Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Multi-cancer early detection tests have been developed to enable earlier detection of multiple cancer types through screening. As reflected by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the psychosocial impact of cancer screening is not yet clear. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of cancer screening through PRO assessment. Methods A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles from January 2000 to August 2020 for relevant publications assessing the psychosocial impact of cancer screening before and within 1 year after screening in the general asymptomatic population, including following receipt of results. Studies focused on diagnostic evaluation or involving patients previously diagnosed with cancer were excluded. Results In total, 31 studies (12 randomized controlled trials; 19 observational studies) were included, reflecting PRO assessments associated with lung, breast, colorectal, anal, ovarian, cervical, and prostate cancer screening procedures. The most commonly assessed construct was symptoms of anxiety, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Cancer-specific distress and worry were also assessed using a broad range of measures. Overall, individuals tolerated screening procedures well with no major psychosocial effects. Of note, increases in symptoms of anxiety and levels of distress and worry were generally found prior to communication of screening results and following communication of indeterminate or positive results that required further testing. These negative psychosocial effects were, however, not long-lasting and returned to baseline relatively soon after screening. Furthermore, individuals with higher cancer risk, such as current smokers and those with a family history of cancer, tended to have higher levels of anxiety and distress throughout the screening process, including following negative or indeterminate results. Conclusions The psychosocial impact of cancer screening is relatively low overall and short-lived, even following false-positive test results. Individuals with a higher risk of cancer tend to experience more symptoms of anxiety and distress during the screening process; thus, more attention to this group is recommended.

AbstractObjectiveTo develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of the instrument.DesignInstrument development and reliability study.Data sourcesInitial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument.ParticipantsWith the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates.Main outcome measuresCore credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined.ResultsThe credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors.ConclusionsResearchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.

Background The COSMIN checklist (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) was developed in an international Delphi study to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health-related patient reported outcomes (HR-PROs). In this paper, we explain our choices for the design requirements and preferred statistical methods for which no evidence is available in the literature or on which the Delphi panel members had substantial discussion. Methods The issues described in this paper are a reflection of the Delphi process in which 43 panel members participated. Results The topics discussed are internal consistency (relevance for reflective and formative models, and distinction with unidimensionality), content validity (judging relevance and comprehensiveness), hypotheses testing as an aspect of construct validity (specificity of hypotheses), criterion validity (relevance for PROs), and responsiveness (concept and relation to validity, and (in) appropriate measures). Conclusions We expect that this paper will contribute to a better understanding of the rationale behind the items, thereby enhancing the acceptance and use of the COSMIN checklist.

Background Aim of the COSMIN study (COnsensusbased Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) was to develop a consensus-based checklist to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. We present the COSMIN checklist and the agreement of the panel on the items of the checklist. Methods A four-round Delphi study was performed with international experts (psychologists, epidemiologists, statisticians and clinicians). Of the 91 invited experts, 57 agreed to participate (63%). Panel members were asked to rate their (dis) agreement with each proposal on a five-point scale. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 67% of the panel members indicated 'agree' or 'strongly agree'. Results Consensus was reached on the inclusion of the following measurement properties: internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity (including face validity), construct validity (including structural validity, hypotheses testing and cross-cultural validity), criterion validity, responsiveness, and interpretability. The latter was not considered a measurement property. The panel also reached consensus on how these properties should be assessed. Conclusions The resulting COSMIN checklist could be useful when selecting a measurement instrument, peerreviewing a manuscript, designing or reporting a study on measurement properties, or for educational purposes.

Lack of consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions has led to confusion about which measurement properties are relevant and which concepts they represent. The aim was to clarify and standardize terminology and definitions of measurement properties by reaching consensus among a group of experts and to develop a taxonomy of measurement properties relevant for evaluating health instruments. An international Delphi study with four written rounds was performed. Participating experts had a background in epidemiology, statistics, psychology, and clinical medicine. The panel was asked to rate their (dis)agreement about proposals on a five-point scale. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 67% of the panel agreed. Of 91 invited experts, 57 agreed to participate and 43 actually participated. Consensus was reached on positions of measurement properties in the taxonomy (68–84%), terminology (74–88%, except for structural validity [56%]), and definitions of measurement properties (68–88%). The panel extensively discussed the positions of internal consistency and responsiveness in the taxonomy, the terms “reliability” and “structural validity,” and the definitions of internal consistency and reliability. Consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties was reached. Hopefully, this will lead to a more uniform use of terms and definitions in the literature on measurement properties.

Background Cancer stage at diagnosis is an important prognostic indicator for patient outcomes, with detection at later stages associated with increased mortality and morbidity. The impact of cancer stage on patient-reported outcomes is poorly understood. This research aimed to understand symptom burden and health related quality of life (HRQoL) impact by cancer stage for ten cancer types: 1) ovarian, 2) lung, 3) pancreatic, 4) esophageal, 5) stomach, 6) head and neck, 7) colorectal, 8) anal, 9) cervical, and 10) liver and bile duct. Methods Ten narrative literature reviews were performed to identify and collate published literature on patient burden at different stages of disease progression. Literature searches were conducted using an AI-assisted platform to identify relevant articles published in the last five (2017–2022) or ten years (2012–2022) where articles were limited. Conference abstracts were searched for the last two years (2020–2022). The geographic scope was limited to the United States, Canada, Europe, and global studies, and only journal articles written in English were included. Results A total of 26 studies with results stratified by cancer stage at diagnosis (and before treatment) were selected for the cancer types of lung, pancreatic, esophageal, stomach, head and neck, colorectal, anal, and cervical cancers. Two cancer types, ovarian cancer, and liver and bile duct cancer did not return any search results with outcomes stratified by disease stage. A general trend was observed for worse patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer diagnosed at an advanced stage of disease compared with diagnosis at an earlier stage. Advanced disease stage was associated with greater symptom impact including general physical impairments such as pain, fatigue, and interference with functioning, as well as disease/region-specific symptom burden. Poorer HRQoL was also associated with advanced disease with commonly reported symptoms including anxiety and depression. Conclusions Overall, the general trend for greater symptom burden and poorer HRQoL seen in late stage versus early-stage disease across the included cancer types supports the importance for early diagnosis and treatment to improve patient survival and decrease negative impacts on disease burden and HRQoL.

Background The COSMIN checklist is a tool for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health-related patient-reported outcomes. The aim of this study is to determine the inter-rater agreement and reliability of each item score of the COSMIN checklist (n = 114). Methods 75 articles evaluating measurement properties were randomly selected from the bibliographic database compiled by the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Group, Oxford, UK. Raters were asked to assess the methodological quality of three articles, using the COSMIN checklist. In a one-way design, percentage agreement and intraclass kappa coefficients or quadratic-weighted kappa coefficients were calculated for each item. Results 88 raters participated. Of the 75 selected articles, 26 articles were rated by four to six participants, and 49 by two or three participants. Overall, percentage agreement was appropriate (68% was above 80% agreement), and the kappa coefficients for the COSMIN items were low (61% was below 0.40, 6% was above 0.75). Reasons for low inter-rater agreement were need for subjective judgement, and accustom to different standards, terminology and definitions. Conclusions Results indicated that raters often choose the same response option, but that it is difficult on item level to distinguish between articles. When using the COSMIN checklist in a systematic review, we recommend getting some training and experience, completing it by two independent raters, and reaching consensus on one final rating. Instructions for using the checklist are improved.

PATHFINDER was a prospective cohort study of multicancer early detection (MCED) testing in an outpatient ambulatory population. The aim of this study is to report the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected as secondary and exploratory measures in the PATHFINDER study. PATHFINDER is a prospective, multicentre, cohort study that enrolled existing healthy ambulatory outpatients at seven health networks in the USA, including hospitals, academic medical centres, and integrated health systems. Enrolled adults were aged 50 years or older without clinical suspicion of cancer, with or without additional cancer risk factors (smoking history, genetic predisposition, or previous cancer diagnosis). The primary objective was time to diagnostic resolution after an MCED cancer signal detected (CSD) result and extent of testing pursued. The objectives of the 12-month PATHFINDER study reported here were assessment of patient-reported outcomes and perceptions with MCED testing (the effect of the MCED test result disclosure, general anxiety symptoms, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with the MCED test). PRO instruments used included an adapted Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) for distress, uncertainty, and positive experience at MCED test result disclosure; PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety short-form for anxiety symptoms; and Short Form 12-Item Health Survey (SF-12v2) for health-related quality of life. Intentions towards adherence to guideline recommended screening was also assessed as an exploratory objective. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04241796, and is complete. Between Dec 12, 2019, and Dec 4, 2020, 6662 participants were recruited and 6621 eligible participants had analysable MCED test results (n=92 CSD and n=6529 no CSD [NCSD]). The majority of participants were women (4204 [63·5%] of 6621) and White (6071 [91·7%] of 6621). For participants who completed the MICRA at results disclosure, the mean total MICRA score was 28·4 (SD 14·9) for the 50 patients with a CSD result and 8·8 (7·2) for those with an NCSD result (n=5864 completed the full questionnaire). Mean general anxiety scores increased in true-positive and false-positive groups at results disclosure. The PROMIS anxiety true-positive group baseline score of 46·2 (SD 6·5; n=35) increased to 48·4 (7·3; n=19) and the scores in the false-positive group increased from 47·3 (7·3; n=52) to 49·7 (7·7; n=30). Mean scores in both groups returned towards baseline by end of study (true positive 46·8, SD 8·0; n=28; false positive 46·9, 8·1; n=41). Mean SF-12v2 mental component summary and scale scores were within the average general population range at all timepoints. A high proportion of participants (5749 [97·1%] of 5920) responded they were “satisfied”, “very satisfied”, or “extremely satisfied” with the MCED test, with this proportion highest in those with NCSD (5698 [97·2%] of 5861), followed by those with a true-positive MCED result (23 [92·0%] of 25) and those with a false-positive result (28 [82·4%] of 34). Most participants indicated they were likely or very likely to adhere to health-care providers' future cancer screening recommendations at end of study (5182 [95·6%] of 5418). The negative patient-reported effects associated with a CSD result from MCED testing were small and returned to baseline within 12 months for participants with or without a cancer diagnosis. PATHFINDER results indicate potential clinical benefit of early cancer detection and minimal patient distress associated with MCED testing. GRAIL.

Background Diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-d) significantly diminishes the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients. Psychological and social impacts are common with many IBS-d patients reporting comorbid depression, anxiety, decreased intimacy, and lost working days. The Irritable Bowel Syndrome Quality of Life (IBS-QOL) questionnaire is a 34-item instrument developed and validated for measurement of HRQOL in non-subtyped IBS patients. The current paper assesses this previously-validated instrument employing data collected from 754 patients who participated in a randomized clinical trial of a novel treatment, eluxadoline, for IBS-d. Methods Psychometric methods common to HRQOL research were employed to evaluate the IBS-QOL. Many of the historical analyses of the IBS-QOL validations were used. Other techniques that extended the original methods were applied where more appropriate for the current dataset. In IBS-d patients, we analyzed the items and substructure of the IBS-QOL via item reduction, factor structure, internal consistency, reproducibility, construct validity, and ability to detect change. Results This study supports the IBS-QOL as a psychometrically valid measure. Factor analyses suggested that IBS-specific QOL as measured by the IBS-QOL is a unidimensional construct. Construct validity was further buttressed by significant correlations between IBS-QOL total scores and related measures of IBS-d severity including the historically-relevant Irritable Bowel Syndrome Adequate Relief (IBS-AR) item and the FDA’s Clinical Responder definition. The IBS-QOL also showed a significant ability to detect change as evidenced by analysis of treatment effects. A minority of the items, unrelated to the IBS-d, performed less well by the standards set by the original authors. Conclusions We established that the IBS-QOL total score is a psychometrically valid measure of HRQOL in IBS-d patients enrolled in this study. Our analyses suggest that the IBS-QOL items demonstrate very good construct validity and ability to detect changes due to treatment effects. Furthermore, our analyses suggest that the IBS-QOL items measure a univariate construct and we believe further modeling of the IBS-QOL from an item response theory (IRT) approach under both non-treatment and treatment conditions would greatly further our understanding as item-based methods could be used to develop a short form.

Objective: This report extracts important considerations for determining and applying clinically significant differences in quality of life (QOL) measures from six published articles written by 30 international experts in the field of QOL assessment and evaluation. The original six articles were presented at the Symposium on Clinical Significance of Quality of Life Measures in Cancer Patients at the Mayo Clinic in April 2002 and subsequently were published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Principal findings: Specific examples and formulas are given for anchor-based methods, as well as distribution-based methods that correspond to known or relevant anchors to determine important differences in QOL measures. Important prerequisites for clinical significance associated with instrument selection, responsiveness, and the reporting of QOL trial results are provided. We also discuss estimating the number needed to treat (NNT) relative to clinically significant thresholds. Finally, we provide a rationale for applying group-derived standards to individual assessments. Conclusions: While no single method for determining clinical significance is unilaterally endorsed, the investigation and full reporting of multiple methods for establishing clinically significant change levels for a QOL measure, and greater direct involvement of clinicians in clinical significance studies are strongly encouraged.