Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 7/2013

01-07-2013 | Original Article

Minimal clinically important differences in the brief pain inventory in patients with bone metastases

Authors: Karrie Wong, Liang Zeng, Liying Zhang, Gillian Bedard, Erin Wong, May Tsao, Elizabeth Barnes, Cyril Danjoux, Arjun Sahgal, Lori Holden, Natalie Lauzon, Edward Chow

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 7/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The brief pain inventory (BPI) is often used to assess pain and functional interference as a result of pain in cancer patients. Minor improvements or deteriorations in BPI may be statistically significant due to large sample sizes but may not necessarily be clinically relevant. The purpose of this study was to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in the functional BPI in patients with pain due to bone metastases.

Methods

BPI scores were collected from patients with painful bone metastases who visited the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program for palliative radiotherapy. Pain and functional interferences scores were also collected monthly for three months. Patients were categorized into “complete or partial response,” “pain progression,” and “indeterminate response” based on their pain scores as recommended by the latest consensus definitions. Anchor-based determination of MCIDs of functional interference scores was calculated by determining the difference between the mean follow-up scores and the mean baseline scores for patients from each of the three response groups. Distribution-based estimates were obtained utilizing 0.2, 0.3, and 0.5 standard deviation (SD) effect sizes and the standard error of measurement. The anchor-based method results were compared with the distribution-based method results.

Results

Statistically significant MCIDs were determined for all of the functional interference items of BPI for patients with “complete or partial response”; whereas, no statistically significant MCIDs in BPI scores could be determined for patients with “pain progression.” Some of the functional interference items of BPI had statistically significant MCIDs for patients with “indeterminate response,” although these were generally smaller than patients with complete or partial response. Using the distribution-based approach, an effect size of 0.5 SD was the closest estimate for determining the MCID for both patients with complete or partial response and those with indeterminate response.

Conclusions

The MCIDs determined for pain improvement were rather large, where as statistically significant MCIDs could not be detected for pain deterioration. Knowledge of MCIDs utilizing the BPI will allow physicians to evaluate the impact of treatment (or no treatment) on a patient’s functional abilities. Knowledge of MCIDs may allow for sample size determination in future clinical trials.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Twycross R, Harcourt J, Bergl S (1996) A survey of pain in patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 12:273–282PubMedCrossRef Twycross R, Harcourt J, Bergl S (1996) A survey of pain in patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 12:273–282PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Maringwa J, Quinten C, King M et al (2011) Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients. Ann Oncol 22:2107–2112PubMedCrossRef Maringwa J, Quinten C, King M et al (2011) Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients. Ann Oncol 22:2107–2112PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Cook C (2008) Clinimetrics corner: the minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense. J Man Manip Ther 16(4):E82–E83PubMedCrossRef Cook C (2008) Clinimetrics corner: the minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense. J Man Manip Ther 16(4):E82–E83PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bedard G, Zeng L, Lam H et al (2012) Meaningful change in oncology quality of life instruments: a systematic literature review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 12(4):475–483PubMedCrossRef Bedard G, Zeng L, Lam H et al (2012) Meaningful change in oncology quality of life instruments: a systematic literature review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 12(4):475–483PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Sloan J, Symonds T, Vargas-Chanes D, Fridley B (2003) Practical guidelines for assessing the clinical significant of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials. Drug Inform J 37:23–32 Sloan J, Symonds T, Vargas-Chanes D, Fridley B (2003) Practical guidelines for assessing the clinical significant of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials. Drug Inform J 37:23–32
6.
go back to reference Chow E, Hoskin P, Mitera G et al (2012) Update of the international consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:1730–1737PubMedCrossRef Chow E, Hoskin P, Mitera G et al (2012) Update of the international consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:1730–1737PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K (2002) Meaningful change in cancer–specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Qual Life Res 11:207–221PubMedCrossRef Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K (2002) Meaningful change in cancer–specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Qual Life Res 11:207–221PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J et al (1998) Interpreting the significance of changes in health related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 16:139–144PubMed Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J et al (1998) Interpreting the significance of changes in health related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 16:139–144PubMed
9.
go back to reference Ringash J, O’Sullivan B, Bezjak A, Redelmeier DA (2007) Interpreting clinically significant changes in patient-reported outcomes. Cancer 110(1):196–202PubMedCrossRef Ringash J, O’Sullivan B, Bezjak A, Redelmeier DA (2007) Interpreting clinically significant changes in patient-reported outcomes. Cancer 110(1):196–202PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Maringwa J, Quinten C, King M (2011) 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. Support Care Cancer 19(11):1753–1760PubMedCrossRef Maringwa J, Quinten C, King M (2011) 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. Support Care Cancer 19(11):1753–1760PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Wu C, Chuang L, Lin K et al (2011) Responsiveness, minimal detectable change, and minimal clinically important difference of the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale in patients with improved performance after stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 92:1281–1287PubMedCrossRef Wu C, Chuang L, Lin K et al (2011) Responsiveness, minimal detectable change, and minimal clinically important difference of the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale in patients with improved performance after stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 92:1281–1287PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Walters S, Brazier J (2003) What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:4PubMedCrossRef Walters S, Brazier J (2003) What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:4PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41(5):582–592PubMed Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41(5):582–592PubMed
14.
go back to reference Revicki D, Cella D, Hays R et al (2006) Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:70PubMedCrossRef Revicki D, Cella D, Hays R et al (2006) Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:70PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Minimal clinically important differences in the brief pain inventory in patients with bone metastases
Authors
Karrie Wong
Liang Zeng
Liying Zhang
Gillian Bedard
Erin Wong
May Tsao
Elizabeth Barnes
Cyril Danjoux
Arjun Sahgal
Lori Holden
Natalie Lauzon
Edward Chow
Publication date
01-07-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 7/2013
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1731-9

Other articles of this Issue 7/2013

Supportive Care in Cancer 7/2013 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine