Sarah A Buckley1, Diana Jimenez-Sahagun2, Megan Othus3, Roland B Walter4,5,6, Stephanie J Lee4. 1. Hematology/Oncology Fellowship Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 2. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 4. Public Health Sciences and Clinical Research Divisions, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 5. Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 6. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although outcomes for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have improved over time, they remain poor overall, and toxicity from both the disease and its treatment can affect quality of life (QOL). One barrier to including QOL endpoints in clinical trials is the lack of a disease-specific QOL instrument that can efficiently capture the major QOL deficits in this population. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed to elicit concepts for inclusion in a new AML-specific QOL instrument called the AML-QOL. Eighty-two patients at various stages of disease were interviewed about sources of support (positive concepts) and problems and symptoms (negative concepts) experienced over the past week, and they were asked to grade how much each affected their QOL. In addition, patients were asked to complete 2 validated instruments: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy with the leukemia and transplant modules and the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System questionnaire. RESULTS: With data from the open-ended and questionnaire-based portions of the interview, 7 positive concepts and 64 negative concepts were elicited. From these, 5 positive concepts and 21 negative concepts were selected for inclusion in the preliminary AML-QOL on the basis of concept prevalence and the impact on QOL. CONCLUSIONS: These concepts will form the basis of a new QOL instrument specific to AML. Cancer 2018;124:145-52.
BACKGROUND: Although outcomes for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have improved over time, they remain poor overall, and toxicity from both the disease and its treatment can affect quality of life (QOL). One barrier to including QOL endpoints in clinical trials is the lack of a disease-specific QOL instrument that can efficiently capture the major QOL deficits in this population. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed to elicit concepts for inclusion in a new AML-specific QOL instrument called the AML-QOL. Eighty-two patients at various stages of disease were interviewed about sources of support (positive concepts) and problems and symptoms (negative concepts) experienced over the past week, and they were asked to grade how much each affected their QOL. In addition, patients were asked to complete 2 validated instruments: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy with the leukemia and transplant modules and the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System questionnaire. RESULTS: With data from the open-ended and questionnaire-based portions of the interview, 7 positive concepts and 64 negative concepts were elicited. From these, 5 positive concepts and 21 negative concepts were selected for inclusion in the preliminary AML-QOL on the basis of concept prevalence and the impact on QOL. CONCLUSIONS: These concepts will form the basis of a new QOL instrument specific to AML. Cancer 2018;124:145-52.
Authors: Frederick R Appelbaum; Holly Gundacker; David R Head; Marilyn L Slovak; Cheryl L Willman; John E Godwin; Jeanne E Anderson; Stephen H Petersdorf Journal: Blood Date: 2006-02-02 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: David Cella; Sally E Jensen; Kimberly Webster; Du Hongyan; Jin-Shei Lai; Steven Rosen; Martin S Tallman; Susan Yount Journal: Value Health Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 5.725
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: Catherine Acquadro; Rick Berzon; Dominique Dubois; Nancy Kline Leidy; Patrick Marquis; Dennis Revicki; Margaret Rothman Journal: Value Health Date: 2003 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Gunnar Juliusson; Petar Antunovic; Asa Derolf; Sören Lehmann; Lars Möllgård; Dick Stockelberg; Ulf Tidefelt; Anders Wahlin; Martin Höglund Journal: Blood Date: 2008-11-13 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Daniel R Richardson; Norah L Crossnohere; Jaein Seo; Elihu Estey; Bernadette O'Donoghue; B Douglas Smith; John F P Bridges Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Keith W Pratz; Panayiotis Panayiotidis; Christian Recher; Xudong Wei; Brian A Jonas; Pau Montesinos; Vladimir Ivanov; Andre C Schuh; Courtney D DiNardo; Jan Novak; Vlatko Pejsa; Don Stevens; Su-Peng Yeh; Inho Kim; Mehmet Turgut; Nicola Fracchiolla; Kazuhito Yamamoto; Yishai Ofran; Andrew H Wei; Cat N Bui; Katy Benjamin; Rajesh Kamalakar; Jalaja Potluri; Wellington Mendes; Jacob Devine; Walter Fiedler Journal: Blood Cancer J Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 9.812