Sample sizes for randomized trials measuring quality of life in cancer patients (original) (raw)

Abstract

This paper describes the methods appropriate for calculating sample sizes for clinical trials assessing quality of life (QOL). An example from a randomized trial of patients with small cell lung cancer completing the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is used for illustration. Sample size estimates calculated assuming that the data are either of the Normal form or binary are compared to estimates derived using an ordered categorical approach. In our example, since the data are very skewed, the Normal and binary approaches are shown to be unsatisfactory: binary methods may lead to substantial over estimates of sample size and Normal methods take no account of the asymmetric nature of the distribution. When summarizing normative data for QOL scores the frequency distributions should always be given so that one can assess if non-parametric methods should be used for sample size calculations and analysis. Further work is needed to discover what changes in QOL scores represent clinical importance for health technology interventions.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fayers P, Machin D. Sample size: how many patients are necessary? Br J Cancer 1995; 72: 1-9.
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  2. Burnard B, Kernan WN, Feinstein AR. Indexes and boundaries for ‘quantitative significance’ in statistical decisions. JClin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 1273-1284.
    Article Google Scholar
  3. CPMP Working Party on Efficacy of Medicinal Products. Biostatisticalmethodology in clinical trials in applications formarketing authorizations formedicinal products. Stats Med 1995; 14: 1659-1682.
    Google Scholar
  4. British Medical Journal. Instructions to authors. Br Med J 1995; 310: 50-53.
    Article Google Scholar
  5. Staquet MJ, Berzon R, Osoba D, Machin D. Guidelines for reporting results of quality of life assessments in clinical trials. Qual Life Res (in press)
  6. Altman DG, Bland JM. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Br Med J 1995; 311: 485.
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  7. Machin D, Campbell MJ, Fayers PM, Pinol AY. _Sample Size Tables for Clinical Studies._Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific [In press].
  8. Medical Research Council Lung CancerWorking Party. A randomised trial of three or six courses of etoposide cyclophosphamide methotrexate and vincristine or six courses of etoposide and ifosfamide in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) II: quality of life. Br J Cancer 1993; 68: 1157-1166.
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Hopwood P, Stephens RJ, Machin D. Approaches to the analysis of quality of life data: experiences gained from a Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party palliative chemotherapy trial. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 339-351.
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  10. Juniper EJ, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81-87.
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  11. Julious SA, George S, Campbell MJ. Sample sizes for studies with SF-36. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1995; 49: 642-644.
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  12. Whitehead J. Sample size calculations for ordered categorical data. Stats Med 1993; 12: 2257-2272.
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  13. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychol Scand 1983; 67: 361-370.
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  14. Boskey CM, Fosbury JA, Cochrane GM. The psychological factors associated with poor compliance with treatment in asthma. Euro Respir J 1995; 8: 899- 904.
    Article Google Scholar
  15. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. _SF-36 Health SurveyManual and InterpretationGuide._Boston, MA(USA): New England Medical Centre, The Health Institute, 1993.
    Google Scholar
  16. Ware JE, Brook RH, Williams KN, Stewart AL and Davies-Avery A. _Conceptualization and Measurement of Health for Adults in the Health Insurance Study. Vol. 1 Model of Health and Methodology._Santa Monica, CA (USA): Rand Corporation, 1980. (Publication No R-1 987/1-HEW.)
    Google Scholar
  17. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L. Short form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. Br Med J 1993; 306: 1437-1440.
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  18. Campbell MJ, Julious S, Altman DG. Sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons. Br Med J 1995; 311: 1145-1148.
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  19. Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party. A randomised trial of etoposide cyclophosphamide methotrexate and vincristine versus etoposide and vincristine in the palliative treatment of patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and poor prognosis. Br J Cancer 1996; 73: 404-413.
    Google Scholar
  20. Campbell MJ, Machin D. Medical Statistics: A Common Sense Approach. _Second Edition._Chichester, UK: JohnWiley, 1993.
    Google Scholar
  21. Julious SA, Campbell MJ. Sample size calculations for ordered categorical data. Stats Med 1996; 15: 1065-1066.
    Article Google Scholar
  22. Conover WJ. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. Second Edition. New York, NY (USA): John Wiley, 1980.
    Google Scholar
  23. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Second Edition. NJ (USA): Lawrence Earlbaum, 1988.
    Google Scholar
  24. Parmar MKB, Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS and the CHART Steering Committee. The CHART trials: Bayesian design and monitoring in practice. Stats Med 1995; 13: 1297-1312.
    Article Google Scholar
  25. Birkett MA, Day SJ. Internal pilot studies for estimating sample size. Stats Med 1994; 13: 2455-2463.
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  26. Keen ON. The log transformation is special. Stats Med 1995; 14: 811-819.
    Article Google Scholar
  27. Bland JM, Altman DG. Logarithms. Br Med J 1996; 312: 700.
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  28. SAS. Cary, NC (USA): SAS Institute Inc., 1991.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Statistics and Computing, University of Southampton, Level B, South Academic Block, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK
    S. A. Julious
  2. Department of Public Health Medicine, University of Southampton, Level B, South Academic Block, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK
    S. George
  3. MRC Cancer Trials Office, 5 Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, UK
    D. Machin & R. J. Stephens

Authors

  1. S. A. Julious
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. S. George
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. D. Machin
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. R. J. Stephens
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Julious, S.A., George, S., Machin, D. et al. Sample sizes for randomized trials measuring quality of life in cancer patients.Qual Life Res 6, 109–117 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026481815304

Download citation