PURPOSE: The EORTC QLQ-PR25 was primarily developed to measure disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing active treatment. The growing number of cancer survivors has focussed interest on assessing survivors' HRQoL. We evaluated psychometric properties of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 questionnaire amongst PCa survivors. METHODS: A postal questionnaire, including the QLQ-PR25, was administered to 6559 PCa survivors 2-18 years post-diagnosis, identified through population-based cancer registries in Ireland; 3348 participated. The QLQ-PR25 has been suggested to have five multi-item subscales measuring urinary (US), bowel (BS) and hormone treatment-related symptoms (TS), sexual activity (SA) and sexual functioning (SF), and a single item measuring bother due to using incontinence aids (IA). Reliability analysis, divergent validity, discriminant validity (compared to EORTC QLQ-C30, DASS-21 and EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L), and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA, CFA) were undertaken. RESULTS: The percentage of survivors completing QLQ-PR25 subscales was: US-79 %; IA-20 %; BS-83 %; TS-86 %; SA-87 %; and SF-26 %. Reliability was acceptable (Cronbach's α > 0.7) for three subscales (US, SA, SF). The instrument discriminated well between clinically distinct groups, especially those defined by primary treatment(s) and stage at diagnosis. The SA and SF subscales showed good discriminant validity compared to QLQ-C30, DASS-21 and EQ-5D-5L; other subscales did not. EFA reproduced a near fit to the proposed factor structure. CFA confirmed this. CONCLUSION: This is the largest ever QLQ-PR25 validation study. When used in PCa survivors, although the proposed factor structure was confirmed, some of the subscales (e.g. BS and TS) showed poor reliability, a lack of discriminant validity and moderate levels of item non-response.
PURPOSE: The EORTC QLQ-PR25 was primarily developed to measure disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing active treatment. The growing number of cancer survivors has focussed interest on assessing survivors' HRQoL. We evaluated psychometric properties of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 questionnaire amongst PCa survivors. METHODS: A postal questionnaire, including the QLQ-PR25, was administered to 6559 PCa survivors 2-18 years post-diagnosis, identified through population-based cancer registries in Ireland; 3348 participated. The QLQ-PR25 has been suggested to have five multi-item subscales measuring urinary (US), bowel (BS) and hormone treatment-related symptoms (TS), sexual activity (SA) and sexual functioning (SF), and a single item measuring bother due to using incontinence aids (IA). Reliability analysis, divergent validity, discriminant validity (compared to EORTC QLQ-C30, DASS-21 and EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L), and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA, CFA) were undertaken. RESULTS: The percentage of survivors completing QLQ-PR25 subscales was: US-79 %; IA-20 %; BS-83 %; TS-86 %; SA-87 %; and SF-26 %. Reliability was acceptable (Cronbach's α > 0.7) for three subscales (US, SA, SF). The instrument discriminated well between clinically distinct groups, especially those defined by primary treatment(s) and stage at diagnosis. The SA and SF subscales showed good discriminant validity compared to QLQ-C30, DASS-21 and EQ-5D-5L; other subscales did not. EFA reproduced a near fit to the proposed factor structure. CFA confirmed this. CONCLUSION: This is the largest ever QLQ-PR25 validation study. When used in PCa survivors, although the proposed factor structure was confirmed, some of the subscales (e.g. BS and TS) showed poor reliability, a lack of discriminant validity and moderate levels of item non-response.
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Melissa M Center; Carol DeSantis; Elizabeth M Ward Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: James W Denham; Chantelle Wilcox; David S Lamb; Nigel A Spry; Gillian Duchesne; Chris Atkinson; John Matthews; Sandra Turner; Lizbeth Kenny; Keen-Hun Tai; Nirdosh Kumar Gogna; Martin Ebert; Brett Delahunt; Patrick McElduff; David Joseph Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-11-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Roberta De Angelis; Milena Sant; Michel P Coleman; Silvia Francisci; Paolo Baili; Daniela Pierannunzio; Annalisa Trama; Otto Visser; Hermann Brenner; Eva Ardanaz; Magdalena Bielska-Lasota; Gerda Engholm; Alice Nennecke; Sabine Siesling; Franco Berrino; Riccardo Capocaccia Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Adam W Glaser; Lorna K Fraser; Jessica Corner; Richard Feltbower; Eva J A Morris; Greg Hartwell; Mike Richards; Richard Wagland Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jens Klein; Daniel Lüdecke; Kerstin Hofreuter-Gätgens; Margit Fisch; Markus Graefen; Olaf von dem Knesebeck Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Amy Downing; Penny Wright; Richard Wagland; Eila Watson; Therese Kearney; Rebecca Mottram; Majorie Allen; Victoria Cairnduff; Oonagh McSorley; Hugh Butcher; Luke Hounsome; Conan Donnelly; Peter Selby; Paul Kind; William Cross; James W H Catto; Dyfed Huws; David H Brewster; Emma McNair; Lauren Matheson; Carol Rivas; Johana Nayoan; Mike Horton; Jessica Corner; Julia Verne; Anna Gavin; Adam W Glaser Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-12-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Marieke van Leeuwen; Jacobien M Kieffer; Fabio Efficace; Sophie D Fosså; Michel Bolla; Laurence Collette; Marc Colombel; Ugo De Giorgi; Bernhard Holzner; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Hendrik van Poppel; Jeff White; Ronald de Wit; Susanne Osanto; Neil K Aaronson Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 3.186