Stefano Maratia1, Sergio Cedillo2,3, Javier Rejas4. 1. Universidad Carlos III, Getafe, Madrid, Spain. 2. Universidad Carlos III, Getafe, Madrid, Spain. sergio.cedillo@pfizer.com. 3. TFS People, Trial Form Support Spain, Arturo Soria 336-7° izquierda, 28033, Madrid, Spain. sergio.cedillo@pfizer.com. 4. Health Economics and Outcomes Research Department, Pfizer, S.L.U., Alcobendas, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective was to obtain a standardized evaluation of available specific and generic breast cancer health-related quality-of-life instruments. METHODS: We carried out systematic literature reviews in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify manuscripts which contained information regarding either the development process or metric properties of health-related quality-of-life instruments used among breast cancer patients. Each instrument was evaluated independently by two researchers, and occasionally a third one, using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. An overall score and seven attribute-specific EMPRO scores were calculated (range 0-100, worst to best): concept and measurement model, reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, burden, and alternative forms. RESULTS: FACT-B was the instrument with the best global performance, obtaining an overall EMPRO score of 79.27. It was also the most accurate instrument on the Concept and Measurement Model, Reliability, and Interpretability attributes. Four more instruments scored over 50 points on the overall score, which summarizes the five attribute-specific scores: EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, WHO-QOL BREF, and SF-36. An overall score of at least 50 points implies that the use of these instruments could be recommended for assessing health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. CONCLUSION: The FACT-B scored the highest on overall on our EMPRO evaluation of instruments measuring health-related quality of life among breast cancer patients. However, depending on the purpose of the study, several instruments (EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, SF-36, and WHO-QOL BREF) have shown good performance in some of the specific individual dimensions included in the EMPRO.
PURPOSE: The objective was to obtain a standardized evaluation of available specific and generic breast cancer health-related quality-of-life instruments. METHODS: We carried out systematic literature reviews in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify manuscripts which contained information regarding either the development process or metric properties of health-related quality-of-life instruments used among breast cancerpatients. Each instrument was evaluated independently by two researchers, and occasionally a third one, using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. An overall score and seven attribute-specific EMPRO scores were calculated (range 0-100, worst to best): concept and measurement model, reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, burden, and alternative forms. RESULTS: FACT-B was the instrument with the best global performance, obtaining an overall EMPRO score of 79.27. It was also the most accurate instrument on the Concept and Measurement Model, Reliability, and Interpretability attributes. Four more instruments scored over 50 points on the overall score, which summarizes the five attribute-specific scores: EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, WHO-QOL BREF, and SF-36. An overall score of at least 50 points implies that the use of these instruments could be recommended for assessing health-related quality of life in breast cancerpatients. CONCLUSION: The FACT-B scored the highest on overall on our EMPRO evaluation of instruments measuring health-related quality of life among breast cancerpatients. However, depending on the purpose of the study, several instruments (EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, SF-36, and WHO-QOL BREF) have shown good performance in some of the specific individual dimensions included in the EMPRO.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; EMPRO; Health-related quality of life; Patient-reported outcomes; Psychometrics; Validation studies
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Fernanda Alessandra Silva Michels; Maria do Rosario Dias de Oliveira Latorre; Maria do Socorro Maciel Journal: Rev Bras Epidemiol Date: 2013-06
Authors: Sarah Spagnola; James Zabora; Karlynn BrintzenhofeSzoc; Craig Hooker; Gary Cohen; Frank Baker Journal: Breast J Date: 2003 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Neha G Goyal; Beverly J Levine; Kimberly J Van Zee; Elizabeth Naftalis; Nancy E Avis Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Karin Ribi; Alan Coates; Lynette Blacher; Meredith M Regan; Richard D Gelber; Jürg Bernhard Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 4.147