Methods of Assesing Quality of Life in Women with Breast Cancer – Overview and Basic Characteristics
Authors:
E. Holoubková 1; K. Skřivanová 1; J. Nedvěd 2; J. Jarkovský 3
Authors‘ workplace:
Ústav psychologie a psychosomatiky, LF MU, Brno
1; Psychologická ambulance – PhDr. Dagmar Konečná s. r. o., Olomouc
2; Institut biostatistiky a analýz, LF a PřF MU, Brno
3
Published in:
Klin Onkol 2015; 28(5): 332-337
Category:
Reviews
doi:
https://doi.org/10.14735/amko2015332
Overview
Background:
For the assessment of health‑ related quality of life (HRQOL) in women with diagnosis of breast carcinoma, patient‑reported outcome measures are reported that allow subjective assessment of quality of life related to health status and satisfaction with treatment and medical care. However, their research use is still limited by the low availability of reliable and valid tools tested on samples of specific populations with malignant disease.
Aim:
The aim of the article is to provide review and short description of available instruments related to HRQOL of patients with a history of treatment for breast cancer with evidence of validation in the breast cancer population.
Results:
In this review 15 validated patient‑reported outcome measures are presented specifically relating to HRQOL in women with breast carcinoma
Conclusion:
Most of the presented measures are suitable in research and clinical trials but not for individual use in clinical practice. Most of the specific measures for assessing HRQOL in patients with breast cancer are not yet available in Czech language and Czech cultural environment adapted versions. Research versions of some of these measures are available in Czech, but these methods have not yet been validated in the Czech Republic. Lack of available tools for use in our conditions means significant limiting factor for research as well as for clinical practice in the Czech Republic. On the other hand, it also offers great scope for validation studies.
Key words:
breast cancer – health related quality of life – patient‑ reported outcome measures – clinical oncology
This study was supported by the Czech Science Foundation project P407/12/0607.
The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.
The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE recommendation for biomedical papers.
Submitted:
11. 4. 2015
Accepted:
13. 8. 2015
Sources
1. Dusek L, Muzik J, Maluskova D et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in the Czech Republic. Klin Onkol 2014; 27(6): 406– 423. doi: 10.14735/ amko2014406.
2. Skovajsová M, Májek O, Daneš J et al. Výsledky národního programu screeningu karcinomu prsu v České republice. Klin Onkol 2014; 27 (Suppl 2): 69– 78. doi: 10.14735/ amko20142S69.
3. Dušek L, Májek O, Mužík J et al. Vývoj epidemiologie zhoubných nádorů prsu u žen dle nových dat Národního onkologického registru ČR a dalších datových zdrojů. Prakt Gyn 2013; 17(1): 31– 39.
4. Chen C, Cano S, Klassen A et al. Measuring quality of life in oncologic breast surgery: a systematic review of patient reported outcome measures. Breast Journal 2010; 16(6): 587– 597. doi: 10.1111/ j.1524‑ 4741.2010.00983.x.
5. Pusic AI, Chen CM, Cano S et al. Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient‑ reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120(4): 823– 837.
6. Swaroop R, Nalini R, Sridhar S et al. Quality of life assesment in breast cancer patiens: the need of stratification of patiens and of the use of appropriate questionnaries. J Cancer Res Ther 2013; 9(4): 760. doi: 10.4103/ 0973‑ 1482.126496.
7. Kanatas A, Velikova G, Roe B et al. Patient‑ reported outcomes in breast oncology: a review of validated outcome instruments. Tumori 2012; 98(6): 678– 688. doi: 10.1700/ 1217.13489.
8. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al. The EORTC HRQOL‑ C30: a quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85(5): 365– 376.
9. Sprangers MA, Groenvold M, Arraras JI et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast cancer‑ specific quality of life questionnaire module: first results from a three‑ country field study. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14(10): 2756– 2768.
10. Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K et al. The EORTC QLQ‑ 30 Scoring Manual. (3rd ed.) [Internet]. EORTC Quality of Life Group; 2001 [cited 2015 Mar 10]. Available from: http:/ / groups.eortc.be/ qol/ manuals.
11. EORTC QLQ‑ C30, version 3.0 [Internet]. EORTC Quality of Life Group; 1995 [cited 2015 Mar 10]. Available from: http:/ / groups.eortc.be/ qol/ eortc‑ qlq‑ c30.
12. Winters ZE, Balta V, Thomson HJ et al. Phase III development of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire module for women undergoing breast reconstruction. Br J Surg 2014; 101(4): 371– 382. doi: 10.1002/ bjs.9397.
13. Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 79.
14. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‑ breast quality‑ of‑life instrument. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15(3): 974– 986.
15. FACT‑ B, version 4.0 [Internet]. FACIT; 2007 [cited 2015 Mar 10]. Available from: http:/ / www.facit.org/ FACITOrg/ Questionnaires.
16. Lee CF, Ng R, Wong NS et al. Measurement properties of the eight‑ item abbreviated functional assessment of cancer therapy‑ breast symptom index and comparison with its 37- item parent measure. J Pain Symptom Manage 2013; 45(4): 782– 791. doi: 10.1016/ j.jpainsymman.2012.03.012.
17. Garcia SF, Rosenbloom SK, Beaumont JL et al. Priority symptoms in advanced breast cancer: development and initial validation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network‑ Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‑ Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI‑ 16). Value Health 2012; 15(1): 183– 190. doi: 10.1016/ j.jval.2011.08.1739.
18. Spagnola S, Zabora J, Brintzenhofeszoc K et al. The satisfaction with life domains scale for breast cancer (SLDS‑ BC). Breast J 2003; 9(6): 463– 471.
19. Baxter NN, Goodwin PJ, McLeod RS et al. Reliability and validity of the body image after breast cancer questionnaire. Breast J 2006; 12(3): 221– 232.
20. Hopwood P, Fletcher I, Lee A et al. A body image scale for use with cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37(2): 189– 197.
21. Polivy J. Psychological effects of mastectomy on a woman’s feminine self‑ concept. J Nerv Ment Dis 1977; 164(2): 77– 87.
22. Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Lowery JC et al. Determinants of patient satisfaction in post mastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106(4): 769– 776.
23. Wilkins EG, Cederna PS, Lowery JC et al. Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: one‑year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106(5): 1014– 1025.
24. Pusic AI, Klassen AF, Scott AM et al. Development of a new patient‑ reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST‑Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124(2): 345– 353. doi: 10.1097/ PRS.0b013e3181aee807.
25. BREAST‑Q Users Manual, version 1.0 [Internet]. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; 2012 [cited 2015 Mar 10]. Available from: https:/ / webcore.mskcc.org/ breastq/ qscore/ qscore‑manual.pdf.
26. Stanton AL, Krishnan L, Collins CA. Form or function? Part 1.Subjective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast‑ conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer 2001; 91(12): 2273– 2281.
27. Feather BL, Wainstock JM, Remington A et al. Post‑mastectomy educational needs and social support. J Cancer Educ 1988; 3(2): 135– 144.
28. Feather BL, Wainstock JM. Perceptions of post‑mastectomy patients. Part II. Social support and attitudes towards mastectomy. Cancer Nursing 1989; 12(5): 301– 309.
29. Levine MN, Guyatt GH, Gent M et al. Quality of life in stage II breast cancer, an instrument for clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6(12): 1798– 1810.
30. Ganz PA, Day R, Ware JE Jr et al. Base‑line quality‑ of‑life assessment in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87(18): 1372– 1382.
31. Day R, Ganz PA, Costantino JP et al. Health‑related quality of life and tamoxifen in breast cancer prevention: a report from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P‑ 1 study. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17(9): 2659– 2669.
32. Fallowfield LJ, Leaity SK, Howell A et al. Assessment of quality of life in women undergoing hormonal therapy for breast cancer: validation of an endocrine symptom subscale for the FACT‑ B. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1999; 55(5): 189– 199.
33. FACT‑ ES, version 4.0, [Internet]. FACIT; 2007 [cited 2015 Mar 10]. Available from: http:/ / www.facit.org/ FACITOrg/ Questionnaires.
34. Facit.org [homepage on the Internet]. Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy; c2010 [cited 2015 Mar 10]. Available from: http:/ / www.facit.org/ FACITOrg/ Questionnaires.
35. Eortc.be [homepage on the Internet]. EORTC Quality of Life Department. Brussels, Belgium; [cited 2015 Mar 10]. Available from: http:/ / groups.eortc.be/ qol/ why‑ do‑ we‑ need‑ modules.
Labels
Paediatric clinical oncology Surgery Clinical oncologyArticle was published in
Clinical Oncology
2015 Issue 5
Most read in this issue
- Methods of Assesing Quality of Life in Women with Breast Cancer – Overview and Basic Characteristics
- Surgical Treatment of Lung Metastases of Colorectal Carcinoma – Survival and Prognostic Factors
- Forbidden to Drive – a New Chemotherapy Side Effect
- Combining Systemic Therapies with Radiation in Non‑ small Cell Lung Cancer