Abstract:PurposeThe EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) are validated tools for measuring quality of life (QOL) and the impact of pain in patients with advanced cancer. Interpretation of these instrument scores can be challenging and it is difficult to know what numerical changes translate to clinically significant impact in patients’ lives. To address this issue, our study sought to establish the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these two instruments in a prospective cohort of patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastases.MethodsBoth anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MCID scores from patients enrolled in a randomized phase III trial evaluating two different re-irradiation treatment schedules. For the anchor-based method, the global QOL item from the QLQ-C30 was chosen as the anchor. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for all items and only those items with moderate or better correlation (|r| ≥ 0.30) with the anchor were used for subsequent analysis. A 10-point difference in the global QOL score was used to classify improvement and deterioration, and the MCID scores were calculated for each of these categories. These results were compared with scores obtained by the distribution-method, which estimates the MCID purely from the statistical characteristics of the sample population.ResultsA total of 375 patients were included in this study with documented pain responses and completed QOL questionnaires at 2 months. 9/14 items in the QLQ-C30 and 6/10 items in the BPI were found to have moderate or better correlation with the anchor. For deterioration, statistically significant MCID scores were found in all items of the QLQ-C30 and BPI. For improvement, statistically significant MCID scores were found in 7/9 items of the QLQ-C30 and 2/6 items of the BPI. The MCID scores for deterioration were uniformly higher than the MCIDs for improvement. Using the distribution-based method, there was good agreement between the 0.5 standard deviation (SD) values and anchor-based scores for deterioration. For improvement, there was less agreement and the anchor-based scores were lower than the 0.5 SD values obtained from the distribution-based method.ConclusionWe present MCID scores for the QLQ-C30 and BPI instruments obtained from a large cohort of patients with advanced cancer undergoing re-irradiation for painful bone metastases. The results from this study were compared to other similar studies which showed larger MCID scores for improvement compared to deterioration. We hypothesize that disease trajectory and patient expectations are important factors in understanding the contrasting results. The results of this study can guide clinicians and researchers in the interpretation of these instruments.

Minimally important differences for interpreting the EORTC QLQ‐C30 in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy

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

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

Establishing anchor-based minimally important differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in glioma patients

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

The european organisation for research and treatment of cancer head and neck cancer module (EORTC QLQ-HN43): Estimates for minimal important difference and minimal important change

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

Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-C30 and brief pain inventory in patients undergoing re-irradiation for painful bone metastases

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

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

Minimum clinical important difference for resilience scale specific to cancer: a prospective analysis

Can Differences in Bowel Function After Surgery for Rectal Cancer Be Identified by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Instrument?

Early Results of Quality of Life for Curatively Treated Rectal Cancers in Chinese Patients with Eortc Qlq-Cr29

Updated normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in the general Dutch population by age and sex: a cross-sectional panel research study

Minimum clinically important differences in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire: from a study of heart failure patients treated with integrated Chinese and Western medicine

Estimating minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for gastrointestinal symptoms in cystic fibrosis

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance

Baseline functioning scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 predict overall survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: a meta-analysis

Estimating a Minimal Important Difference for the EQ-5D-5L Utility Index in Dialysis Patients