Evaluating minimal important differences for the FACT-Melanoma quality of life questionnaire

Objectives. Minimal Important Differences (MIDs) establish benchmarks for interpreting mean differences in clinical trials involving quality of life outcomes and inform discussions of clinically meaningful change in patient status. As such, the purpose of this study was to assess MIDs for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Melanoma (FACT-M). ^ Methods. A prospective validation study of the FACT-M was performed with 273 patients with stage I to IV melanoma. FACT-M, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) scores were obtained at baseline and 3 months following enrollment. Anchor- and distribution-based methods were used to assess MIDs, and the correspondence between MID ranges derived from each method was evaluated. ^ Results. This study indicates that an approximate range for MIDs of the FACT-M subscales is between 5 to 8 points for the Trial Outcome Index, 4 to 5 points for the Melanoma Combined Subscale, 2 to 4 points for the Melanoma Subscale, and 1 to 2 points for the Melanoma Surgery Subscale. Each method produced similar but not identical ranges of MIDs. ^ Conclusions. The properties of the anchor instrument employed to derive MIDs directly affect resulting MID ranges and point values. When MIDs are offered as supportive evidence of a clinically meaningful change, the anchor instrument used to derive thresholds should be clearly stated along with evidence supporting the choice of anchor instrument as the most appropriate for the domain of interest. In this analysis, the KPS was a more appropriate measure than the ECOG-PS for assessing MIDs. ^

Validating the dietary intake questions from the Tu Salud, ¡Si Cuenta! questionnaire

Background. Poor nutrition is an important factor in the onset of obesity which is a growing problem in the United States that disproportionately affects Mexican-Americans. In order to form recommendations and effectively target nutrition in interventions it is necessary to have valid epidemiological tools to better understand dietary trends. Purpose. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the validity of the nutritional intake questions from the Tu Salud, ¡Sí Cuenta! Questionnaire in an adult Mexican-American population. Methods. Fifty participants in the Cameron County Hispanic Cohort were recruited into the validity study, which consisted of completing the Tu Salud, ¡Sí Cuenta! questionnaire and the 24-hour recall with a 2 hour time period between administrations. Responses were analyzed to determine the percent agreement, kappa statistic and Spearman rank order correlation. Results: Five items had good validity (>0.6), three items had fair validity (>0.4), and three items had poor validity (<0.4). In general, items that had low validity were those that were reported in low frequencies by study subjects. Overall, the Tu Salud, ¡Sí Cuenta! questionnaire showed good validity, making this questionnaire a valuable tool to assess the dietary intake patterns of this Mexican-American adult population. ^

Validity of using item response theory to analyze data from the Work Limitations Questionnaire

The Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) is used to determine the amount of work loss and productivity which stem from certain health conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and cancer. The questionnaire is currently scored using methodology from Classical Test Theory. Item Response Theory, on the other hand, is a theory based on analyzing item responses. This study wanted to determine the validity of using Item Response Theory (IRT), to analyze data from the WLQ. Item responses from 572 employed adults with dysthymia, major depressive disorder (MDD), double depressive disorder (both dysthymia and MDD), rheumatoid arthritis and healthy individuals were used to determine the validity of IRT (Adler et al., 2006).^ PARSCALE, which is IRT software from Scientific Software International, Inc., was used to calculate estimates of the work limitations based on item responses from the WLQ. These estimates, also known as ability estimates, were then correlated with the raw score estimates calculated from the sum of all the items responses. Concurrent validity, which claims a measurement is valid if the correlation between the new measurement and the valid measurement is greater or equal to .90, was used to determine the validity of IRT methodology for the WLQ. Ability estimates from IRT were found to be somewhat highly correlated with the raw scores from the WLQ (above .80). However, the only subscale which had a high enough correlation for IRT to be considered valid was the time management subscale (r = .90). All other subscales, mental/interpersonal, physical, and output, did not produce valid IRT ability estimates.^ An explanation for these lower than expected correlations can be explained by the outliers found in the sample. Also, acquiescent responding (AR) bias, which is caused by the tendency for people to respond the same way to every question on a questionnaire, and the multidimensionality of the questionnaire (the WLQ is composed of four dimensions and thus four different latent variables) probably had a major impact on the IRT estimates. Furthermore, it is possible that the mental/interpersonal dimension violated the monotonocity assumption of IRT causing PARSCALE to fail to run for these estimates. The monotonicity assumption needs to be checked for the mental/interpersonal dimension. Furthermore, the use of multidimensional IRT methods would most likely remove the AR bias and increase the validity of using IRT to analyze data from the WLQ.^

Cataract surgery in cancer patients and its impact on quality of life as measured by the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire - 25 (NEI-VFQ-25)

Purpose. The measurement of quality of life has become an important topic in healthcare and in the allocation of limited healthcare resources. Improving the quality of life (QOL) in cancer patients is paramount. Cataract removal and lens implantation appears to improve patient well-being of cancer patients, though a formal measurement has never been published in the US literature. In this current study, National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), a validated vision quality of life metric, was used to study the change in vision-related quality of life in cancer patients who underwent cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation. ^ Methods. Under an IRB approved protocol, cancer patients who underwent cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation (by a single surgeon) from December 2008 to March 2011, and who had completed a pre- and postoperative NEI-VFQ-25 were retrospectively reviewed. Post-operative data was collected at their routine 4-6 week post-op visit. Patients' demographics, cancer history, their pre and postoperative ocular examinations, visual acuities, and NEI-VFQ-25 with twelve components were included in the evaluation. The responses were evaluated using the Student t test, Spearman correlation and Wilcoxon signed rank test. ^ Results. 63 cases of cataract surgery (from 54 patients) from the MD Anderson Cancer Center were included in the study. Cancer patients had a significant improvement in the visual acuity (P<0.0001) postoperatively, along with a significant increase in vision-related quality of life (P<0.0001). Patients also had a statistically significant improvement in ten of the twelve subcategories which are addressed in the NEI-VFQ-25. ^ Conclusions. In our study, cataract extraction and intraocular implantation showed a significant impact on the vision-related quality of life in cancer patients. Although this study includes a small sample size, it serves as a positive pilot study to evaluate and quantify the impact of a surgical intervention on QOL in cancer patients and may help to design a larger study to measure vision related QOL per dollar spent for health care cost in cancer patients.^