Skip to main content

Quality of life assessed with EQ-5D in patients undergoing glioma surgery: What is the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference?

Quality of Life Research volume 23, pages 1427–1434 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the responsiveness of EQ-5D 3L in patients undergoing intracranial glioma surgery and estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Materials and methods

EQ-5D 3L index values from 164 patients who underwent glioma surgery in the period 2007–2012 were analysed. Responsiveness and MCID were estimated using a combination of distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Karnofsky performance status served as an anchor.

Results

Patients who improved functionally did not report significantly higher EQ-5D 3L scores post operatively with a standardized response mean (SRM) of 0.04 (p = 0.13). Patients who deteriorated functionally reported significantly lower EQ-5D 3L scores post operatively with a SRM of 0.72 (p < 0.001). With different approaches, we determined a range of MCID values from 0.13 to 0.15.

Conclusions

EQ-5D 3L is responsive to changes when glioma patients are deteriorating functionally after surgery but not responsive when the patients are improving. The MCID values for EQ-5D 3L in glioma surgery seem higher than reported MCID values for other types of cancers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Cbtrus (2012). Primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2004–2008. CBTRUS Statistical Report 2012.

  2. Stummer, W., Reulen, H. J., Meinel, T., Pichlmeier, U., Schumacher, W., Tonn, J. C., et al. (2008). Extent of resection and survival in glioblastoma multiforme: Identification of and adjustment for bias. Neurosurgery, 62, 564–576.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith, J. S., Chang, E. F., Lamborn, K. R., Chang, S. M., Prados, M. D., Cha, S., et al. (2008). Role of extent of resection in the long-term outcome of low-grade hemispheric gliomas. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, 1338–1345.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lacroix, M., Abi-Said, D., Fourney, D. R., Gokaslan, Z. L., Shi, W., Demonte, F., et al. (2001). A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: Prognosis, extent of resection, and survival. Journal of Neurosurgery, 95, 190–198.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jakola, A. S., Myrmel, K. S., Kloster, R., Torp, S. H., Lindal, S., Unsgard, G., et al. (2012). Comparison of a strategy favoring early surgical resection vs a strategy favoring watchful waiting in low-grade gliomas. JAMA, 308, 1881–1888.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anonymous. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol group. Health policy, 16, 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jakola, A. S., Unsgard, G., & Solheim, O. (2011). Quality of life in patients with intracranial gliomas: The impact of modern image-guided surgery. Journal of Neurosurgery, 114, 1622–1630.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jakola, A. S., Gulati, S., Weber, C., Unsgard, G., & Solheim, O. (2011). Postoperative deterioration in health related quality of life as predictor for survival in patients with glioblastoma: A prospective study. PLoS ONE, 6, e28592.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. West Sussex, England: Wiley

  10. Guyatt, G., Walter, S., & Norman, G. (1987). Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 171–178.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., Norman, G. R., & Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 371–383.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Al, E. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102–109.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Karnofsky, D. A., & Burchenal, J. H. (1949). The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In C. M. MacLeod (Ed.), Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. New York: Colombia University Press

  14. Nord, E. (1991). EuroQol: Health-related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy, 18, 25–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Frappaz, D., Chinot, O., Bataillard, A., Ben Hassel, M., Capelle, L., Chanalet, S., et al. (2003). Summary version of the standards, options and recommendations for the management of adult patients with intracranial glioma (2002). British Journal of Cancer, 89(Suppl 1), S73–S83.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schag, C. C., Heinrich, R. L., & Ganz, P. A. (1984). Karnofsky performance status revisited: Reliability, validity, and guidelines. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2, 187–193.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. WMA. (2008). Declaration of Helsinki. WMA: Ferney-Voltaire.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Husted, J. A., Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T., & Gladman, D. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 459–468.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hilsdale NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mchorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4, 293–307.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hunger, M., Sabariego, C., Stollenwerk, B., Cieza, A., & Leidl, R. (2012). Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1205–1216.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Olerud, P., Tidermark, J., Ponzer, S., Ahrengart, L., & Bergstrom, G. (2011). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in patients with proximal humeral fractures. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 20, 1200–1206.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Luo, N., Ng, W. Y., Lau, P. N., Au, W. L., & Tan, L. C. (2010). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D and 8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) in a 4-year follow-up study. Quality of Life Research, 19, 565–569.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Konig, H. H., Born, A., Gunther, O., Matschinger, H., Heinrich, S., Riedel-Heller, S. G., et al. (2010). Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with anxiety disorders. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 47.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kvam, A. K., Fayers, P. M., & Wisloff, F. (2011). Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: a comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma. European Journal of Haematology, 87, 330–337.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kimman, M. L., Dirksen, C. D., Lambin, P., & Boersma, L. J. (2009). Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in breast cancer patients in their first year after treatment. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 11.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tidermark, J., Bergstrom, G., Svensson, O., Tornkvist, H., & Ponzer, S. (2003). Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ 5-D) and the SF-36 in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Quality of Life Research, 12, 1069–1079.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., Dziedzic, K., & Dawes, P. T. (2002). Generic measures of health-related quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Rheumatology (Oxford), 41, 1380–1387.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., Lall, R., Smith, J. F., & Lamb, S. E. (2008). EuroQol EQ-5D and condition-specific measures of health outcome in women with urinary incontinence: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research, 17, 475–483.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Burton, M., Walters, S. J., Saleh, M., & Brazier, J. E. (2012). An evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures in lower limb reconstruction surgery. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1731–1743.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38, 115–121.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chang, E. F., Potts, M. B., Keles, G. E., Lamborn, K. R., Chang, S. M., Barbaro, N. M., et al. (2008). Seizure characteristics and control following resection in 332 patients with low-grade gliomas. Journal of Neurosurgery, 108, 227–235.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pickard, A. S., Neary, M. P., & Cella, D. (2007). Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 5, 70.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hays, R. D., & Woolley, J. M. (2000). The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? PharmacoEconomics, 18, 419–423.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Maringwa, J., Quinten, C., King, M., Ringash, J., Osoba, D., Coens, C., et al. (2011). Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients. Annals of Oncology, 22, 2107–2112.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sprangers, M. A., Te Velde, A., & Aaronson, N. K. (1999). The construction and testing of the EORTC colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). European organization for research and treatment of cancer study group on quality of life. European Journal of Cancer, 35, 238–247.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Willan, A., & Griffith, L. E. (1994). Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 81–87.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Taphoorn, M. J., Sizoo, E. M., & Bottomley, A. (2010). Review on quality of life issues in patients with primary brain tumors. Oncologist, 15, 618–626.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bottomley, A., Flechtner, H., Efficace, F., Vanvoorden, V., Coens, C., Therasse, P., et al. (2005). Health related quality of life outcomes in cancer clinical trials. European Journal of Cancer, 41, 1697–1709.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Osoba, D., Aaronson, N. K., Muller, M., Sneeuw, K., Hsu, M. A., Yung, W. K., et al. (1996). The development and psychometric validation of a brain cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for use in combination with general cancer-specific questionnaires. Quality of Life Research, 5, 139–150.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Drummond, M., Sculpher, M., Torrance, G., O′Brien, B., & Stoddart, G. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Slevin, M. L., Plant, H., Lynch, D., Drinkwater, J., & Gregory, W. M. (1988). Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? British Journal of Cancer, 57, 109–112.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Fisch, M. J., Titzer, M. L., Kristeller, J. L., Shen, J., Loehrer, P. J., Jung, S. H., et al. (2003). Assessment of quality of life in outpatients with advanced cancer: The accuracy of clinician estimations and the relevance of spiritual well-being–a Hoosier oncology group study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 2754–2759.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bailey, C. S., Fehlings, M. G., Rampersaud, Y. R., Hall, H., Wai, E. K., & Fisher, C. G. (2011). Industry and evidence-based medicine: Believable or conflicted? A systematic review of the surgical literature. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 54, 321–326.

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway

    Lisa Millgård Sagberg, Asgeir S. Jakola & Ole Solheim

  2. National Competence Centre for Ultrasound and Image-Guided Therapy, Trondheim, Norway

    Lisa Millgård Sagberg, Asgeir S. Jakola & Ole Solheim

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

    Asgeir S. Jakola & Ole Solheim

  4. MI Lab, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Asgeir S. Jakola

Authors
  1. Lisa Millgård Sagberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asgeir S. Jakola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ole Solheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Millgård Sagberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sagberg, L.M., Jakola, A.S. & Solheim, O. Quality of life assessed with EQ-5D in patients undergoing glioma surgery: What is the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference?. Qual Life Res 23, 1427–1434 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0593-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0593-4

Keywords

  • Brain tumour
  • Glioma
  • Outcome
  • Quality of life
  • Minimal clinically important difference
  • Responsiveness