Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of the Brazilian Version of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate—FACT-P (Version 4) in Prostate Cancer Patients

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to validate the Brazilian version of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate FACT-P (version 4) in nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PC) patients. Patients with histopathological diagnosis of PC were submitted to health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires – SF-36 (Medical Outcomes Study 36 – Item Short-Form Health Survey) and FACT-P (version 4). After 7 to 15 days, FACT-P (version 4) was reapplied in the sample’s percentage that participated the first evaluation. Cronbach alpha coefficient was used to determine internal consistency and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) certified stability. Correlations between FACT-P (version 4) and SF-36 tested convergent validity. Regarding known groups validity, the hypothesis tested was that FACT-P (version 4) is capable of discriminating HRQOL in patients with different PC risk classifications. A total of 112 patients with nonmetastatic PC were evaluated. Cronbach alpha coefficients (0.64–0.88) and ICC (0.75–0.93) obtained satisfactory results of reliability. Verified correlations (r 0.3–0.72) between FACT-P (version 4) and SF-36 suggest convergent validity. In the studied sample, FACT-P (version 4) was unable to discriminate HRQOL in nonmetastatic patients. The Brazilian version of FACT-P questionnaire (version 4) showed evidences of reliability and validity on evaluating HRQOL in Brazilian men with nonmetastatic PC.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brasil (2015) Estimativa 2016: Incidência de câncer no Brasil. Instituto Nacional do Câncer (INCA)/Ministério da Saúde - Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, p 122

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Michaelson MD, Cotter SE, Gargollo PC, Zietman AL, Dahl DM, Smit MR (2008) Management of complications of prostate cancer treatment. CA A Cancer J Clin 58(4):196–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Stavrinides V, Parker CC, Moore CM (2017) When no treatment is the best treatment: active surveillance strategies for low risk prostate cancers. Cancer Treat Rev 58:14–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33(3):272–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. American Cancer Society (2015) Cancer facts & figures. American Cancer Society, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  7. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Walsh E (2016) Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1425–1437

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lardas M, Liew M, van den Bergh RC et al (2017) Quality of life outcomes after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 72(6):869–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Drummond FJ, Kinnear H, O´Leary E, Donnelly, Gavin A, Sharp L (2015) Long-term health-related quality of life of prostate cancer survivors varies by primary treatment. Results from the PiCTure (Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience) study. J Cancer Surviv 9:361–372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schmidt S, Garin O, Pardo Y, Valderas JM, Alonso J, Rebollo P et al (2014) Assessing quality of life in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments. Qual Life Res 23:2169–2181

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Hamoen EHJ, Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM (2015) Measuring health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: a systematic review of the most used questionnaires and their validity. Urol Oncol 33(2):69.e19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chi KN, Protheroe A, Rodríguez-Antolín A, Facchini G, Suttman H, Matsubara N et al (2018) Patient-reported outcomes following abiraterone acetate plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): an international, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 19(2):194–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bonomi AE, Celia DF, Hahn EA, Bjordai K, Sperner-Unterweger B, Gangeri L et al (1996) Multilingual translation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) quality of life measurement system. Qual Life Res 5:309–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Webster K, Cella D, Yost K (2003) The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:79

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G et al (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11(3):570–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Esper PEG, Mo FEI, Chodak G, Sinner M, Cella D, Pienta KJ (1997) Measuring quality of life in men with prostate cancer using the functional assessment of cancer therapy - prostate instrument. Urology 50(6):920–928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stenner F, Rothschild SI, Betticher D et al (2017) Quality of life in second-line treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer using cabazitaxel or other therapies after previous docetaxel chemotherapy: Swiss Observational Treatment Registry. Clin Genitourin Cancer 16(1):e151-159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fizazi K, Ulys A, Sengeløv L et al (2017) A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of maintenance therapy with tasquinimod in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer responsive to or stabilized during first-line docetaxel chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 28(11):2741–2746

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Aning JJ, MacKenzie KR, Fabricius M et al (2018) Detailed analysis of patient-reported lower urinary tract symptoms and effect on quality of life after robotic radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 36(8):364.e15-364.e22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, Boer MR, Windt AWM, Knol DL, Dekker J et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurements properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ et al (2007) A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh 39(2):155–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Polit D, Beck C. Fundamentos de pesquisa em enfermagem: avaliação de evidências para a prática da enfermagem. 2011. 7ª ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed

  23. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BB, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2009) Análise multivariada de dados, 6th edn. Bookman, Porto Alegre

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ciconelli RM, Ferraz MB, Santos W et al (1999) Tradução para a língua portuguesa e validação do questionário genérico de avaliação de qualidade de vida SF-36 (Brasil SF-36). Rev Bras Reumatol 39(3):143–150

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bergman J, Laviana A (2014) Quality-of-life assessment tools for men with prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 11:352–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Morris C, Gibbons E, Fitzpatrick R. 2009. A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for men with prostate cancer. Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Group, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford

  27. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Grading Commitee (2014) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Martins GA (2006) Sobre confiabilidade e validade. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios 8(20):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  29. Portney LG, Watkins MP (2009) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice, 3rd edn. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1994) The SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: a user’s manual. The Health Institute, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pagano M, Gauvreau K (2004) Princípios de Bioestatística. Thomson, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  32. Chi KN, Protheroe A, Rodríguez-Antolín A et al (2018) Patient-reported outcomes following abiraterone acetate plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): an international, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 19(2):194–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Batista-Miranda JE, Sevilla-Cecilia C, Torrubia R et al (2003) Quality of life in prostate cancer patients and controls: psychometric validation of the FACTP-4 in Spanish, and relation to urinary symptoms. Arch EspUrol 56(4):447–454

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sharpley CF, Bitsika V, Christie DRH (2018) “The worst thing was…”: prostate cancer patients’ evaluations of their diagnosis and treatment experiences. Am J Mens Health 12(5):1503–1509

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Incrocci L, Madalinska JB, Essink-Bot M-L, Van Putten WLJ, Koper PCM, Schroeder FH (2001) Sexual functioning in patients with localized prostate cancer awaiting treatment. J Sex Marital Ther 27:353–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Brown M (2010) Prostate cancer: how assessment of QoL can improve delivery of care. Br J Nurs 19(17):1080–1084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Fregnani CMS, Fregnani JHTG, Latorre MRDO, Almeida AM (2013) Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervix questionnaire in Brazil. PlosOne 8(10):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ishikawa NM, Thuler LC, Giglio AG, Baldotto CS, de Andrade CJ, Derchain SF (2010) Validation of the Portuguese version of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) in Brazilian cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 18(4):481–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hong JH, Jeon SS, Lee HM, Choi Y, Kim S, Choi HY (2006) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) scales in men with prostate cancer: reliability and validity of the Korean Version. J Korean Med 21(2):295–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wong CKH, Choi EPH, Tsu JHL et al (2015) Psychometric properties of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) in Chinese patients with prostate cancer. Qual Life Res 24:2397–2402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, School of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, Brazil

    Priscila Antonichelli de Held, Wagner Eduardo Matheus, Angela Maria Elizabeth Piccolotto Naccarato, Aline Akel Ferruccio & Ubirajara Ferreira

  2. Faculty of Nursing, State University of Campinas, Brazil (Unicamp), Campinas, Brazil

    Roberta Cunha Matheus Rodrigues

Authors
  1. Priscila Antonichelli de Held
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wagner Eduardo Matheus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela Maria Elizabeth Piccolotto Naccarato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roberta Cunha Matheus Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aline Akel Ferruccio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ubirajara Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priscila Antonichelli de Held.

Ethics declarations

Usage rights of the Portuguese version of FACT-P questionnaire were granted by FACIT organization (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy).

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (the State University of Campinas’ Ethics in Research Committee, License number 1.377.772) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 237 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Held, P.A., Matheus, W.E., Naccarato, A.M.E.P. et al. Validation of the Brazilian Version of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate—FACT-P (Version 4) in Prostate Cancer Patients. J Canc Educ 37, 1760–1767 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02024-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02024-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation