Clinical Significance of Health Status Assessment Measures in Head and Neck Cancer: What Do Quality-of-Life Scores Mean? | Head and Neck Cancer | JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.173.234.169. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Wolf  GTHong  WKFisher  SG  et al Induction chemotherapy plus radiation compared with surgery plus radiation in patients with advanced laryngeal cancer.  N Engl J Med.1991;324:1685-1690.PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Ringash  JBezjak  A A structured review of quality of life instruments for head and neck cancer patients.  Head Neck.2001;23:201-213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Not Available Symposium on the clinical significance of quality-of-life measures in cancer patients.  Mayo Clin Proc.2003;77. Google Scholar
4.
Samsa  GEdelman  DRothman  MLWilliams  GRLipscomb  JMatchar  D Determining clinically important differences in health status measures.  Pharmacoeconomics.1999;15:141-155.PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Cohen  J Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
6.
Osoba  DRodrigues  GMyles  JZee  BPater  J Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores.  J Clin Oncol.1998;16:139-144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
King  MT The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30.  Qual Life Res.1996;5:555-567.PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Funk  GFKarnell  LHChristensen  AJMoran  PJRicks  J Comprehensive head and neck oncology health status assessment.  Head Neck.2003;25:561-575.PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Kazis  LEAnderson  JJMeenan  RF Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status.  Med Care.1989;27(suppl):S178-S189.PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Guyatt  GOsoba  DWu  AWWyrwich  KWNorman  GR Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.  Mayo Clin Proc.2002;77:371-383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Cella  DBullinger  MScott  CBarofsky  I Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life.  Mayo Clin Proc.2002;77:384-392.PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Lydick  EEpstein  RS Interpretation of quality of life changes.  Qual Life Res.1993;2:221-226.PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Piccirillo  J Why are QOL studies hard to understand?  Presented at: Conference on Measuring and Reporting Quality of Life in Head and Neck Cancer; October 9, 2002; McLean, Va.
Original Article
July 2004

Clinical Significance of Health Status Assessment Measures in Head and Neck Cancer: What Do Quality-of-Life Scores Mean?

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City (Drs Funk, Karnell, and Smith), and Department of Psychology, University of Iowa College of Liberal Arts, Iowa City (Dr Christensen). The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(7):825-829. doi:10.1001/archotol.130.7.825
Abstract

Objectives  To determine the magnitude of clinically significant differences in domain scores for a quality-of-life questionnaire specific to head and neck cancer; and to demonstrate a clinically relevant method of presenting head and neck cancer–specific quality-of-life data using cutoff scores and clinical anchors.

Design  Anchor-based and distribution-based techniques for determining clinically significant differences in health-related quality-of-life scores were used.

Setting  University-based tertiary care hospital.

Patients  A total of 421 patients with head and neck cancer enrolled in a longitudinal outcomes project.

Main Outcome Measures  The Head and Neck Cancer Inventory; clinical anchor health status in the domains of speech, eating, and social disruption; and distribution-based clinically significant score differences.

Results  Clinical anchor health states representing incremental levels of dysfunction were significantly correlated with domain scores for eating, speech, and social disruption. The anchor-based clinically important difference magnitudes were consistent with the values obtained using distribution-based techniques. For mean domain scores (minimum, 0; maximum, 100), differences of approximately 4, 10, and 14 or greater represented small, intermediate, and large clinically significant differences, respectively. Stratifying mean domain scores into low (0-30), intermediate (31-69), and high (70-100) categories allowed presentation of the health-related quality-of-life data in a clinically relevant format.

Conclusions  This study provides benchmarks for small, intermediate, and large clinically significant changes in scores and demonstrates the presentation of health-related quality-of-life data in a clinically useful format.

×