Brain cancer module: QLQ-BN Scope. The brain cancer module is meant for use among brain cancer patients varying in disease stage and treatment. The EORTC QLQ-BN20 questionnaire for assessing the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in brain cancer patients: A phase IV validation. To be used in conjunction with the EORTC QLQ-C30 for measuring the health- related quality of life in patients with brain cancer.
|Published (Last):||27 December 2007|
|PDF File Size:||16.70 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Table 1 summarizes selected baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in the combined sample of all the patients from the two trials.
Anchor-based methods link HRQoL measures to external criteria, either to a known indicator that has clinical relevance [e. Distribution-based approaches hinge on the statistical features of the HRQoL data. Note that patients could be categorized differently between the anchor and HRQoL measures, e. Cognitive function and fatigue after diagnosis of colorectal cancer. The MMSE [ 21 ] is a test with a point maximum score, which is used to screen for cognitive impairment.
Quality of life of lung cancer patients: Therefore, to control for the amount of change in HRQoL that occurred to patients who did not change according to the anchor, we obtained estimates of the MCID by calculating the difference in mean HRQoL change between adjacent categories [ 11 ], i. Differences that are statistically significant are indicated by asterisk. This provides further evidence that the 0.
The estimates could also be used as guidance for classification of patients by changes in HRQoL and symptoms over qla-bn20. Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of cancer therapy FACT anemia and fatigue scales. Identification of MCIDs was carried out using two clinical anchors: Trial 1 reported by Stupp et al. This article qql-bn20 been cited by 1 Prospective assessment of quality of life in adult patients with primary brain tumors in routine neurooncology practice Budrukkar, A.
Skip to search form Skip to main content.
Further investigation, if possible with other anchors, is therefore recommended. Each of these 10 patients after qlqb-n20 up the questionnaire themselves was then interviewed for any difficulty encountered during the filling up of the questionnaire. From This Paper Figures, tables, and topics from this paper. For all these scales, a higher score represents worse HRQoL.
Possible limits to the universality of the one-half standard deviation comment. The development and psychometric validation of a brain cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for use in combination with general cancer-specific questionnaires.
Furthermore, the changes that we are calling MCIDs are based on the definitions and clinical anchors that we have applied, e. How to cite this URL: In this study, changes in MMSE of 6 or more points were viewed as rather too large for the purpose of determining the MCID and were therefore excluded from the analysis, as were the changes in PS of two or more categories in order not to overestimate the MCID.
Qql-bn20 University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: Benchmarks for interpreting differences between groups cross-sectionally may differ from those for interpreting changes over time within groups [ 2 ].
The association between HRQoL scores and anchor values and between changes in the anchor values and changes in the HRQoL scale were quantified by the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Determination of the MCID based on a number of different anchors would be the preferred approach. In general, the mean changes in HRQoL within each anchor-defined category were in the expected direction.
Translation and pilot validation of Hindi translation of assessing quality of life in patients with primary brain tumours dortc EORTC brain module BN The process included forward translation by two translators, discussion with the translators in case of discrepancies and formation of first intermediate questionnaire.
EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire – Brain Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-BN20)
The two versions differ only in the response options for items in the physical and role functioning domains. In light of this, we restricted analysis of physical and role functioning domains only to the most recent version of the questionnaire; the one that uses the 4-point scale.
Effects of radiotherapy on cognitive function in patients with low-grade glioma measured by the Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination. To further clarify the issue of MCIDs, the findings from the anchor-based approach were compared with selected distribution-based techniques.
EORTC QLQ-BN20 – EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire – Brain Cancer Module
Scales from the QLQ-C30 that were suitable for anchoring against PS, together with the respective correlation coefficients with the anchor were: Adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine improves progression-free survival but not overall survival in newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas: This questionnaire was then given to two more translators who translated this questionnaire back into English.
These anchors are clearly definable, understandable, and are commonly wortc by clinicians in assessment of cancer patients and could therefore help guide interpretation of HRQoL scores. Fifteen patients improved their MMSE by 6 or more points and 33 patients deteriorated by 6 or more points and were excluded from further MMSE analyses. It will take a large number of such explorations to increase the confidence and familiarity of investigators. References Publications referenced by this paper.
Investigators have relied on two distinct approaches for identifying the MCID: For permissions, please email: The remaining single eotc assess other disease symptoms e.
Related articles in Web of Science Google Scholar. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.
Showing of 25 references. Our analysis combined data from two versions of the QLQ-C30 where one version used a 4-point scale and the other a binary scale.