Minimal clinically important differences in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in cancer patients: A prospective, multicenter study

被引:183
|
作者
Hui, David [1 ]
Shamieh, Omar [2 ]
Paiva, Carlos Eduardo [3 ]
Emilio Perez-Cruz, Pedro [4 ]
Kwon, Jung Hye [5 ]
Muckaden, Mary Ann [6 ]
Park, Minjeong [7 ]
Yennu, Sriram
Kang, Jung Hun [8 ]
Bruera, Eduardo [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Palliat Care & Rehabil Med, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] King Hussein Canc Ctr, Dept Palliat Care, Amman, Jordan
[3] Barretos Canc Hosp, Dept Med Oncol, Barretos, Brazil
[4] Pontificia Univ Catolica Chile, Dept Internal Med, Sch Med, Santiago, Chile
[5] Kangdong Sacred Heart Hosp, Dept Med Oncol, Seoul, South Korea
[6] Tata Mem Hosp, Dept Palliat Care, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
[7] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Biostat, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[8] Gyeongsang Univ, Coll Med, Dept Internal Med, Div Hematol Oncol, Gyeongsang, South Korea
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
neoplasms; outcome measures; pain; sample size; sensitivity and specificity; symptom assessment; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; ASSESSMENT SYSTEM; PALLIATIVE CARE; VALIDATION; PAIN; QUESTIONNAIRE; INSTRUMENTS;
D O I
10.1002/cncr.29437
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BACKGROUNDThe Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is widely used for symptom assessment in clinical and research settings. A sensitivity-specificity approach was used to identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for improvement and deterioration for each of the 10 ESAS symptoms. METHODSThis multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study enrolled patients with advanced cancer. ESAS was measured at the first clinic visit and at a second visit 3 weeks later. For each symptom, the Patient's Global Impression (better, about the same, or worse) was assessed at the second visit as the external criterion, and the MCID was determined on the basis of the optimal cutoff in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. A sensitivity analysis was conducted through the estimation of MCIDs with other approaches. RESULTSFor the 796 participants, the median duration between the 2 study visits was 21 days (interquartile range, 18-28 days). The area under the ROC curve varied from 0.70 to 0.87, and this suggested good responsiveness. For all 10 symptoms, the optimal cutoff was 1 point for improvement and -1 point for deterioration, with sensitivities of 59% to 85% and specificities of 69% to 85%. With other approaches, the MCIDs varied from 0.8 to 2.2 for improvement and from -0.8 to -2.3 for deterioration in the within-patient analysis, from 1.2 to 1.6 with the one-half standard deviation approach, and from 1.3 to 1.7 with the standard error of measurement approach. CONCLUSIONSESAS was responsive to change. The optimal cutoffs were 1 point for improvement and -1 point for deterioration for each of the 10 symptoms. Our findings have implications for sample size calculations and response determination. Cancer 2015;121:3027-3035. (c) 2015 American Cancer Society.
引用
收藏
页码:3027 / 3035
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Minimal clinically important differences in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in cancer patients: A prospective study
    Hui, David
    Shamieh, Omar M.
    Paiva, Carlos Eduardo
    Perez-Cruz, Pedro Emilio
    Kwon, Jung Hye
    Muckaden, Mary Ann
    Park, Minjeong
    Yennu, Sriram
    Kang, Jung Hun
    Bruera, Eduardo
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 33 (15)
  • [2] Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System in Patients With Advanced Cancer
    Bedard, Gillian
    Zeng, Liang
    Zhang, Liying
    Lauzon, Natalie
    Holden, Lori
    Tsao, May
    Danjoux, Cyril
    Barnes, Elizabeth
    Sahgal, Arjun
    Poon, Michael
    Chow, Edward
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2013, 46 (02) : 192 - 200
  • [3] Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale
    Johnson, Miriam J.
    Currow, David C.
    [J]. CANCER, 2016, 122 (01) : 158 - 159
  • [4] Reply to Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale
    Hui, David
    Bruera, Eduardo
    [J]. CANCER, 2016, 122 (01) : 159 - 160
  • [5] Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System: The Anchor Is Key
    Hui, David
    Bruera, Eduardo
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2013, 45 (03) : E4 - E5
  • [6] Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Physical, Emotional, and Total Symptom Distress Scores of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System
    Hui, David
    Shamieh, Omar
    Paiva, Carlos Eduardo
    Khamash, Odai
    Perez-Cruz, Pedro Emilio
    Kwon, Jung Hye
    Muckaden, Mary Ann
    Park, Minjeong
    Arthur, Joseph
    Bruera, Eduardo
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2016, 51 (02) : 262 - 269
  • [7] Minimal (clinically) important differences for the Fatigue Assessment Scale in sarcoidosis
    de Kleijn, Willemien P. E.
    De Vries, Jolanda
    Wijnen, Petal A. H. M.
    Drent, Marjolein
    [J]. RESPIRATORY MEDICINE, 2011, 105 (09) : 1388 - 1395
  • [8] Validation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale as a numeric scale for palliative cancer patients
    Chapman, C
    Dudgeon, D
    Gerlach, J
    Bartfay, E
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE CARE, 2002, 18 (03) : 235 - 235
  • [9] Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale as a Prognosticative Indicator in Patients with Advanced Cancer
    Zeng, Liang
    Zhang, Liying
    Culleton, Shaelyn
    Jon, Florencia
    Holden, Lori
    Kwong, Justin
    Khan, Luluel
    Tsao, May
    Danjoux, Cyril
    Sahgal, Arjun
    Barnes, Elizabeth
    Chow, Edward
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2011, 14 (03) : 337 - 342
  • [10] The establishment of minimal clinically important differences for symptom recovery from lung cancer surgery
    Xu, Wei
    Shi, Qiuling
    Dai, Wei
    Pu, Yang
    Yu, Hongfan
    Yu, Qingsong
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2020, 29 (SUPPL 1) : S37 - S37