M S Litwin1, R D Hays, A Fink, P A Ganz, B Leake, R H Brook. 1. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles 90095-1738, USA. mlitwin@urology.medsch.ucla.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The need for accurate measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in men treated for prostate cancer is of paramount importance because patients may survive for many years after their diagnosis. Hence, interest has increased in choosing treatments that optimize both the quality and quantity of life in patients with this disease. This study sought to develop and evaluate a self-administered, multiitem, disease-specific instrument to capture the health concerns central to the quality of life of men treated for early stage prostate cancer. METHODS: After focus group analysis and pilot testing, the instrument was tested with a large retrospective, cross-sectional survey. Exploratory factor analysis and multitrait scaling analysis were used to facilitate the formation of six scales containing 20 disease-targeted items that address impairment in the urinary, bowel, and sexual domains. The psychometric properties of the new scales were assessed by measuring test-retest reliability, internal consistency reliability, and construct validity. Performance on the new scales was compared with scores on other established cancer-related health-related quality of life instruments. Two hundred fifty-five long-term survivors of prostate cancer treatment and 273 age-matched and ZIP code-matched comparison subjects without prostate cancer from a large managed care population in California were studied. Mean age was 72.7 years. In addition to the new scales, the RAND 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) was used as a generic core measure, and a cancer-related health-related quality of life instrument (the Cancer Rehabilitation System-Short Form) was used to provide construct validity. RESULTS: For the new scales, test-retest reliability ranged from 0.66 to 0.93, and internal consistency ranged from 0.65 to 0.93. Disease-targeted measures of function and bother in the three domains correlated substantially with one another. Scale scores correlated well with related, established scales. Men undergoing prostatectomy or pelvic irradiation demonstrated the expected differences in performance on the disease-specific health-related quality of life scales when compared with each other or with comparison subjects. Age was inversely related to sexual and bowel function. CONCLUSIONS: The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index performed well in this population of older men with and without prostate cancer. It demonstrated good psychometric properties and appeared to be well understood and easily completed. The high response among patients suggests that these men especially are interested in addressing both the general and disease-specific concerns that impact their daily quality of life.
OBJECTIVES: The need for accurate measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in men treated for prostate cancer is of paramount importance because patients may survive for many years after their diagnosis. Hence, interest has increased in choosing treatments that optimize both the quality and quantity of life in patients with this disease. This study sought to develop and evaluate a self-administered, multiitem, disease-specific instrument to capture the health concerns central to the quality of life of men treated for early stage prostate cancer. METHODS: After focus group analysis and pilot testing, the instrument was tested with a large retrospective, cross-sectional survey. Exploratory factor analysis and multitrait scaling analysis were used to facilitate the formation of six scales containing 20 disease-targeted items that address impairment in the urinary, bowel, and sexual domains. The psychometric properties of the new scales were assessed by measuring test-retest reliability, internal consistency reliability, and construct validity. Performance on the new scales was compared with scores on other established cancer-related health-related quality of life instruments. Two hundred fifty-five long-term survivors of prostate cancer treatment and 273 age-matched and ZIP code-matched comparison subjects without prostate cancer from a large managed care population in California were studied. Mean age was 72.7 years. In addition to the new scales, the RAND 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) was used as a generic core measure, and a cancer-related health-related quality of life instrument (the Cancer Rehabilitation System-Short Form) was used to provide construct validity. RESULTS: For the new scales, test-retest reliability ranged from 0.66 to 0.93, and internal consistency ranged from 0.65 to 0.93. Disease-targeted measures of function and bother in the three domains correlated substantially with one another. Scale scores correlated well with related, established scales. Men undergoing prostatectomy or pelvic irradiation demonstrated the expected differences in performance on the disease-specific health-related quality of life scales when compared with each other or with comparison subjects. Age was inversely related to sexual and bowel function. CONCLUSIONS: The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index performed well in this population of older men with and without prostate cancer. It demonstrated good psychometric properties and appeared to be well understood and easily completed. The high response among patients suggests that these men especially are interested in addressing both the general and disease-specific concerns that impact their daily quality of life.
Authors: Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Meredith M Regan; Matthew R Cooperberg; John T Wei; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Larry Hembroff; Natalia Sadetsky; Christopher S Saigal; Mark S Litwin; Eric Klein; Adam S Kibel; Daniel A Hamstra; Louis L Pisters; Deborah A Kuban; Irving D Kaplan; David P Wood; Jay Ciezki; Rodney L Dunn; Peter R Carroll; Martin G Sanda Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Jay Jhaveri; Maxine Sun; Khurshid R Ghani; Jan Schmitges; Wooju Jeong; James O Peabody; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Mani Menon Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2012-04
Authors: Julie L Kasperzyk; William V Shappley; Stacey A Kenfield; Lorelei A Mucci; Tobias Kurth; Jing Ma; Meir J Stampfer; Martin G Sanda Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Melissa S Y Thong; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Richard M Hoffman; Peter C Albertsen; Ann S Hamilton; Janet L Stanford; David F Penson Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Maria Thor; Caroline E Olsson; Jung Hun Oh; David Alsadius; Niclas Pettersson; Joseph O Deasy; Gunnar Steineck Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2015-11-13 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Li Lin; Jill M Cyranowski; Bryce B Reeve; Jennifer Barsky Reese; Diana D Jeffery; Ashley Wilder Smith; Laura S Porter; Carrie B Dombeck; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Francis J Keefe; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: James M Wilson; David P Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; Alison Birtle; David Bloomfield; Ananya Choudhury; John Graham; Catherine Ferguson; Zafar Malik; Julian Money-Kyrle; Joe M O'Sullivan; Miguel Panades; Chris Parker; Yvonne Rimmer; Christopher Scrase; John Staffurth; Andrew Stockdale; Clare Cruickshank; Clare Griffin; Emma Hall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J I Arraras; E Villafranca; F Arias de la Vega; P Romero; M Rico; M Vila; G Asín; V Chicata; M A Domínguez; N Lainez; A Manterola; E Martínez; M Martínez Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Trent Jackson; Kimberly Davis; Lisa Haisfield; David Dawson; John Lynch; James Regan; Arnold Kwart; Barlow Lynch; Kathryn Taylor Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-09-22