Background

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was a National Institutes of Health-funded initiative to develop measures of symptoms and function. Responsiveness is the degree to which a measure can detect underlying changes over time. The objective of the current study was to document the responsiveness of 8 PROMIS measures in a large, population-based cancer cohort.

Methods

The Measuring Your Health study recruited 2968 patients who were diagnosed with 1 of 7 cancers between 2010 and 2012 through 4 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. Participants completed a baseline survey (6-13 months after diagnosis) and a 6-month follow-up survey. Changes in 8 PROMIS scores were compared with global ratings of transition, changes in performance status, and clinical events.

Results

Measures were responsive to 6-month declines and improvements in performance status with small to large effect sizes (ES) (Cohen d = 0.34-0.71; P < .01). Mean changes and effect sizes were larger for participants who reported declines compared with those who reported improvements. Small-to-medium ES were observed in patients who reported being "a little" worse (d = 0.31-0.56), and medium-to-large ES were observed in those who reported being "a lot" worse (d = 0.53-0.72). Hospitalized participants reported significant score increases, resulting in worsening of pain (d = 0.51), fatigue (d = 0.35), and depression (d = 0.57; all P < .01). Cancer recurrence and progression were associated with smaller increases in pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance (d = 0.22-0.27).

Conclusions

The current results indicated that all 8 PROMIS measures were sensitive to patient-perceived worsening and improvement and to major clinical events. These findings will be able to inform the design and interpretation of future research studies and clinical initiatives administering PROMIS measures. Cancer 2017;123:327-335. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Purpose

To evaluate the validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function measures in a diverse, population-based cancer sample.

Methods

Cancer patients 6-13 months post-diagnosis (n = 4840) were recruited for the Measuring Your Health study. Participants were diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or cancers of the colorectum, lung, breast, uterus, cervix, or prostate. Four PROMIS physical function short forms (4a, 6b, 10a, and 16) were evaluated for validity and reliability across age and race-ethnicity groups. Covariates included gender, marital status, education level, cancer site and stage, comorbidities, and functional status.

Results

PROMIS physical function short forms showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.92-0.96), convergent validity (fatigue, pain interference, FACT physical well-being all r ≥ 0.68), and discriminant validity (unrelated domains all r ≤ 0.3) across survey short forms, age, and race-ethnicity. Known-group differences by demographic, clinical, and functional characteristics performed as hypothesized. Ceiling effects for higher-functioning individuals were identified on most forms.

Conclusions

This study provides strong evidence that PROMIS physical function measures are valid and reliable in multiple race-ethnicity and age groups. Researchers selecting specific PROMIS short forms should consider the degree of functional disability in their patient population to ensure that length and content are tailored to limit response burden.

Purpose

To evaluate how well three different patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure individual change.

Methods

Two hundred and fourteen patients (from two sites) initiating first or new chemotherapy for any stage of breast or gastrointestinal cancer participated. The 13-item FACIT Fatigue scale, a 7-item PROMIS^® Fatigue Short Form (PROMIS 7a), and the PROMIS^® Fatigue computer adaptive test (CAT) were administered monthly online for 6 months. Reliability of measured change was defined, under a population mixed effects model, as the ratio of estimated systematic variance in rate of change to the estimated total variance of measured individual differences in rate of change. Precision of individual measured change, the standard error of measurement of change, was given by the square root of the rate-of-change sampling variance. Linear and quadratic models were examined up to 3 and up to 6 months.

Results

A linear model for measured change showed the following by 6 and 3 months, respectively: PROMIS CAT (0.363 and 0.342); PROMIS SF (0.408 and 0.533); FACIT (0.459 and 0.473). Quadratic models offered no noteworthy improvement over linear models. Both reliability and precision results demonstrate the need to improve the measurement of intra-individual change.

Conclusions

These results illustrate the challenge of reliably measuring individual change in fatigue with a level of confidence required for intervention. Optimizing clinically useful measurement of intra-individual differences over time continues to pose a challenge for PROs.