PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION AND SCORE INTERPRETATION OF THE NCCN-FACT OVARIAN SYMPTOM INDEX-18 IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED OVARIAN CANCER- REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE
Author(s)
Trigg A1, Kelly M2, Iadeluca L3, Chang J3, Moreno-Koehler A2, Yaworsky A2, Krohe M2, Rider A4, Cappelleri JC5, Cella D6, Cocks K7
1Adelphi Values, Bollington, Cheshire, UK, 2Adelphi Values, Boston, MA, USA, 3Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA, 4Adelphi Real World, BOLLINGTON, UK, 5Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA, 6Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA, 7Adelphi Values, Bollington, UK
OBJECTIVES : To evaluate the psychometric performance of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18) in a sample of patients with advanced ovarian cancer and to estimate clinically important differences (CIDs) in NFOSI-18 scores to guide interpretation. METHODS : This cross-sectional study used real-world data from the Advanced Ovarian Cancer Disease Specific Programme™. Data was collected across Europe and the United States throughout 2017 from patients with ovarian cancer receiving chemotherapy. Patient-reported data were collected from the NFOSI-18, EQ-5D-5L, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, EORTC ovarian cancer module, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). Data on treatment satisfaction, physician-reported symptoms, side effects, and disease status were also collected. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) and construct validity (through Spearman’s correlations) were evaluated for the NFOSI-18 Total Score and its domains: Disease-Related Symptoms – Physical (DRS-P), DRS – Emotional (DRS-E), Treatment Side Effects (TSE), and Function and Well-Being (FWB). Anchor- and distribution-based methods generated clinically important between-group difference estimates, to enhance NFOSI-18 score interpretation guidelines. RESULTS : Data from 897 patients aged 35-88 years were analyzed. Cronbach's alpha for all NFOSI-18 scores (total and domains) ranged from 0.81-0.83. The construct validity of scores was supported through correlations with convergent measures and ability to discriminate between known groups. Twelve patient-reported anchors (i.e., EORTC, WPAI, and satisfaction questionnaire items) were sufficiently correlated (r≥0.3 as recommended) with NFOSI-18 scores and were used to guide CID estimates. Across anchor- and distribution-based estimates, recommended CIDs are NFOSI-18 Total Score, 5-7; DRS-P, 3-4; DRS-E, 1; TSE, 2; FWB, 1-2. CONCLUSIONS : Results provide evidence of score reliability and validity of the NFOSI-18. The generated CID estimates will help improve interpretation of between-group differences in NFOSI-18 scores in clinical trials for patients with advanced ovarian cancer.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2019-05, ISPOR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 22, Issue S1 (2019 May)
Code
PCN284
Topic
Epidemiology & Public Health, Methodological & Statistical Research, Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Instrument Development, Validation, & Translation, Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes, PRO & Related Methods, Public Health
Disease
Oncology
Explore Related HEOR by Topic