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.

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

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

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

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

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance

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

Challenges in applying minimal clinically important difference: a critical review

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

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

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

Health status measurement in COPD: the minimal clinically important difference of the clinical COPD questionnaire

Establishing Clinically Meaningful Change on Outcome Assessments Frequently Used in Trials of Mild Cognitive Impairment Due to Alzheimer’s Disease

Significant individual change should be used as a lower bound for anchor based estimates of meaningful change on patient-reported outcome scores

Calculation of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using different methodologies: case study and practical guide

Anchor-based minimal important difference values are often sensitive to the distribution of the change score

Editorial Commentary: The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) Is Less Important Than It Sounds: Patients Seek to Achieve Substantial Clinical Benefits and Not Minimally Perceptible Improvements When They Undergo Arthroscopic Surgery

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

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