1. Psychometric performance of the PAncreatic Cancer Disease Impact (PACADI) score.
Turid Heiberg1,2, Bart Baekelandt3,
Tore K. K. Kvien4,3 and Trond Buanes5,3
1Regional Research Support, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
6Faculty of Health and Welfare, Østfold University College, Halden, Norway
3Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
4Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway
5Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

2. Disclosure Statement of Financial Interest
Turid Heiberg: Nothing to disclose
Bart Baekelandt: Nothing to disclose
Tore K. Kvien has
received fees for speaking and/or consulting from AbbVie,  Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Epirus, Hospira, Merck-Serono, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Oktal, Orion Pharma, Hospira/Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sandoz and UCB and
received research funding to Diakonhjemmet Hospital from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB.
Trond Buanes: Nothing to disclose

3. Introduction. The purpose of this study was to perform a
Access to patient reported outcome measures that are valid, brief, disease specific, and emphasizing the patient perspective is limited.
The PACADI score is suggested for use. (1)
1. Heiberg T et al. Development and preliminary validation of the pancreatic cancer disease impact score. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(6):
The purpose of this study was to perform a
full psychometric testing of the PACADI score.

4. Methods. uxtuhe@ous-hf.no Analyses. We examined
Patients (n=363) with suspected pancreatic cancer (PC) were included.
The PACADI score has eight dimensions measured on (NRS) 0-10.
EQ-5D and ESAS were also completed.
Data were collected at baseline and after 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.
Analyses. We examined
Discriminative validity between diagnostic groups
Correlations between instruments (concurrent validity)
ICC (test-retest reliability)
Internal consistency of dimensions in PACADI score and EQ-5D
Longitudinal examinations,
SRM (responsiveness)
Predictive validity of mortality.

5. Results I. Mean (SD) baseline characteristics /group differences.
Discriminatory power
Pancreatic cancer
n=213
Other malignant lesions n=104
Non malignant lesion
n=46
p-value*
Age
67.5 (10.4)
65.8 (11.1)
65.8 (11.3)
0.35
Females (%)
49.3
38.9
39.0
0.15
PACADI score
3.4 (2.1)
2.8 (2.0)
3.0 (2.3)
0.045
EQ-5D
-0.60 (-0.30)
-0.70 (-0.26)
-0.66 (-0.33)
ESAS “sense of
well-being”
3.7 (2.9)
3.1 (2.7)
3.2 (2.8)
0.17
*Chi-square or ANOVA

6. Results II. Patients with pancreatic cancer
PACADI score correlated strongly with EQ-5D and ESAS ( , p<0.001).
PACADI score showed high test retest reliability (ICC 0.84, p<0.05)
PACADI score showed Cronbach’s alpha range across all visits.
PACADI score showed significant differences over time at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.
PACADI score showed SRM 0.80 and EQ-5D for improvement (2-3 months).
PACADI score showed predictive validity (p=0.02) for mortality during 12 months.
Predictive validity
Pancreatic Cancer n=213
Other Malignant Lesions n=109
Non Malignant Lesions n=41
 (COX regression)
β/HR
p-value
PACADI score
0.08
p=0.02
0.05
p=0.47
0.24
p=0.18
EQ-5D
-0.03
P=0.17
-0.78
p=0.10
-2.19
ESAS «sense of well-being»
0.008
P=0.78
0.02
p=0.73
-0.04
p=0.79

7. Conclusion. http://www.pacadi.com/en/index.html PACADI, is a brief
disease specific
patient derived
PROM tool,
that showed
satisfactory psychometric performance,
supporting its use in clinical practice and intervention trials.