PURPOSE: To report the reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian (FACT-O) in a consecutive series of outpatients with epithelial ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred thirty-two ovarian cancer patients attending an outpatient gynecologic oncology clinic completed questionnaires at baseline. The patients' FACT-O scores were compared with their performance status, disease stage, treatment status, and other factors hypothesized to be related to quality of life. Patients received a second questionnaire either one week after baseline to assess the instrument's test-retest reliability and/or two months after baseline to evaluate its sensitivity to change in performance status. RESULTS: Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the FACT-O were adequate. Overall, the scales correlated with other measures as expected; all correlations were in the hypothesized direction. Patients with advanced disease, poor performance status, and who were receiving active treatment had lower scores on physical, functional, and ovarian cancer-specific scales. The total FACT-O and emotional well-being scores were lower for patients with poor performance status and patients in active treatment. The FACT-O total and all subscale scores except emotional well-being were sensitive to decreases in performance status. CONCLUSION: Overall, the FACT-O provides a reliable and valid assessment of the quality of life of women with ovarian cancer, and is appropriate as a brief quality of life assessment in clinical trials and descriptive studies.
PURPOSE: To report the reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian (FACT-O) in a consecutive series of outpatients with epithelial ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred thirty-two ovarian cancerpatients attending an outpatient gynecologic oncology clinic completed questionnaires at baseline. The patients' FACT-O scores were compared with their performance status, disease stage, treatment status, and other factors hypothesized to be related to quality of life. Patients received a second questionnaire either one week after baseline to assess the instrument's test-retest reliability and/or two months after baseline to evaluate its sensitivity to change in performance status. RESULTS: Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the FACT-O were adequate. Overall, the scales correlated with other measures as expected; all correlations were in the hypothesized direction. Patients with advanced disease, poor performance status, and who were receiving active treatment had lower scores on physical, functional, and ovarian cancer-specific scales. The total FACT-O and emotional well-being scores were lower for patients with poor performance status and patients in active treatment. The FACT-O total and all subscale scores except emotional well-being were sensitive to decreases in performance status. CONCLUSION: Overall, the FACT-O provides a reliable and valid assessment of the quality of life of women with ovarian cancer, and is appropriate as a brief quality of life assessment in clinical trials and descriptive studies.
Authors: Sally E Jensen; Sarah K Rosenbloom; Jennifer L Beaumont; Amy Abernethy; Paul B Jacobsen; Karen Syrjala; David Cella Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2010-11-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Vivian E von Gruenigen; Helen Q Huang; Jan H Beumer; Heather A Lankes; William Tew; Thomas Herzog; Arti Hurria; Robert S Mannel; Tina Rizack; Lisa M Landrum; Peter G Rose; Ritu Salani; William H Bradley; Thomas J Rutherford; Robert V Higgins; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Gini Fleming Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Vivian E von Gruenigen; Helen Q Huang; Karen M Gil; Heidi E Gibbons; Bradley J Monk; Peter G Rose; Deborah K Armstrong; David Cella; Lari Wenzel Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Carolina L Mercado; Cameron Pole; James Wong; Juan F Batlle; Fabiola Roque; Noah Shaikh; Juan C Murillo; Anat Galor; Carol L Karp Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Jody M Jackson; Sharon J Rolnick; Steve S Coughlin; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Mark C Hornbrook; Jeanne Darbinian; Donald J Bachman; Lisa J Herrinton Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-12-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Susan K Lutgendorf; George M Slavich; Koenraad Degeest; Michael Goodheart; David Bender; Premal H Thaker; Frank Penedo; Bridget Zimmerman; Joseph Lucci; Luis Mendez; Katherine Collins; Anil K Sood Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Laura J Havrilesky; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Jessie A Ehrisman; Andrew Berchuck; Fidel A Valea; Paula S Lee; Stephanie L Gaillard; Greg P Samsa; David Cella; Kevin P Weinfurt; Amy P Abernethy; Shelby D Reed Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 6.860