Minimal clinically important difference in postoperative recovery among patients with gastrointestinal cancer
- PMID: 34698924
- DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06632-9
Minimal clinically important difference in postoperative recovery among patients with gastrointestinal cancer
Abstract
Purpose: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) based on patient-reported outcomes is the smallest outcome change sufficiently significant to influence management and is crucial to the design and interpretation of comparative effectiveness trials. The purpose of this study was to estimate the MCID for postoperative recovery metrics in gastrointestinal cancer patients.
Methods: This was a three-institutional cohort study. Participants were 219 patients scheduled for gastrointestinal cancer elective surgery. Body mass index (BMI), isometric knee extension torque (IKET), 6-min walk test (6 MWT), and Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) version 2 were evaluated 1-2 days prior to surgery (baseline) and 4 weeks after surgery. Patients received postoperative rehabilitative care from a physical therapist during hospitalization. The MCID used anchor-based methods. The anchor was a score on the SF-36 physical functioning subscale greater or lower than the average score of the general Japanese population.
Results: The receiver operating curve indicated a cutoff value on the 6 MWT of -7.8 m for clinically relevant decline (area under curve [AUC] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.599-0.741) or a 1.5% change. The cutoff value on the SF-36 role-physical subscale was -34.4 for clinically relevant decline (AUC = 0.691, 95% CI = 0.621-0.761) or a 36.6% decrease. No significant correlation was found between changes in BMI, IKET, and anchor.
Conclusion: Plausible MCIDs are present in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. These values can assist the interpretation of clinical trials and observation of the postoperative clinical course of gastrointestinal cancer surgery.
Keywords: Gastrointestinal cancer patients; Minimal clinical important difference; Physical functioning; Postoperative recovery; Rehabilitation.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Similar articles
-
Preoperative Short Form Health Survey Score Is Predictive of Return to Play and Minimal Clinically Important Difference at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Am J Sports Med. 2017 Oct;45(12):2784-2790. doi: 10.1177/0363546517714472. Epub 2017 Jul 20. Am J Sports Med. 2017. PMID: 28727937
-
Evaluation of the "Minimal Clinically Important Difference" (MCID) of the KOOS, KSS and SF-12 scores after open-wedge high tibial osteotomy.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021 Mar;29(3):820-826. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06026-0. Epub 2020 Apr 27. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021. PMID: 32342141
-
Comparing Methods to Determine the Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Veterans Undergoing Elective Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty in Veterans Health Administration Hospitals.JAMA Surg. 2020 May 1;155(5):404-411. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0024. JAMA Surg. 2020. PMID: 32211842 Free PMC article.
-
Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported shoulder outcomes.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Jul;29(7):1484-1492. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.12.033. Epub 2020 Apr 3. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020. PMID: 32249146
-
Minimal clinically important difference: The basics.Medwave. 2021 Apr 7;21(3):e8149. doi: 10.5867/medwave.2021.03.8149. Medwave. 2021. PMID: 35380557 Review. English, Spanish.
Cited by
-
Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the 6-minute walk distance in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.Support Care Cancer. 2024 May 25;32(6):382. doi: 10.1007/s00520-024-08596-y. Support Care Cancer. 2024. PMID: 38789578
-
The TEOGIC study project: a comprehensive characterization of early onset gastrointestinal cancer in the Northern area of Spain.BMC Cancer. 2024 Jun 1;24(1):668. doi: 10.1186/s12885-024-12454-9. BMC Cancer. 2024. PMID: 38824512 Free PMC article.
-
The anchor design of anchor-based method to determine the minimal clinically important difference: a systematic review.Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023 Jul 15;21(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s12955-023-02157-3. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023. PMID: 37454099 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Wilson IB, Cleary PD (1995) Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 273(1):59–65 - DOI
-
- Urbach DR, Harnish JL, Long G (2005) Short-term health-related quality of life after abdominal surgery: a conceptual framework. Surg Innov 12(3):243–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/155335060501200310 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Bergman S, Feldman LS, Barkun JS (2006) Evaluating surgical outcomes. Surg Clin North Am 86(1):129–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2005.10.007 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Urbach DR, Harnish JL, McIlroy JH, Streiner DL (2006) A measure of quality of life after abdominal surgery. Qual Life Res 15(6):1053–1061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-0047-3 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Quinten C, Coens C, Mauer M, Comte S, Sprangers MA, Cleeland C et al (2009) Baseline quality of life as a prognostic indicator of survival: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from EORTC clinical trials. Lancet Oncol 10(9):865–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70200-1 - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources