Abstract:Objective: The measurement of the quality of life (QOL) in patients with breast cancer can evaluate the therapeutic effects of medical treatments and help to provide reference for clinical decisions. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) can be better used in clinical interpretation than the traditional statistical significance. Based on the anchors, a variety of ways including traditional and updated anchor-based methods were used to explore most suitable MCID, so that to find better interpretation on scores of the scale QLICP-BR(V2.0) (Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients-Breast cancer). Methods: According to the investigation data of breast cancer patients before and after treatment, the most relevant indicators in various domains of QLICP-BR (V2.0) was found as an anchor to statistically analyze the value of MCID, and three analysis methods of anchors were used: Traditional anchor-based method, ROC curve method, multiple linear regression model analysis. Anchors are divided into four standards according to the degree of change in the treatment effect: one grade difference (Standard A), at least one grade difference (Standard B), one grade better (Standard C), better (Standard D). The final MCID value is selected from different statistical methods and classification standards that are most suitable for clinicians to use. Results: Using Q29 of the EORTC QLQ-C30 as an anchor has the highest correlation with each domain of QLICP. The order of magnitude of MCID values among the four standard groups is: standard A< Standard C< Standard B< Standard D. The MCID value obtained by the ROC curve method is the most stable and is least affected by the sample size, and the MCID value obtained by the multiple linear regression model is the least. After comparisons and discussions, Standard C in the multiple linear regression model is used to determine the final MCID, which is the closest to other methods. After integer the MCID values of Physical domain (PHD), Psychological domain (PSD), Social domain (SOD), Common symptoms and side effect domain (SSD), Core/general module (CGD), Specific domain (SPD), Total score(TOT) can be taken as 15,10, 10, 11, 10, 9 and 9, respectively. Conclusion: In the evaluation of the QOL of breast cancer patients, although the results of MCID values produced by different methods are different, the results are relatively close. The anchor-based methods make the results of MCID more clinically interpretable by introducing clinical variables, and clinicians and researchers can choose the appropriate method according to the research purpose.

Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes

Exploration of the methods of establishing the minimum clinical important difference based on anchors and their applications in the quality of life measurement scale QLICP-BR (V2.0) for breast cancer

How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods

Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures

Estimating the minimally important difference for the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in cancer

Establishing Minimal Clinically Important Differences for the Quality of Life Instrument in Patients With Breast Cancer QLICP-BR (V2.0) Based on Anchor-Based and Distribution-Based Methods

Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review

The Anchor Design of Anchor-Based Method to Determine the Minimal Clinically Important Difference: a Systematic Review

Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review.

Minimal important differences for interpreting health-related quality of life scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 in lung cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials

Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State and Substantial Clinical Benefit Matter Most to Patients and Must Be Reported Correctly

Evaluating the Credibility of Anchor Based Estimates of Minimal Important Differences for Patient Reported Outcomes: Instrument Development and Reliability Study

Minimally Important Differences for Interpreting EORTC QLQ-C30 Scores in Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer

Minimally important differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in prostate cancer clinical trials

How scoring limits the usability of minimal important differences (MIDs) as responder definition (RD): an exemplary demonstration using EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales

Establishing the minimum clinically important difference of the Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy Questionnaire

Clinician's Approach to Advanced Statistical Methods: Win Ratios, Restricted Mean Survival Time, Responder Analyses, and Standardized Mean Differences

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Changes Greatly Based on the Different Calculation Methods

[Health related quality of life and subjective health. Overview of the status of research for new evaluation criteria in medicine].

Evaluating linguistic equivalence of patient-reported outcomes in a cancer clinical trial