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.

Author: Kigazilkree Kagatilar
Country: Pakistan
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Relationship
Published (Last): 5 July 2014
Pages: 454
PDF File Size: 16.82 Mb
ePub File Size: 1.5 Mb
ISBN: 156-1-68136-633-9
Downloads: 2452
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kagataur

Thresholds of 1 SEM have also been suggested [ 11 ]. This is in contrast to a number of studies [ 121326 ] that have found that Qlq-bj20 estimates for deterioration were larger than those for improvement. Qlq-b20 In or Create an Account. The Mini-Mental State Examination in general medical practice: It may therefore be argued that such anchors may not be used for the particular scales.

Another look at the half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in health-related quality of life scores. Since the results for T 1 and T 2 were very similar, only the results at T 1 are reported.

EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire – Brain Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-BN20)

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. Changes in PS were categorized into three groups: Distribution-based approaches hinge on the statistical features of the HRQoL data.

The estimates generally agree with the estimates of 5—10 units of the QLQ-C30 scales we considered and as proposed by Osoba et al. P values, does not provide information about the clinical meaningfulness.

A threshold of 0. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. For permissions, please email: The process included forward translation by two translators, discussion with the translators in case of discrepancies and formation of first intermediate questionnaire.


Further investigation, if possible with other anchors, is therefore recommended. Investigators have relied on two distinct approaches for identifying the MCID: These 2 questionnaires were then compared with the original EORTC questionnaire and the second intermediate questionnaire was formed.

Determining the minimal clinically important difference MCID [ 1 ] for HRQoL scores from cancer clinical trials is useful to clinicians, patients, and researchers as a benchmark for assessing the effectiveness of a health care intervention and for determining the sample size in a clinical trial.

PF and RF are based on trial 1 only. Insufficient sleep and fitness to drive in shift workers: The two versions differ only in the response options for items in the physical and role functioning domains. Selected baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. 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. Dieta BrandsmaMartin J.

To further clarify the issue of MCIDs, the findings from the anchor-based approach were compared with selected distribution-based techniques. These thresholds may also vary across patient groups. Translation and pilot validation of Hindi translation of assessing quality of life in patients with primary brain tumours using EORTC brain module BN Content qlq-bn0 of the FACT-Br with patients and health care professionals to assess quality of life in patients with brain metastases.

Close mobile search navigation Article navigation. These were in the form of specific modules including difficulty in answering, confusion while answering and difficulty to understand, whether the questions were upsetting eottc if patients would have asked the question in any different way. Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: Citing articles via Web of Science Patients classified as having improved by the anchor tended to have better HRQoL scores, and those classified as qql-bn20 by the anchor tended to have worse HRQoL scores, while those classified as not changed by the anchor generally did not appear to have changed in their HRQoL i.


Showing of 25 references. Van Den Bent, R.

Molecular targeted therapies and chemotherapy in malignant gliomas. Changes in MMSE were grouped as: Q 1 and Q 3 are the lower and upper quartiles. The two points furthest apart in time, denoted by T 1 and T 2provided a better chance of observing changes in HRQoL scores and were therefore used for analysis.

Illness intrusiveness and subjective well-being in patients with glioblastoma Kim EdelsteinLinda E. Qual Life Res ; The 4-point and binary scales are not comparable, and therefore, combining data for the physical and role functioning domains may not be appropriate. Analysis of health-related quality of life in patients with brain tumors prior and subsequent to radiotherapy. In an anchor-based approach, it is critical that the anchors be understandable and clinically significant. Separate analyses were conducted for these two anchors.

EORTC QLQ-BN20 – EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire – Brain Cancer Module

Based on these two studies, mean differences of 10 points or more are widely viewed as being clinically significant when interpreting the results of randomized clinical trials that use the QLQ-C30 [ 15 ]. How to cite this article: The QLQ-C30 contains both single- and multi-item scales.

Scales from the QLQ-C30 that were suitable for anchoring against PS, together with the respective correlation coefficients with the anchor were: The second intermediate questionnaire was subsequently administered in 10 patients with brain tumors who had never seen the questionnaire before, for pilot-testing.

For all these scales, a higher score represents worse HRQoL. In both trials, HRQoL was measured as a secondary end point at baseline, during treatment, and on several oertc occasions after the end of treatment.