Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 2467–2480 | Cite as

Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments using the EMPRO tool

  • Stefano Maratia
  • Sergio Cedillo
  • Javier Rejas
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The objective was to obtain a standardized evaluation of available specific and generic breast cancer health-related quality-of-life instruments.

Methods

We carried out systematic literature reviews in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify manuscripts which contained information regarding either the development process or metric properties of health-related quality-of-life instruments used among breast cancer patients. Each instrument was evaluated independently by two researchers, and occasionally a third one, using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. An overall score and seven attribute-specific EMPRO scores were calculated (range 0–100, worst to best): concept and measurement model, reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, burden, and alternative forms.

Results

FACT-B was the instrument with the best global performance, obtaining an overall EMPRO score of 79.27. It was also the most accurate instrument on the Concept and Measurement Model, Reliability, and Interpretability attributes. Four more instruments scored over 50 points on the overall score, which summarizes the five attribute-specific scores: EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, WHO-QOL BREF, and SF-36. An overall score of at least 50 points implies that the use of these instruments could be recommended for assessing health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients.

Conclusion

The FACT-B scored the highest on overall on our EMPRO evaluation of instruments measuring health-related quality of life among breast cancer patients. However, depending on the purpose of the study, several instruments (EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, SF-36, and WHO-QOL BREF) have shown good performance in some of the specific individual dimensions included in the EMPRO.

Keywords

Breast cancer Health-related quality of life Patient-reported outcomes Psychometrics Validation studies EMPRO 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The work included in the present manuscript has not received any funding, and it is solely the work of the authors. The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.

Supplementary material

11136_2016_1284_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Dikshit, R., Eser, S., Mathers, C., Rebelo, M., et al. (2015). Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International Journal of Cancer, 136(5), E359–E386. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferlay, J., Steliarova-Foucher, E., Lortet-Tieulent, J., Rosso, S., Coebergh, J. W. W., Comber, H., et al. (2013). Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries in 2012. European Journal of Cancer, 49, 1374–1403. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perry, S., Kowalski, T. L., & Chang, C.-H. (2007). Quality of life assessment in women with breast cancer: Benefits, acceptability and utilization. HQLO, 5, 24. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-24.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calvert, M., Brundage, M., Jacobsen, P. B., Schünemann, H. J., & Efficace, F. (2013). The CONSORT Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) extension: Implications for clinical trials and practice. HQLO, 11, 184. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-184.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Osoba, D. (2011). Health-related quality of life and cancer clinical trials. Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, 3, 57–71. doi: 10.1177/1758834010395342.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bray, F., Ren, J. S., Masuyer, E., & Ferlay, J. (2013). Estimates of global cancer prevalence for 27 sites in the adult population in 2008. International Journal of Cancer, 132, 1133–1145. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27711.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sprangers, M. A., Groenvold, M., Arraras, J. I., et al. (1996). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: First results from a three-country field study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 14, 2756–2768.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brady, M. J., Cella, D. F., Mo, F., et al. (1997). Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 15, 974–986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Esch, L., Den Oudsten, B. L., & De Vries, J. (2011). The World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument-Short Form (WHOQOL-BREF) in women with breast problems. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11, 5–22.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernhard, J., Hürny, C., Coates, A. S., et al. (1997). Quality of life assessment in patients receiving adjuvant therapy for breast cancer: The IBCSG approach. The International Breast Cancer Study Group. Annals of Oncology, 8, 825–835.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Treanor, C., & Donnelly, M. (2015). A methodological review of the Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36) and its derivatives among breast cancer survivors. Quality of Life Research, 24, 339–362.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oliveira, I. S., da Cunha Menezes Costa, L., Fagundes, F. R., & Cabral, C. M. (2015). Evaluation of cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaires: A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 24(5), 1179–1195. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0840-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Valderas, J. M., Ferrer, M., Mendivil, J., Garin, O., Rajmil, L., Herdman, M., et al. (2008). Development of EMPRO: A tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value Health, 11, 700–708.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    PROQOLID. http://www.proqolid.org/. Last Access Nov 2015.
  15. 15.
    The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) website. http://www.eortc.org/. Last Access Feb 2015.
  16. 16.
    Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy website. http://facit.org/. Last Access Feb 2015.
  17. 17.
    International Breast Cancer Study Group website. http://www.ibcsg.org/. Last Access Feb 2015.
  18. 18.
    World Health Organization website. http://who.int/. Last Access February 2015.
  19. 19.
    Delgado-Sanz, M. C., García-Mendizábal, M. J., Pollán, M., et al. (2011). Heath-related quality of life in Spanish breast cancer patients: A systematic review. HQLO, 9, 3. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-3.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chopra, I., & Kamal, K. M. (2012). A systematic review of quality of life instruments in long-term breast cancer survivors. HQLO, 10, 14. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-14.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Montazeri, A. (2008). Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: A bibliographic review of the literature from 1974 to 2007. Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, 27(1), 32. doi: 10.1186/1756-9966-27-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcome Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garin, O., Herdman, M., Vilagut, G., Ferrer, M., Ribera, A., Rajmil, L., et al. (2014). Assessing health-related quality of life in heart failure: A systematic, standardized comparison of available measures. Heart Failure Reviews, 19(3), 359–367. doi: 10.1007/s10741-013-9394-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmidt, S., Ferrer, M., González, M., González, N., Valderas, J. M., Alonso, J., et al. (2014). Evaluation of shoulder-specific patient-reported outcome measures: A systematic and standardized comparison of available evidence. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 23, 434–444.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmidt, S., Garin, O., Pardo, Y., et al. (2014). Assessing quality of life in patients with prostate cancer: A systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2169–2181. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0678-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed., pp. 77–108). Chichester, UK: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Whitehead, S. J., & Ali, S. (2010). Health outcomes in economic evaluation: The QALY and utilities. British Medical Bulletin, 96, 5–21. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldq033.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Gibbons, E., et al. (2010). Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) Checklist. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 82. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ware, J. E, Jr. (2003). Conceptualization and measurement of health-related quality of life: Comments on an evolving field. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, S43–S51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Niu, H. Y., Niu, C. Y., Wang, J. H., Zhang, Y., & He, P. (2014). Health-related quality of life in women with breast cancer: A literature-based review of psychometric properties of breast cancer-specific measures. APJCP, 15, 3533–3536.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cheung, Y. B., Luo, N., Ng, R., & Lee, C. F. (2014). Mapping the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast (FACT-B) to the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) utility index in a multi-ethnic Asian population. HQLO, 12, 180. doi: 10.1186/s12955-014-0180-6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim, E. J., Ko, S. K., & Kang, H. Y. (2012). Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 to the generic EQ-5D in metastatic breast cancer patients. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1193–1203. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0037-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Voko, Z., Nemeth, R., Dank, M., Nagy-Erdei, Z., Kalo, Z., Geczi, L. (2014). Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-BR23 onto the preference-based EuroQol-5D instrument. JHPOR, 2, 90–99. doi: 10.7365/JHPOR.2013.4.10.
  35. 35.
    Rowen, D., Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2009). Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: How reliable is the relationship? HQLO, 7, 27. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-27.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cerezo, O., Oñate-ocaña, L. F., Arrieta-joffe, P., et al. (2012). Validation of the Mexican-Spanish version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 questionnaires to assess health-related quality of life in Mexican women with breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer Care (Engl), 21, 684–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Michels, F. A., Latorre Mdo, R., & Maciel Mdo, S. (2013). Validity, reliability and understanding of the EORTC-C30 and EORTC-BR23, quality of life questionnaires specific for breast cancer. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia, 16, 352–363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Irarrázaval, M. E., Rodríguez, P. F., Fasce, G., et al. (2013). Validation of BR23 questionnaire for the assessment of quality of life of breast cancer patients in Chile. Revista Medica de Chile, 141, 723–734.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Awad, M. A., Denic, S., & El Taji, H. (2008). Validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires for Arabic-speaking Populations. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1138, 146–154. doi: 10.1196/annals.1414.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    El Fakir, S., Abda, N., Bendahhou, K., et al. (2014). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer quality of life questionnaire-BR 23 breast cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire: Psychometric properties in a Moroccan sample of breast cancer patients. BMC Research Notes, 7, 53. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jayasekara, H., Rajapaksa, L. C., & Brandberg, Y. (2008). Measuring breast cancer-specific health-related quality of life in South Asia: Psychometric properties of the Sinhala version of the EORTC QLQ-BR23. Quality of Life Research, 17, 927–932.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kontodimopoulos, N., Ntinoulis, K., & Niakas, D. (2011). Validity of the Greek EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 for measuring health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer Care (Eng), 20, 354–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chie, W. C., Chang, K. J., Huang, C. S., et al. (2003). Quality of life of breast cancer patients in Taiwan: Validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-BR23. Psychooncol, 12, 729–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yun, Y. H., Bae, S. H., Kang, I. O., Shin, K. H., Lee, R., & Im Kwon, S. (2004). Cross-cultural application of the Korean version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Breast-Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-BR23). Supportive Care in Cancer, 12, 441–445. doi: 10.1007/s00520-004-0632-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nagel, G. C., Schmidt, S., Strauss, B. M., & Katenkamp, D. (2001). Quality of life in breast cancer patients: A cluster analytic approach. Empirically derived subgroups of the EORTC-QLQ BR 23–a clinically oriented assessment. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 68, 75–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sánchez-Pedraza, R., Sierra-Matamoros, F. A., & López-Daza, D. F. (2012). Validación colombiana de la escala FACT-B para medir la calidad de vida de pacientes con cáncer de mama. Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecología, 63, 196–206.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Belmonte Martínez, R., Garin Boronat, O., Segura Badía, M., Sanz Latiesas, J., Marco Navarro, E., & Ferrer Fores, M. (2011). Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Questionnaire for Breast Cancer (FACT-B + 4). Spanish version validation. Medicina Clínica (Barc), 137, 685–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Patoo, M., Allahyari, A. A., Moradi, A. R., & Payandeh, M. (2015). Persian Version of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy- Breast (FACT-B) Scale: Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Psychometric Properties. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 16, 3799–3803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wan, C., Zhang, D., Yang, Z., Xin, T., Tang, W., Feng, C., et al. (2007). Validation of the simplified Chinese version of the FACT-B for measuring quality of life for patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 106, 413–418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Michels, F. A. S., Latorre, M. R. D. O., & Maciel, M. S. (2010). Validation, reliability and comprehension of the IBCSG quality of life questionnaire specific to breast cancer. Applied Cancer Research, 30, 348–352.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Carlsson, M., & Hamrin, E. (2002). Evaluation of the life satisfaction questionnaire (LSQ) using structural equation modelling (SEM). Quality of Life Research, 11, 415–425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Carlsson, M., Hamrin, E., & Lindqvist, R. (1999). Psychometric assessment of the Life Satisfaction Questionnaire (LSQ) and a comparison of a randomised sample of Swedish women and those suffering from breast cancer. Quality of Life Research, 8, 245–253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Carlsson, M., & Hamrin, E. (1996). Measurement of quality of life in women with breast cancer. Development of a Life Satisfaction Questionnaire (LSQ-32) and a comparison with the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 5, 265–274.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wan, C., Yang, Z., Tang, X., et al. (2009). Development and validation of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Breast cancer (QLICP-BR). Supportive Care in Cancer, 17, 359–366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Oliveira, I. S., Costa, L. C., Manzoni, A. C., & Cabral, C. M. (2014). Assessment of the measurement properties of quality of life questionnaires in Brazilian women with breast cancer. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 18, 372–383.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vilagut, G., Ferrer, M., Rajmil, L., et al. (2005). The Spanish version of the Short Form 36 Health Survey: A decade of experience and new developments. Gaceta Sanitaria, 19(2), 135–150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vilagut, G., Valderas, J. M., Ferrer, M., Garin, O., López-García, E., & Alonso, J. (2008). Interpretation of SF-36 and SF-12 questionnaires in Spain: Physical and mental components. Medical Clinics (Barc), 130, 726–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ashing-Giwa, K. T., Padilla, G. V., Tejero, J. S., & Kim, J. (2004). Breast cancer survivorship in a multiethnic sample: Challenges in recruitment and measurement. Cancer, 101, 450–465.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Spagnola, S., Zabora, J., Brintzenhofeszoc, K., Hooker, C., Cohen, G., & Baker, F. (2003). The Satisfaction with Life Domains Scale for Breast Cancer (SLDS-BC). The Breast Journal, 9, 463–471.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Benitez-Borrego, S., Guardia-Olmos, J., & Urzúa-Morales, A. (2014). Factorial structural analysis of the Spanish version of WHOQOL-BREF: An exploratory structural equation model study. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2205–2212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lucas-Carrasco, R. (2012). The WHO quality of life (WHOQOL) questionnaire: Spanish development and validation studies. Quality of Life Research, 21, 161–165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Den Oudsten, B. L., Van Heck, G. L., Van der Steeg, A. F., Roukema, J. A., & De Vries, J. (2009). The WHOQOL-100 has good psychometric properties in breast cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Maratia
    • 1
  • Sergio Cedillo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Javier Rejas
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidad Carlos IIIGetafeSpain
  2. 2.TFS PeopleTrial Form Support SpainMadridSpain
  3. 3.Health Economics and Outcomes Research DepartmentPfizer, S.L.U.AlcobendasSpain

Personalised recommendations