INTRODUCTION: Treatment advances in multiple myeloma have increased expected survival from months to years for some patients. Alongside improved survival emerges a need to better understand and measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL), both in research and clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: (i) Identify HRQOL tools validated for use in myeloma; (ii) identify issues important to HRQOL from the point of view of patients with myeloma; (iii) describe the measurement properties of each HRQOL tool; (iv) evaluate the content validity of HRQOL tools in terms of their ability to capture all issues important to patients and (v) explore the suitability of each HRQOL tool for use in different settings. METHOD: Systematic literature review of six databases with no limits by date or language. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies reported validation of 13 HRQOL instruments. Seven studies identified issues important to HRQOL from the patients' perspective. No instrument was comprehensive to all issues important to patients. The EORTC-QLQ-C30 and MY24 have undergone the most comprehensive psychometric validation. Most validation occurred in trial patients and not clinically representative groups. No studies evaluated clinical utility of tools alongside routine practice. CONCLUSION: The best existing HRQOL tools are designed predominantly for use in research. Reliable, valid and responsive tools exist for this purpose, but may miss issues important to patients. The design of HRQOL measures should be guided by intended utility, whether for research or clinical practice, and further validation of HRQOL tools in clinically representative groups is needed. Development and validation of HRQOL tools for clinical use may be of value.
INTRODUCTION: Treatment advances in multiple myeloma have increased expected survival from months to years for some patients. Alongside improved survival emerges a need to better understand and measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL), both in research and clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: (i) Identify HRQOL tools validated for use in myeloma; (ii) identify issues important to HRQOL from the point of view of patients with myeloma; (iii) describe the measurement properties of each HRQOL tool; (iv) evaluate the content validity of HRQOL tools in terms of their ability to capture all issues important to patients and (v) explore the suitability of each HRQOL tool for use in different settings. METHOD: Systematic literature review of six databases with no limits by date or language. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies reported validation of 13 HRQOL instruments. Seven studies identified issues important to HRQOL from the patients' perspective. No instrument was comprehensive to all issues important to patients. The EORTC-QLQ-C30 and MY24 have undergone the most comprehensive psychometric validation. Most validation occurred in trial patients and not clinically representative groups. No studies evaluated clinical utility of tools alongside routine practice. CONCLUSION: The best existing HRQOL tools are designed predominantly for use in research. Reliable, valid and responsive tools exist for this purpose, but may miss issues important to patients. The design of HRQOL measures should be guided by intended utility, whether for research or clinical practice, and further validation of HRQOL tools in clinically representative groups is needed. Development and validation of HRQOL tools for clinical use may be of value.
Authors: M E Hamaker; K J Schulkes; D Ten Bokkel Huinink; B C van Munster; L H van Huis; F van den Bos Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: R Baz; H M Lin; A-M Hui; R D Harvey; K Colson; K Gallop; P Swinburn; J Laubach; D Berg; P Richardson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Michel Delforge; Leonard Minuk; Jean-Claude Eisenmann; Bertrand Arnulf; Letizia Canepa; Alberto Fragasso; Serge Leyvraz; Christian Langer; Yousef Ezaydi; Dan T Vogl; Pilar Giraldo-Castellano; Sung-Soo Yoon; Charles Zarnitsky; Martine Escoffre-Barbe; Bernard Lemieux; Kevin Song; Nizar Jacques Bahlis; Shien Guo; Mara Silva Monzini; Annette Ervin-Haynes; Vanessa Houck; Thierry Facon Journal: Haematologica Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: E G Boland; J W Boland; Y Ezaydi; D M Greenfield; S H Ahmedzai; J A Snowden Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Thomas R Osborne; Christina Ramsenthaler; Stephen A Schey; Richard J Siegert; Polly M Edmonds; Irene J Higginson Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Stefan Knop; Maria-Victoria Mateos; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Kenshi Suzuki; Andrzej Jakubowiak; Chantal Doyen; Paulo Lucio; Zsolt Nagy; Ganna Usenko; Ludek Pour; Mark Cook; Sebastian Grosicki; Andre Crepaldi; Anna Marina Liberati; Philip Campbell; Tatiana Shelekhova; Sung-Soo Yoon; Genadi Losava; Tomoaki Fujisaki; Mamta Garg; Jianping Wang; Susan Wroblewski; Anupa Kudva; Katharine S Gries; John Fastenau; Jesus San-Miguel; Michele Cavo Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 4.430