Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the FACT-C, EORTC QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 quality of life questionnaires for patients with colorectal cancer: a literature review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this review was to compare the development, characteristics, validity, and reliability of three widely used quality of life (QOL) assessment tools used in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Colorectal Cancer Module (QLQ-CR38) and its successor, the QLQ-CR29.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using Ovid EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1996–2015 Week 39), Ovid MEDLINE and OLDMEDLINE (1996 September Week 4 2015), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to August 2015) to identify studies that discussed the FACT-C, EORTC QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 including, but not limited to, their development, characteristics, validity, and reliability.

Results

The FACT-C consists of 36 items, presented on a 5-point Likert scale, in four domains of well-being (physical, emotional, social, and functional), and the Colorectal Cancer Subscale (CCS). The physical and social well-being scales showed reasonable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient > 60) in all studied populations. The EORTC QLQ-CR38 (38 items) and the QLQ-CR29 (29 items) are implemented in conjunction with the core QLQ-C30 (30 items); all are presented in 4-point Likert scales. Seven scales in the QLQ-CR38 demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient > 0.70). In the QLQ-CR29, three scales had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of less than 0.70.

Conclusion

The FACT-C, QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 have been extensively validated. However, analysis of their characteristics, validity, and reliability suggest differing suitability in assessing QOL in specific clinical situations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Marventano S, Forjaz MJ, Grosso G, Mistretta A, Giorgianni G, Platania A et al (2013) Health related quality of life in colorectal cancer patients: state of the art. BMC Surg 13(Suppl 2):S15

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Popovic M, Nguyen J, Chen E, Di Giovanni J, Zeng L, Chow E (2012) Comparison of the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and the FACT-BP for assessment of quality of life in cancer patients with bone metastases. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcome Res 12(2):213–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ward WL, Hahn EA, Mo F, Hernandez L, Tulsky DS, Cella D (1999) Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-colorectal (FACT-C) quality of life instrument. Qual Life Res 8:181–195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gotay CC (2004) Assessing cancer-related quality of life across a spectrum of applications. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 33:126–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bottomley A (2002) The cancer patient and quality of life. Oncologist 7(2):120–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzaie S, Bergman B, for the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Study Group on Quality of Life et al (1993) The EORTC QLQ-C30: a quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365–376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cella DF, Tulsky D, Gray G, Saraflan B, Linn E et al (1993) The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11(3):570–579

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sprangers MAG, te Velde A, Aaronson NK (1999) Construction and testing of the EORTC colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). Eur J Cancer 35(2):238–247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gujral S, Conroy T, Fleissner C, Sezer O, King PM, Avery KNL et al (2007) Assessing quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer: an update of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire. Eur J Cancer 43:1564–1573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hopwood P (1992) Body image. Internal report of the EORTC Study Group of Quality of Life, Manchester, U.K

  12. Yoo HJ, Kim JC, Eremenco S, Han OS (2005) Quality of life in colorectal cancer patients with colectomy and validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-colorectal (FACT-C), version 4. J Pain Manag 3(1):24–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rotunda C, Conroy T, Mercier M, Bonnetain F, Uwer L, Miny J et al (2008) Validation of the French version of the colorectal-specific quality of life questionnaires EORTC QLQ-CR38 and FACT-C. Qual Life Res 17:437–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wong CK, Lam CL, Law WL, Poon JT, Chan P, Kwong DL et al (2012) Validity and reliability study on traditional Chinese FACT-C in Chinese patients in colorectal neoplasm. J Eval Clin Pract 18(6):1186–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kong D, Yang Z, Wang Y, Meng Q, Tang X, Cun Y et al (2012) Development and validation of a simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-CR38 to measure the quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer. Oncology 83(4):201–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Law CC, Lam WWT, Fu YT, Wong KH, Sprangers MAG, Fiedling R (2008) Validation of the Chinese version of the EORTC colorectal cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). J Pain Manag 35(2):203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Thaysen HV, Jess P, Laurberg S, Groenvold M (2012) Validation of the Danish version of the disease specific instrument EORTC QLQ-CR38 to assess health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 10:150

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Whistance RN, Conroy T, Chie W, Costantini A, Sezer O, Koller M et al (2009) Clinical and psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaire module to assess health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 45:3017–3026

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Arraras JI, Suarez J, de la Vega FA, Vera R, Asin G, Arrazubi V, Rico M et al (2011) The EORTC quality of life questionnaire for patients with colorectal cancer: EORTC QLQ-CR29 validation study for Spanish patients. Clin Transl Oncol 13:50–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nowak W, Tobiasz-Adamczyk B, Brzyski P, Salowka J, Kulis D, Richter P (2011) Adaptation of quality of life module EORTC QLQ-CR29 for Polish patients with rectal cancer-initial assessment of validity and reliability. Pol Przegl Chir 83(9):502–510

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Salsman JM, Cella D, Vergo MT, Yount SE (2014) Multidisciplinary approach to quality of life. In: Thomas CR Jr (ed) Cancers of the colon and rectum: a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and management. Demos Medical Publishing, New York, pp 247–261

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wong CK, Chen J, Yu CLY, Sham M, Lam CLK (2015) Systematic review recommends the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer colorectal cancer-specific module for measuring quality of life in colorectal cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol 68:266–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Uwer L, Rotonda C, Guillemin F, Miny J, Karninsky M, Mercier M et al (2011) Responsiveness of EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR38 and FACT-C quality of life questionnaires in patients with colorectal cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 9:70

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Pullmer R, Linden W, Rnic K, Vodermaier A (2014) Measuring symptoms in gastrointestinal cancer: a systematic review of assessment instruments. Support Care Cancer 22:2941–2955

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wong CK, Lam CLK, Mulhern B, Law W, Poon JTC, Knowng DLW (2013) Measurement invariance of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-colorectal quality-of-life instrument among modes of administration. Qual Life Res 22:1415–1426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yost KJ, Cella D, Chawla A, Holmgren E, Eton DT, Ayanian JZ et al (2005) Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches. J Clin Oncol 58:1241–1251

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilson TR, Birks Y, Alexander DJ (2013) Pitfalls in the interpretation of standardized quality of life instruments for individual patients? A qualitative study in colorectal cancer. Qual Life Res 22:1879–1888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the generous support of Bratty Family Fund, Michael and Karyn Goldstein Cancer Research Fund, Joey and Mary Furfari Cancer Research Fund, Pulenzas Cancer Research Fund, Joseph and Silvana Melara Cancer Research Fund, and Ofelia Cancer Research Fund

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Vithusha Ganesh, Arnav Agarwal, Marko Popovic, Rachel McDonald, Sherlyn Vuong, Henry Lam, Leigha Rowbottom, Stephanie Chan, Tasneem Barakat, Carlo DeAngelis, Michael Borean & Edward Chow

  2. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    David Cella

  3. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Carlo DeAngelis

  4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, Canada, M4N 3 M5

    Edward Chow

  5. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium

    Andrew Bottomley

Authors
  1. Vithusha Ganesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnav Agarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marko Popovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Cella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rachel McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sherlyn Vuong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Henry Lam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Leigha Rowbottom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Stephanie Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Tasneem Barakat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Carlo DeAngelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Michael Borean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Edward Chow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Andrew Bottomley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Chow.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Andrew Bottomley is an author of the EORTC QLG measurement system. EORTC tools are provided free to academics; however, a user fee is applicable for use in industry-sponsored research. These profits cover costs of future psychometric validation, testing, and translation of EORTC tools. Dr. David Cella is the President of FACIT.org, licenser of all FACT and FACIT tools for international pharmaceutical clinical trial use.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ganesh, V., Agarwal, A., Popovic, M. et al. Comparison of the FACT-C, EORTC QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 quality of life questionnaires for patients with colorectal cancer: a literature review. Support Care Cancer 24, 3661–3668 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3270-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3270-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation