Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb;55(2):318-333.e4.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.08.020. Epub 2017 Aug 30.

Congruence Between Latent Class and K-Modes Analyses in the Identification of Oncology Patients With Distinct Symptom Experiences

Affiliations

Congruence Between Latent Class and K-Modes Analyses in the Identification of Oncology Patients With Distinct Symptom Experiences

Nikoloas Papachristou et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018 Feb.

Abstract

Context: Risk profiling of oncology patients based on their symptom experience assists clinicians to provide more personalized symptom management interventions. Recent findings suggest that oncology patients with distinct symptom profiles can be identified using a variety of analytic methods.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the concordance between the number and types of subgroups of patients with distinct symptom profiles using latent class analysis and K-modes analysis.

Methods: Using data on the occurrence of 25 symptoms from the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale, that 1329 patients completed prior to their next dose of chemotherapy (CTX), Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to evaluate for concordance between the two analytic methods. For both latent class analysis and K-modes, differences among the subgroups in demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics, as well as quality of life outcomes were determined using parametric and nonparametric statistics.

Results: Using both analytic methods, four subgroups of patients with distinct symptom profiles were identified (i.e., all low, moderate physical and lower psychological, moderate physical and higher Psychological, and all high). The percent agreement between the two methods was 75.32%, which suggests a moderate level of agreement. In both analyses, patients in the all high group were significantly younger and had a higher comorbidity profile, worse Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale subscale scores, and poorer QOL outcomes.

Conclusion: Both analytic methods can be used to identify subgroups of oncology patients with distinct symptom profiles. Additional research is needed to determine which analytic methods and which dimension of the symptom experience provide the most sensitive and specific risk profiles.

Keywords: Symptom clusters; cancer; chemotherapy; clustering; k-modes analysis; latent class analysis; machine learning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 1A. Silhouette coefficient diagram for the 4-class solution using latent class analysis. The sizes of the clusters in the diagram are proportional to their size inside the total sample of patients (n=1329). The labels represent the following clslusters: 0 (All Low (n=419, 31.5%)), 1 (Moderate Physical & Lower Psychological (n=316, 23.8%)), 2 (Moderate Physical & Higher Psychological (n=416, 31.3%)) and 3 (All High (n=178, 13.4%). Figure 1B. Silhouette coefficient diagram for the 4-cluster solution using the K-modes analysis. The sizes of the clusters in the diagram are proportional to their size inside the total sample of patients (n=1329). The labels represent the following clusters: 0 (All Low (n=536, 40.3%)), 1 (Moderate Physical & Lower Psychological (n=205, 15.4%)), 2 (Moderate Physical & Higher Psychological (n=280, 21.1%)), and 3 (All High (n=308, 23.2%)).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Symptom occurrence for each of the subgroups identified using latent class analysis for the 25 symptoms on the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale that occurred in ≥30% of the total sample (n=1329) at Time 1 (i.e., prior to next dose of chemotherapy).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Symptom occurrence for each of the subgroups identified using K-modes analysis for the 25 symptoms on the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale that occurred in ≥30% of the total sample (n=1329) at Time 1 (i.e., prior to next dose of chemotherapy).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Esther Kim JE, Dodd MJ, Aouizerat BE, Jahan T, Miaskowski C. A review of the prevalence and impact of multiple symptoms in oncology patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;37:715–736. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reilly CM, Bruner DW, Mitchell SA, et al. A literature synthesis of symptom prevalence and severity in persons receiving active cancer treatment. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:1525–1550. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:793–795. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Miaskowski C. Future directions in symptom cluster research. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2016;32:405–415. - PubMed
    1. Miaskowski C, Barsevick A, Berger A, et al. Advancing symptom science through symptom cluster research: Expert panel proceedings and recommendations. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017:109. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances