, QLQ-OG25, and QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaires before and during nCRT, then 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 weeks after nCRT and before surgery. Predefined end points were based on the hypothesized impact of nCRT. The primary end points were physical functioning, odynophagia, and sensory symptoms. The secondary end points were global quality of life, fatigue, weight loss, and motor symptoms. Mixed modeling analysis was used to evaluate changes over time. Results. Of 106 eligible patients, 96 (91%) were included in the study. The rate of questionnaires returned ranged from 94% to 99% until week 12, then dropped to 78% in week 16 after nCRT. A negative impact of nCRT on all HRQOL end points was observed during the last cycle of nCRT (all p < 0.001) and 2 weeks after nCRT (all p < 0.001). Physical functioning, odynophagia, and sensory symptoms were restored to pretreatment levels respectively 8, 4, and 6 weeks after nCRT. The secondary end points were restored to baseline levels 4-6 weeks after nCRT. Odynophagia, fatigue, and weight loss improved after nCRT compared with baseline levels at respectively 6 (p < 0.001), 16 (p = 0.001), and 12 weeks (p < 0.001). Conclusion. After completion of nCRT for esophageal cancer, HRQOL decreases significantly, but all HRQOL end points are restored to baseline levels within 8 weeks. Odynophagia, fatigue, and weight loss improved 6-16 weeks after nCRT compared with baseline levels