Reliability, Validity and Important Difference Estimates for the NCCN-FACT Ovarian Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18)

References

• Siegel RL , MillerKD, FuchsHE, JemalA. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J. Clin.71(1), 7–33 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sung H , FerlayJ, SiegelRLet al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin.71(3), 209–249 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledermann JA , RajaFA, FotopoulouCet al. Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol.24(Suppl. 6), vi24–32 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torre LA , TrabertB, DesantisCEet al. Ovarian cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J. Clin.68(4), 284–296 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cancer stat facts: ovarian cancer. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ovary.html (May 27, 2021).
   Google Scholar
• Fontanilla D . Ovarian cancer treatment. Datamonitor Healthcare Ref code: DMKC0122289 (2016).
   Google Scholar
• Basen-Engquist K , Bodurka-BeversD, FitzgeraldMAet al. Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-ovarian. J. Clin. Oncol.19(6), 1809–1817 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen SE , RosenbloomSK, BeaumontJLet al. A new index of priority symptoms in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol.120(2), 214–219 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greimel E , BottomleyA, CullAet al. An international field study of the reliability and validity of a disease-specific questionnaire module (the QLQ-OV28) in assessing the quality of life of patients with ovarian cancer. Eur. J. Cancer39(10), 1402–1408 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen SE , KaiserK, LacsonLet al. Content validity of the NCCN-FACT ovarian symptom index-18 (NFOSI-18). Gynecol. Oncol.136(2), 317–322 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yost KJ , EtonDT. Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval. Health Professions28(2), 172–191 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall JP , ChangJ, MoonRet al. Real-world treatment patterns in patients with advanced (stage III–IV) ovarian cancer in the USA and Europe. Future Med.doi: https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2020-0083 (2020).
   Google Scholar
• Byrne K , MoonR, ChangJet al. Real-world treatment patterns of patients with advanced (Stage II–IV) ovarian cancer classified as resistant or refractory to frontline platinum-based therapy. Value Health21, S70–S71 (2018).
   Google Scholar
• Devlin NJ , ShahKK, FengYet al. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ.27(1), 7–22 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herdman M , GudexC, LloydAet al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res.20(10), 1727–1736 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aaronson NK , AhmedzaiS, BergmanBet al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.85(5), 365–376 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greimel E , BottomleyA, CullAet al. An international field study of the reliability and validity of a disease-specific questionnaire module (the QLQ-OV28) in assessing the quality of life of patients with ovarian cancer. Eur. J. Cancer39(10), 1402–1408 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reilly MC , ZbrozekAS, DukesEM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. PharmacoEconomics4(5), 353–365 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA . Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. (2009).
   Google Scholar
• EMA . Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Reeve BB , WyrwichKW, WuAWet al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res.22(8), 1889–1905 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB , BotSD, DeBoer MRet al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J. Clin. Epidemiol.60(1), 34–42 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC . Psychometric Theory (ThirdEdition).Tata McGraw-Hill Education, NY, USA (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Eisinga R , GrotenhuisM, PelzerB. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?Int. J. Public Health58(4), 637–642 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell DT , FiskeDW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull.56(2), 81–105 (1959).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaunfield S , JensenS, FisherAPet al. Further content validation of the 18-item NCCN/FACT Ovarian Symptom Index and its Disease Related Symptom-Physical (DRS-P) subscale for use in advanced ovarian cancer clinical trials. Health Qual Life Outcomes17(1), 185 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappelleri JC , ZouKH, BushmakinAGet al. Patient-Reported Outcomes: Measurement, Implementation and Interpretation. CRC Press, FL, USA (2013).
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J . Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.Academic Press, NY, USA (1977).
   Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH , OsobaD, WuAWet al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin. Proc.77(4), 371–383 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman GR , SloanJA, WyrwichKW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med. Care41(5), 582–592 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyrwich KW , TierneyWM, WolinskyFD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J. Clin. Epidemiol.52(9), 861–873 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki D , HaysRD, CellaD, SloanJ. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J. Clin. Epidemiol.61(2), 102–109 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper A , TrenneryC, SullyK, TriggA. Triangulating estimates of meaningful change or difference in patient-reported outcomes: application of a correlation-based weighting procedure. Qual. Life Res.27, S17 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ousmen A , TouraineC, DeliuNet al. Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review. Health Qual. Life Outcomes16(1), 228 (2018).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mcleod LD , CappelleriJC, HaysRD. Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.103(3), 685–693 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappelleri JC , BushmakinAG. Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. (2013).
   Google Scholar
• Kline RB . Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. (4th). Guilford Publications, NY, USA (2015).
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson TM , ReeveBB, DueckACet al. Application of a Bayesian graded response model to characterize areas of disagreement between clinician and patient grading of symptomatic adverse events. J Patient-Reported Outcomes2(1), 56 (2018).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cooper V , MetcalfL, VersnelJet al. Patient-reported side effects, concerns and adherence to corticosteroid treatment for asthma, and comparison with physician estimates of side-effect prevalence: a UK-wide, cross-sectional study. NPJ Primary Care Respir. Med.25, 15026 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson TM , HayJL, ShoushtariAet al. Relationship between physician-adjudicated adverse events and patient-reported health-related quality of life in a phase II clinical trial (NCT01143402) of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol.143(3), 439–445 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atherton PJ , Watkins-BrunerDW, GotayCet al. The complementary nature of patient-reported outcomes and adverse event reporting in cooperative group oncology clinical trials: a pooled analysis (NCCTG N0591). J. Pain Symptom Manage.50(4), 470–479.e479 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flores LT , BennettAV, LawEBet al. Patient-reported outcomes vs. clinician symptom reporting during chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Gastrointest. Cancer Res.5(4), 119–124 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basch E , JiaX, HellerGet al. Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl. Cancer Inst.101(23), 1624–1632 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar