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: Zuktilar Gagis
Country: Saint Kitts and Nevis
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Education
Published (Last): 17 September 2011
Pages: 356
PDF File Size: 9.27 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.76 Mb
ISBN: 752-8-59616-716-2
Downloads: 84511
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Meztijind

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

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 ]. Related articles in PubMed Late systemic symptoms in head and neck cancer survivors. 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.

Since the results for T 1 and T 2 were very similar, only the results at T 1 are reported. Content validation of the FACT-Br with patients and health care professionals to assess quality of life in patients with brain metastases. Functional assessment of cancer therapy-brain questionnaire: Descriptive statistics summarizing the distributions of HRQoL scores at baseline are given in Table 2.

This article has been cited by 1 Prospective assessment of quality of life in adult patients with primary brain tumors in routine neurooncology practice Budrukkar, A. This questionnaire was then given to two more translators who translated this questionnaire back into English. These 2 questionnaires were then compared with the original EORTC questionnaire and the second intermediate questionnaire was formed.


Determination of the MCID based on a number of different anchors would be the preferred approach.

It may therefore be argued that such anchors may not be used for the particular scales. Some authors suggest that 0. Van Den Bent, R. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals CI for the differences in mean of change scores between adjacent categories the MCID were calculated. Showing of 25 references. 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.

Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of cancer therapy FACT anemia and fatigue scales. Thus, every study contributing to this question is important.

Changes in MMSE were grouped as: Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Thresholds of 1 SEM have also been suggested [ 11 ]. These thresholds may also vary across patient groups. The increasingly frequent use of patient-reported health-related quality of life HRQoL as an outcome in cancer clinical trials over the years implies a greater need for meaningful interpretations of aggregated HRQoL scores.

For comparison purposes, four distribution-based approaches were applied: Online since 1 st AprilNew website online since 6 th Aug Each of these 10 patients after filling up the questionnaire themselves was then interviewed for any difficulty encountered during the filling up of the questionnaire.

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

Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: Q 1 and Q 3 are the lower and upper quartiles. Differences that are statistically significant are indicated by asterisk.

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.


Sign In or Create an Account. These were in the form of specific modules including difficulty in answering, confusion while answering and difficulty to understand, whether the questions were upsetting and if patients would have asked the question in any different way. In large sample sizes, statistically significant results can be obtained when numerical differences in HRQoL change scores are small and not likely to be clinically meaningful.

Quality of life of breast cancer patients in Taiwan: Translation and pilot validation of Hindi translation of assessing quality of life in patients with primary brain tumours using EORTC brain module BN Trial 2 reported by van den Bent et al.

Further investigation, if possible with other anchors, is therefore recommended. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: For permissions, please email: Another look at the half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in health-related quality of life scores.

Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: Based on PS, our findings support the following integer estimates of the MCID for improvement and deterioration, respectively: Showing of 3 extracted citations.

We acknowledge as a limitation that the observed correlations between the anchors and HRQoL scores were not strong. Higher symptom burden is associated with lower function in women taking adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer. 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. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. Neoplasms Search for additional papers on this topic.