Table 4.
Responsiveness of the PROMIS-PF and Worst Stiffness NRS from Baseline to Week 25
| Change in PGRC-Physical Functioning |
Overall F-value (P-value)1 |
P-value2 | |||||||
|
Worsened (△ + 1 or greater) |
No change |
Improved (△ − 1 or lower) |
|||||||
| Missing N | N | LS mean (SE) | N | LS mean (SE) | N | LS mean (SE) | |||
| PROMIS Physical Function | 64 | 9 | −4.21 (2.46) | 20 | −1.35 (1.91) | 27 | 5.05 (2.12) | 3.93 (0.0002) | 1: 0.2773 / 2:< 0.0001 / 3: 0.0002 |
| Change in PGRC-Physical Functioning | Overall F-value (P-value)1 | ||||||||
| Worsened (△ + 1 or greater), No change | Improved (△ − 1 or lower) | ||||||||
| Missing N | N | LS mean (SE) | N | LS mean (SE) | |||||
| PROMIS Physical Function | 64 | 29 | −1.66 (1.94) | 27 | 5.95 (2.09) | 3.86 (0.0003) | |||
| Change in PGIC-Stiffness |
Overall F-value (P-value)1 |
P-value2 | |||||||
|
Worsened (△ − 1 or lower) |
No change |
Improved (△ + 1 or greater) |
|||||||
| Missing N | N | LS mean (SE) | N | LS mean (SE) | N | LS mean (SE) | |||
| Worst Stiffness NRS | 74 | 9 | −0.15 (1.04) | 14 | −2.53 (1.13) | 23 | −4.36 (0.97) | 4.75 (0.0001) | 1: 0.0367 / 2:< 0.0001 / 3: 0.0434 |
| Change in PGIC-Stiffness | Overall F-value (P-value)1 | ||||||||
| Worsened (△ − 1 or lower), No change | Improved (△ + 1 or greater) | ||||||||
| Missing N | N | LS mean (SE) | N | LS mean (SE) | |||||
| Worst Stiffness NRS | 74 | 23 | −1.06 (1.08) | 23 | −3.93 (1.04) | 3.80 (0.0010) | |||
1General linear model (PROC GLM) controlling for baseline score, age, gender, race, and tumor location
2Pairwise comparisons between LS means were performed using Scheffe’s test adjusting for multiple comparisons
1 = worsened vs. no change; 2 = worsened vs. improved; 3 = no change vs. improved