1. Clinically meaningful worsening (versus improvement or no change)
Clinically meaningful worsening (versus improvement or no change)* for AAP (n=46) vs ENZ (n=59) for all PRO scales evaluated.  *Defined as the difference from baseline ≥ minimal important difference (0.5 × SD of baseline PRO of all patients). †Evaluable patients. ‡Results could not be obtained from the multivariate repeated measures logistic models for these scenarios due to convergence issues.
Clinically meaningful worsening (versus improvement or no change)* for AAP (n=46) vs ENZ (n=59) for all PRO scales evaluated.  *Defined as the difference from baseline ≥ minimal important difference (0.5 × SD of baseline PRO of all patients). †Evaluable patients. ‡Results could not be obtained from the multivariate repeated measures logistic models for these scenarios due to convergence issues. Instead they are taken from multivariate logistic models fitted for each time period separately. (For all scenarios for which both type of models could be fit, results were very much in line.) Empty cells are the results of zero counts and therefore modelling is not possible. Interpretation of the PRO scales: for FACT-Cog higher scores are favourable; for EORTC QLQ-C30 functional scales and global health status/QoL higher scores are favourable, for EORTC QLQ-C30 symptom scales lower scores are favourable; for BPI-SF and BFI-SF lower scores are favourable.
Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin et al. ESMO Open 2018;3:e000397
Copyright © European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.