T D Dobbs1,2, H Samarendra3, S Hughes4,5, H A Hutchings4, I Whitaker1,2. 1. Reconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group (ReconRegen), Institute of Life Science 2, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, U.K. 2. The Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, U.K. 3. Oxford University Medical School, Oxford, U.K. 4. Patient and Population Health and Informatics, Institute of Life Science 2, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, U.K. 5. Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend, U.K.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin cancer is the commonest malignancy worldwide, often occurring on the face. Both the condition and treatment can lead to scarring and facial disfigurement, affecting a patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which can be measured using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). OBJECTIVES: This systematic review identifies PROMs for facial skin cancer and appraises their methodological quality and psychometric properties using up-to-date methods. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL were searched systematically in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, identifying all PROMs designed for or validated in facial skin cancer. Methodological quality and evidence of psychometric properties were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and criteria proposed by Terwee and colleagues. A best-evidence synthesis and assessment of instrument focus on post-resection reconstruction was also performed. RESULTS: We included 24 studies on 11 PROMs. Methodological quality and psychometric evidence was variable, with the Patient Outcome of Surgery - Head/Neck (POS-H/N), Skin Cancer Index (SCI), Skin Cancer Quality of Life Impact Tool (SCQOLIT) and Essers and colleagues demonstrating the greatest level of validation. None scored well in their relevance to post-skin cancer reconstruction of the face. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review critically appraises PROMs for facial skin cancer using internationally accepted criteria. The identified PROMs demonstrate a variation in the quality of validation performed, with a need to improve this across all PROMs in the field. Only through improving the quality of available PROMs and their focus on the post-treatment aesthetic and functional outcome will we be able to truly appreciate the concerns of our patients and improve the management of facial skin cancer.
BACKGROUND:Skin cancer is the commonest malignancy worldwide, often occurring on the face. Both the condition and treatment can lead to scarring and facial disfigurement, affecting a patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which can be measured using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). OBJECTIVES: This systematic review identifies PROMs for facial skin cancer and appraises their methodological quality and psychometric properties using up-to-date methods. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL were searched systematically in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, identifying all PROMs designed for or validated in facial skin cancer. Methodological quality and evidence of psychometric properties were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and criteria proposed by Terwee and colleagues. A best-evidence synthesis and assessment of instrument focus on post-resection reconstruction was also performed. RESULTS: We included 24 studies on 11 PROMs. Methodological quality and psychometric evidence was variable, with the Patient Outcome of Surgery - Head/Neck (POS-H/N), Skin Cancer Index (SCI), Skin Cancer Quality of Life Impact Tool (SCQOLIT) and Essers and colleagues demonstrating the greatest level of validation. None scored well in their relevance to post-skin cancer reconstruction of the face. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review critically appraises PROMs for facial skin cancer using internationally accepted criteria. The identified PROMs demonstrate a variation in the quality of validation performed, with a need to improve this across all PROMs in the field. Only through improving the quality of available PROMs and their focus on the post-treatment aesthetic and functional outcome will we be able to truly appreciate the concerns of our patients and improve the management of facial skin cancer.
Authors: Pablo García-Montero; María Victoria de Gálvez-Aranda; Nuria Blázquez-Sánchez; Francisco Rivas-Ruíz; José Francisco Millán-Cayetano; Cristina García-Harana; Magdalena de Troya Martín Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Philippe Bérubé-Mercier; Diane Tapp; Marie-Ève Cimon; Tiffany Li; Susanna B Park; Éve Bouhêlier; Kaitlin McGarragle; Lye-Ann Robichaud; Jennifer S Gewandter; Maxime Bouchard; Lynn R Gauthier Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Toral S Vaidya; Shoko Mori; Nima Khoshab; Stephen W Dusza; Thomas Bander; Evan Matros; Anthony M Rossi; Kishwer S Nehal; Erica H Lee Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2019-09-30