Psychometric properties of the FACT-M questionnaire in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma

Murtuza Bharmal, Fatoumata Fofana, Carla Dias Barbosa, Paul Williams, Lisa Mahnke, Alexia Marrel, Michael Schlichting, Murtuza Bharmal, Fatoumata Fofana, Carla Dias Barbosa, Paul Williams, Lisa Mahnke, Alexia Marrel, Michael Schlichting

Abstract

Background: No validated disease-specific questionnaires exist to capture health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Melanoma (FACT-M) is validated in patients with melanoma, which shares many similarities with MCC. This paper reports the psychometric properties of the FACT-M in the metastatic MCC population.

Methods: Data were collected as part of a single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial involving patients with metastatic MCC who had failed at least one previous line of chemotherapy. FACT-M and EQ-5D were administered at baseline, Week 7, Week 13, and Week 25. An optional interview was administered at the same time points. MCC-specific FACT-M scores were derived following a combined quantitative and qualitative approach. Reliability and construct validity of original and additional MCC-specific FACT-M scores were assessed at baseline. Capacity to detect change in tumor size was assessed from baseline to Week 7. Minimally important differences (MIDs) were computed using distribution and anchor-based methods.

Results: Baseline assessments were available in 70 patients (mean age: 70 years; 74.3% male); 19 patients were interviewed at baseline. Additional MCC-specific scores were as follows: Physical Function score (six items), Psychological Impact score (six items), and MCC summary score (12 items). FACT-M original and additional MCC-specific scores both demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties: high reliability (Cronbach's alpha: 0.81-0.96), good convergent validity (correlations above 0.4 observed for 88% of items of the Melanoma surgery scale, 75% of items of the Melanoma scale, and 100% of items of the other FACT-M domains). Some evidence of floor/ceiling effects and poor discriminant ability was found. Higher scores (better HRQoL) on all FACT-M domains were observed in patients with better functioning (assessed by ECOG performance score), supporting clinical validity. Despite the small sample for responsiveness analysis (n = 37), the majority of FACT-M scores showed sensitivity to changes in tumor size at Week 7 with small to moderate effect sizes. MIDs were consistent with previously reported values in the literature for FACT-M domains.

Conclusions: FACT-M is suitable to capture HRQoL in patients with metastatic MCC, thus making it a potential candidate for assessing HRQoL in MCC trials.

Trial registration: This study is a post-hoc analysis conducted on data collected in Part A of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial. This trial was registered on 2 June 2014 with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02155647 .

Keywords: FACT-M questionnaire; Merkel cell carcinoma; Patient-reported outcomes; Psychometric validation; Quality of life.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in compliance with the ethical principles arising from the Declaration of Helsinki and all current local regulations. The study protocol was approved by an Independent Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board prior to the study launch at each site. All patients gave written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MB and MS are employees of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. FF, CDB, PW, and AM are employees of Mapi and paid consultants to Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. LM is an employee of EMD Serono, Boston, MA, USA. Authors did not receive payment for authorship.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Agelli M, Clegg LX. Epidemiology of primary Merkel cell carcinoma in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49:832–41. doi: 10.1016/S0190-9622(03)02108-X.
    1. Feng H, Shuda M, Chang Y, Moore PS. Clonal integration of a polyomavirus in human Merkel cell carcinoma. Science. 2008;319:1096–1100. doi: 10.1126/science.1152586.
    1. Lebbe C, Becker JC, Grob JJ, Malvehy J, Del Marmol V, Pehamberger H, Peris K, Saiag P, Middleton MR, Bastholt L, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of Merkel cell carcinoma. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:2396–403. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.06.131.
    1. Fitzgerald TL, Dennis S, Kachare SD, Vohra NA, Wong JH, Zervos EE. Dramatic increase in the incidence and mortality from Merkel cell carcinoma in the United States. Am Surg. 2015;81:802–806.
    1. Youlden DR, Soyer HP, Youl PH, Fritschi L, Baade PD. Incidence and survival for Merkel cell carcinoma in Queensland, Australia, 1993-2010. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:864–872. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.124.
    1. Allen PJ, Bowne WB, Jaques DP, Brennan MF, Busam K, Coit DG. Merkel cell carcinoma: prognosis and treatment of patients from a single institution. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2300–2309. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.329.
    1. Tai PT, Yu E, Winquist E, Hammond A, Stitt L, Tonita J, Gilchrist J. Chemotherapy in neuroendocrine/Merkel cell carcinoma of the skin: case series and review of 204 cases. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2493–2499. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.12.2493.
    1. Santamaria-Barria JA, Boland GM, Yeap BY, Nardi V, Dias-Santagata D, Cusack JC., Jr Merkel cell carcinoma: 30-year experience from a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1365–1373. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2779-3.
    1. Voog E, Biron P, Martin JP, Blay JY. Chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;85:2589–2595. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990615)85:12<2589::AID-CNCR15>;2-F.
    1. Kaufman HL, Russell J, Hamid O, Bhatia S, Terheyden P, D'Angelo SP, Shih KC, Lebbe C, Linette GP, Milella M, et al. Avelumab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: a multicentre, single-group, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1374–1385. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30364-3.
    1. Kaufman HL, Russell JS, Hamid O, Bhatia S, Terheyden P, D'Angelo SP, Shih KC, Lebbé C, Milella M, Brownell I, et al. Durable responses to avelumab (anti-PD-L1) in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma progressed after chemotherapy: 1-year efficacy update. Washington, DC: In 2017 AACR Annual Meeting; 2017.
    1. D'Angelo SP, Russell J, Hassel JC, Lebbe C, Chmielowski B, Rabinowits G, Terheyden P, Brownell I, Zwiener V, Bajars M, et al. First-line (1L) avelumab treatment in patients (pts) with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC): Preliminary data from an ongoing study. Chicago: In 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting; 2017.
    1. Gnanasakthy A, Mordin M, Clark M, DeMuro C, Fehnel S, Copley-Merriman C. A review of patient-reported outcome labels in the United States: 2006 to 2010. Value Health. 2012;15:437–442. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.11.032.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for Industry Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics. 2007. .
    1. FDA: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in U.S. Regulatory Review of Cancer Products. In Workshop on Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) in Cancer Clinical Trials; Silver Spring, MD. 2016.
    1. Gibbons E, Casanas i Comabella C, Fitzpatrick R. A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures for patients with skin cancer, 2013. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168:1176–1186. doi: 10.1111/bjd.12310.
    1. Cormier JN, Ross MI, Gershenwald JE, Lee JE, Mansfield PF, Camacho LH, Kim K, Webster K, Cella D, Palmer JL. Prospective assessment of the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-melanoma questionnaire. Cancer. 2008;112:2249–2257. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23424.
    1. Cormier JN, Davidson L, Xing Y, Webster K, Cella D. Measuring quality of life in patients with melanoma: development of the FACT-melanoma subscale. J Support Oncol. 2005;3:139–145.
    1. Cormier JN, Cromwell KD, Ross MI. Health-related quality of life in patients with melanoma: overview of instruments and outcomes. Dermatol Clin. 2012;30:245–54. viii.
    1. Shields AL, Hao Y, Krohe M, Yaworsky A, Mazar I, Foley C, Mehmed F, Globe D. Patient-reported outcomes in oncology drug labeling in the United States: a framework for navigating early challenges. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2016;9:188–197.
    1. EuroQol G. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.
    1. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard AS. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15:708–715. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
    1. Chassany O, Sagnier P, Marquis P, Fullerton S, Aaronson N. Patient-reported outcomes: the example of health-related quality of life: a European guidance document for the improved integration of health-related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory process. Drug Inf J. 2002;36:209–238. doi: 10.1177/009286150203600127.
    1. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:171–178. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5.
    1. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:178–189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015.
    1. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1) Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–247. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026.
    1. Coon CD, Cappelleri JC. Interpreting change in scores on patient-reported outcome instruments. Therapeutic Innov Regul Sci. 2016;50(1):22–29. doi: 10.1177/2168479015622667.
    1. Askew RL, Xing Y, Palmer JL, Cella D, Moye LA, Cormier JN. Evaluating minimal important differences for the FACT-Melanoma quality of life questionnaire. Value Health. 2009;12:1144–1150. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00570.x.
    1. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-70.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera