Minimal clinically important differences in the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases

A L Versteeg; A Sahgal; I Laufer; L D Rhines; D M Sciubba; J M Schuster; M H Weber; A Lazary; S Boriani; C Bettegowda; M G Fehlings; M J Clarke; P M Arnold; Z L Gokaslan; O Barzilai; N Dea; A Gasbarrini; C Netzer; J J Reynolds; J J Verlaan; C G Fisher

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2026.05.007

Minimal clinically important differences in the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases

A L Versteeg^*
, A Sahgal
, I Laufer
, L D Rhines
, D M Sciubba
, J M Schuster
, M H Weber
, A Lazary
, S Boriani
, C Bettegowda
, M G Fehlings
, M J Clarke
, P M Arnold
, Z L Gokaslan
, O Barzilai
, N Dea
, A Gasbarrini
, C Netzer
, J J Reynolds
, J J Verlaan

C G Fisher,

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: It is currently unknown what absolute change in Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) represents a clinically meaningful change for a patient which causes challenges with the interpretation of the SOSGOQ2.0 total score or domain scores. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the SOSGOQ2.0 in patients with spinal metastases. STUDY DESIGN: An international multicenter prospective observational study by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with spinal metastases who were treated with surgery and/or radiotherapy OUTCOME MEASURES: Health related quality of life (HRQOL) was evaluated using the SOSGOQ2.0 at pre-defined time points METHODS: The MCID values for the SOSGOQ2.0 were determined using both distribution-based as well as anchor-based methods. For the anchor-based method, the post-therapy questions of the SOSGOQ2.0 served as the anchor with response options collapsed into “improvement,” “no change” and “deterioration.” Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to identify post-therapy items with a correlation of ≥0.30 with the corresponding domain scores. MCID values from the distribution-based methods were derived using the statistical characteristics of the study population and compared to the anchor-based results. RESULTS: A total of 317 patients had SOSGOQ2.0 data available at baseline and at 12 weeks post-treatment and were included in the final analyses. Anchor-based MCID values for improvement in the physical function, pain, mental health and social function domains were 10.2, 26.0, 14.4 and 17.2 respectively. Compared with the distribution-based approach, anchor-based MCIDs for improvement suggest that the patient-perceived improvement corresponds to a strong level of improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to report MCID values for the SOSGOQ2.0 total score and domain scores. The distribution-based MCID estimates will help both clinicians as well as researchers with the interpretation of the effect of treatment for painful spinal metastases on patient reported health related quality of life (HRQOL).

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1977-1984
Journal	The Spine Journal
Volume	26
Issue number	10
Early online date	10 Jun 2026
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2026.05.007
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 10 Jun 2026

Keywords

MCID
Minimal clinically important difference
Minimally clinically important difference
Patient reported outcomes
Quality of life
Radiotherapy
Spinal metastases
Surgery

Access to Document

10.1016/j.spinee.2026.05.007Licence: CC BY

PIIS1529943026001555Final published version, 363 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Versteeg, A. L., Sahgal, A., Laufer, I., Rhines, L. D., Sciubba, D. M., Schuster, J. M., Weber, M. H., Lazary, A., Boriani, S., Bettegowda, C., Fehlings, M. G., Clarke, M. J., Arnold, P. M., Gokaslan, Z. L., Barzilai, O., Dea, N., Gasbarrini, A., Netzer, C., Reynolds, J. J. (2026). Minimal clinically important differences in the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases. The Spine Journal, 26(10), 1977-1984. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2026.05.007

@article{1a00ca4fc9984e3aa9cfc3d1c2038436,

title = "Minimal clinically important differences in the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases",

abstract = "BACKGROUND CONTEXT: It is currently unknown what absolute change in Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) represents a clinically meaningful change for a patient which causes challenges with the interpretation of the SOSGOQ2.0 total score or domain scores. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the SOSGOQ2.0 in patients with spinal metastases. STUDY DESIGN: An international multicenter prospective observational study by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with spinal metastases who were treated with surgery and/or radiotherapy OUTCOME MEASURES: Health related quality of life (HRQOL) was evaluated using the SOSGOQ2.0 at pre-defined time points METHODS: The MCID values for the SOSGOQ2.0 were determined using both distribution-based as well as anchor-based methods. For the anchor-based method, the post-therapy questions of the SOSGOQ2.0 served as the anchor with response options collapsed into {\textquotedblleft}improvement,{\textquotedblright} {\textquotedblleft}no change{\textquotedblright} and {\textquotedblleft}deterioration.{\textquotedblright} Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to identify post-therapy items with a correlation of ≥0.30 with the corresponding domain scores. MCID values from the distribution-based methods were derived using the statistical characteristics of the study population and compared to the anchor-based results. RESULTS: A total of 317 patients had SOSGOQ2.0 data available at baseline and at 12 weeks post-treatment and were included in the final analyses. Anchor-based MCID values for improvement in the physical function, pain, mental health and social function domains were 10.2, 26.0, 14.4 and 17.2 respectively. Compared with the distribution-based approach, anchor-based MCIDs for improvement suggest that the patient-perceived improvement corresponds to a strong level of improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to report MCID values for the SOSGOQ2.0 total score and domain scores. The distribution-based MCID estimates will help both clinicians as well as researchers with the interpretation of the effect of treatment for painful spinal metastases on patient reported health related quality of life (HRQOL).",

keywords = "MCID, Minimal clinically important difference, Minimally clinically important difference, Patient reported outcomes, Quality of life, Radiotherapy, Spinal metastases, Surgery",

author = "Versteeg, \{A L\} and A Sahgal and I Laufer and Rhines, \{L D\} and Sciubba, \{D M\} and Schuster, \{J M\} and Weber, \{M H\} and A Lazary and S Boriani and C Bettegowda and Fehlings, \{M G\} and Clarke, \{M J\} and Arnold, \{P M\} and Gokaslan, \{Z L\} and O Barzilai and N Dea and A Gasbarrini and C Netzer and Reynolds, \{J J\} and Verlaan, \{J J\} and Fisher, \{C G\}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2026 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",

year = "2026",

month = jun,

day = "10",

doi = "10.1016/j.spinee.2026.05.007",

language = "English",

volume = "26",

pages = "1977--1984",

journal = "The Spine Journal",

issn = "1529-9430",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "10",

}

Versteeg, AL, Sahgal, A, Laufer, I, Rhines, LD, Sciubba, DM, Schuster, JM, Weber, MH, Lazary, A, Boriani, S, Bettegowda, C, Fehlings, MG, Clarke, MJ, Arnold, PM, Gokaslan, ZL, Barzilai, O, Dea, N, Gasbarrini, A, Netzer, C, Reynolds, JJ, Verlaan, JJ, Fisher, CG 2026, 'Minimal clinically important differences in the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases', The Spine Journal, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 1977-1984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2026.05.007

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minimal clinically important differences in the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases

AU - Versteeg, A L

AU - Sahgal, A

AU - Laufer, I

AU - Rhines, L D

AU - Sciubba, D M

AU - Schuster, J M

AU - Weber, M H

AU - Lazary, A

AU - Boriani, S

AU - Bettegowda, C

AU - Fehlings, M G

AU - Clarke, M J

AU - Arnold, P M

AU - Gokaslan, Z L

AU - Barzilai, O

AU - Dea, N

AU - Gasbarrini, A

AU - Netzer, C

AU - Reynolds, J J

AU - Verlaan, J J

AU - Fisher, C G

PY - 2026/6/10

Y1 - 2026/6/10

N2 - BACKGROUND CONTEXT: It is currently unknown what absolute change in Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) represents a clinically meaningful change for a patient which causes challenges with the interpretation of the SOSGOQ2.0 total score or domain scores. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the SOSGOQ2.0 in patients with spinal metastases. STUDY DESIGN: An international multicenter prospective observational study by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with spinal metastases who were treated with surgery and/or radiotherapy OUTCOME MEASURES: Health related quality of life (HRQOL) was evaluated using the SOSGOQ2.0 at pre-defined time points METHODS: The MCID values for the SOSGOQ2.0 were determined using both distribution-based as well as anchor-based methods. For the anchor-based method, the post-therapy questions of the SOSGOQ2.0 served as the anchor with response options collapsed into “improvement,” “no change” and “deterioration.” Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to identify post-therapy items with a correlation of ≥0.30 with the corresponding domain scores. MCID values from the distribution-based methods were derived using the statistical characteristics of the study population and compared to the anchor-based results. RESULTS: A total of 317 patients had SOSGOQ2.0 data available at baseline and at 12 weeks post-treatment and were included in the final analyses. Anchor-based MCID values for improvement in the physical function, pain, mental health and social function domains were 10.2, 26.0, 14.4 and 17.2 respectively. Compared with the distribution-based approach, anchor-based MCIDs for improvement suggest that the patient-perceived improvement corresponds to a strong level of improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to report MCID values for the SOSGOQ2.0 total score and domain scores. The distribution-based MCID estimates will help both clinicians as well as researchers with the interpretation of the effect of treatment for painful spinal metastases on patient reported health related quality of life (HRQOL).

AB - BACKGROUND CONTEXT: It is currently unknown what absolute change in Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) represents a clinically meaningful change for a patient which causes challenges with the interpretation of the SOSGOQ2.0 total score or domain scores. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the SOSGOQ2.0 in patients with spinal metastases. STUDY DESIGN: An international multicenter prospective observational study by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with spinal metastases who were treated with surgery and/or radiotherapy OUTCOME MEASURES: Health related quality of life (HRQOL) was evaluated using the SOSGOQ2.0 at pre-defined time points METHODS: The MCID values for the SOSGOQ2.0 were determined using both distribution-based as well as anchor-based methods. For the anchor-based method, the post-therapy questions of the SOSGOQ2.0 served as the anchor with response options collapsed into “improvement,” “no change” and “deterioration.” Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to identify post-therapy items with a correlation of ≥0.30 with the corresponding domain scores. MCID values from the distribution-based methods were derived using the statistical characteristics of the study population and compared to the anchor-based results. RESULTS: A total of 317 patients had SOSGOQ2.0 data available at baseline and at 12 weeks post-treatment and were included in the final analyses. Anchor-based MCID values for improvement in the physical function, pain, mental health and social function domains were 10.2, 26.0, 14.4 and 17.2 respectively. Compared with the distribution-based approach, anchor-based MCIDs for improvement suggest that the patient-perceived improvement corresponds to a strong level of improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to report MCID values for the SOSGOQ2.0 total score and domain scores. The distribution-based MCID estimates will help both clinicians as well as researchers with the interpretation of the effect of treatment for painful spinal metastases on patient reported health related quality of life (HRQOL).

KW - MCID

KW - Minimal clinically important difference

KW - Minimally clinically important difference

KW - Patient reported outcomes

KW - Quality of life

KW - Radiotherapy

KW - Spinal metastases

KW - Surgery

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105043595249

U2 - 10.1016/j.spinee.2026.05.007

DO - 10.1016/j.spinee.2026.05.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 42269936

SN - 1529-9430

VL - 26

SP - 1977

EP - 1984

JO - The Spine Journal

JF - The Spine Journal

IS - 10

ER -

Minimal clinically important differences in the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this