Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 2:12:753729.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.753729. eCollection 2022.

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

Fei Li  1 , Yuxi Liu  1 , Chonghua Wan  1 , Jiali Zhou  1 , Jianfeng Tan  1 , Huanwei Chen  2
Affiliations

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

Fei Li et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Objective: To determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for the breast cancer scale QLICP-BR (V2.0) among the Quality of Life Instruments system for cancer patients (QLICP), which consist of the general module of 32 items classifying into 4 domains and the specific module of 10 items.

Methods: According to the scoring rule of QLICP-BR (V2.0), the scores of each domain and the overall scale were calculated. The MCIDs of this scale were established by anchor-based and distribution-based methods. The anchor method used the Q29 item in the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale as anchors and defined the treatment effectiveness of the anchor-based method using criteria A (one level improvement after treatment) and B (at least one level improvement after treatment), while methods of effect size (ES), standard error of measurement (SEM), and reliability change index (RCI) were used in distribution-based methods.

Results: Using the anchor-based method, according to standard A, the MCIDs of the physical domain (PHD), psychological domain (PSD), social domain (SOD), common symptoms and side effect domain (SSD), core/general module (CGD), specific domain (SPD), and the total score (TOT) were 16.24, 11.37, 11.31, 12.07, 11.49, 10.69, and 11.23 respectively; according to standard B, the MCIDs of PHD, PSD, SOD, SSD, CGD, SPD, and TOT were 18.88, 15.14, 14.10, 14.50, 13.93, 12.17, and 14.23 respectively. In the distribution-based MCID study, when ES = 0.8, the MCID values of each domain and the total score of the scale were 9.14, 10.34, 8.34, 10.54, 6.79, 9.73, and 6.96 respectively. The MCIDs calculated when a SEM of 1.96 was used as the intermediary index were 8.38, 11.04, 8.67, 10.00, 7.44, 9.83, and 7.81. The MCIDs calculated when a RCI of 1.96 was used as the intermediary index were 11.84, 15.61, 12.27, 14.14, 10.52, 13.90, and 11.05. Additionally, the MCID value calculated by the two standards of the anchor method was similar to 0.8 ES, 1.96 SEM, and 1.96 RCI.

Conclusion: Using the anchor-based method, 0.8ES, 1.96SEM, and 1.96RCI have a better effect on the minimal clinically important difference of breast cancer scale and were recommended to be the preferred methods for establishing MCID.

Keywords: anchor-based method; breast cancer; distribution-based method; minimal clinically important difference; quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics, 2012. CA Can J Clin (2015) 65:87–108. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262 - DOI - PubMed
    1. El-Hashimi D, Gorey KM. Yoga-Specific Enhancement of Quality of Life Among Women With Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Evid Base Integr Med (2019) 24:1–9. doi: 10.1177/2515690X19828325 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shi J, Liang D, Li DJ. Epidemiological Status of Global Female Breast Cancer. China Cancer (2017) 26(09):683–90. doi: 10.11735/j.issn.1004-0242.2017.09.A006 - DOI
    1. Qing C, Shunping L, Min W, Liu L, Gang C, Abdelaziz M, et al. . Health-Related Quality of Life Among Women Breast Cancer Patients in Eastern China. BioMed Res Int (2018) 2018:1452635. doi: 10.1155/2018/1452635 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. . Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: Sources, Methods and Major Patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer (2015) 136:E359–86. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources