Abstract
Methodological advances in the HCT field have increased the population of survivors worldwide. However, HCT is associated with significant morbidity that impairs survivors’ recovery and adversely affects their quality of life (QoL).
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
1 Introduction
Methodological advances in the HCT field have increased the population of survivors worldwide. However, HCT is associated with significant morbidity that impairs survivors’ recovery and adversely affects their QoL. A significant body of literature has addressed QoL after HCT and highlights significant deficiencies in physical, psychological, social, and role functioning both in adult and pediatric survivors (Pidala et al. 2010). These data are clinically relevant as they help to understand the impact of HCT on patient’s lives. Clinically, assessment of QoL can inform patient education and be used to evaluate the benefit of supportive care interventions.
2 QoL Assessment
QoL can be considered as a patient-reported outcome (PRO). PROs are defined by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the “measurement of any aspect of a patient’s health status that comes directly from the patient, without the interpretation of the patient’s response by a clinician or anyone else” (US Food and Drug Administration 2009). Thus, PROs specifically describe the impact that HCT has on patients’ lives and provide information unavailable from other sources. PROs are also used in pediatric populations, although parents or other proxies might be used as a source of information when children are unable to report their own QoL. However, the use of patients’ own reports is clearly recommended because significant discrepancies are found when comparing patients’ self-reported QoL to reports of physicians, parents, or other proxies (Kurosawa et al. 2017; Russell et al. 2006). In general, measures to assess patient- and proxy-reported QoL are questionnaires.
These instruments can be broadly categorized as general or disease- or procedure-specific. General measures assess QoL of the general population and can also be administered to specific populations, such as HCT recipients. These questionnaires allow comparisons of QoL across populations, such as between HCT survivors and individuals without cancer. In contrast, disease- and procedure-specific instruments examine specific aspects of the health conditions assessed. These measures capture specific PROs that are likely to be important to patients.
3 Measures to Assess QoL in Adults and Pediatric Patients Undergoing HCT
There are numerous measures assessing QoL on adults and pediatric HCT recipients. Measures used have been both general and disease-specific. The following sections list some of the most commonly used questionnaires in the field of HCT.
3.1 Adults
Interest in assessing QoL in adult HCT recipients is reflected in the variety of measures used to assess this outcome. However, there is a need for the scientific community to reach consensus about which questionnaires to use in order to facilitate comparison across studies (Shaw et al. 2016). Table 34.1 summarizes alphabetically some of the most common questionnaires to assess QoL in adults.
3.2 Pediatrics
There is less research on QoL on pediatric patients than adult patients. Initial pediatric studies focused on a single aspect of functioning, such as psychosocial and physical limitations. It was not until the early 1990s that pediatric QoL began to be addressed as a multidimensional construct. Most of the measures used in pediatric studies were originally developed to be used in the general population or in children with specific illnesses. Table 34.2 lists alphabetically the most common measures used to assess QoL in pediatric population.
4 Challenges when Implementing QoL Assessment
Improvement in patients’ QoL is included among the strategic goals of major cancer organizations such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology and regulatory agencies such as the FDA and the European Medicines Agency. Recognition of the importance of the patient experience is reflected in the increasing incorporation of patient-reported QoL measures in observational research and clinical trials. However, some aspects should be considered when implementing patient-reported QoL measures.
Historically, studies and clinical trials have used diverse patient-reported QoL measures which make results difficult to compare (Shaw et al. 2016), although there are available tools to map common PRO QoL measures to one another, such as the PROMIS with the SF-36 (Choi et al. 2012). Second, the mode of administration should also be considered. PRO measures have traditionally been administered by paper and pencil, but new technologies offer the potential to use electronic measures. Electronic measures administered before or during a clinic visit allow results to be available at the time of consultation and may facilitate symptom monitoring to guide supportive treatment. One example is the PROMIS instrument, which is available using computer adaptive testing or through REDCap software. Computer adaptive testing selects questions based on the previous responses that patients have provided to approximate the construct being measured in the fewest number of questions. The implementation of routine assessment of patients’ QoL on clinical care and clinical trials has the potential to improve patients’ well-being.
Key Points
-
Assessing HCT survivors’ QoL is essential in order to know the impact that the HCT, its morbidity, its treatments, and related interventions have on survivors’ well-being.
-
Enhanced efforts should be made in order to include QoL assessment in routine clinical practice. Engaging clinicians in using QoL assessments, potentially by means of electronic administration, as well as broadening the interpretation of their scores into the clinical field, might facilitate incorporation.
-
Further efforts should elucidate to what extent QoL results are incorporated into management decisions, treatment recommendations, and patients’ education.
-
Additional efforts should also be made to include QoL outcomes in clinical trials.
-
The incorporation of QoL assessment into clinical and research practice has the potential to improve HCT outcomes.
References
Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–76.
Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:570–9.
Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2006. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1179–94.
Choi SW, Podrabsky R, McKinney N, et al. PROsetta Stone ® methodology: a Rosetta stone for patient reported outcomes. Chicago, IL: Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University; 2012.
Hinds PS, Nuss SL, Ruccione KS, et al. PROMIS pediatric measures in pediatric oncology: valid and clinically feasible indicators of patient-reported outcomes. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60:402–8.
Kurosawa S, Oshima K, Yamaguchi T, et al. Quality of life after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation according to affected organ and severity of chronic graft-versus-host disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017;23:1749–58.
Landgraf JM, Abetz L, Ware JE. Child health questionnaire (CHQ): a user’s manual. Boston: Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1996.
McQuellon RP, Russell GB, Cella DF, et al. Quality of life measurement in bone marrow transplantation: development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT) scale. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997;19:357–68.
Parsons SK, Shih MC, Mayer DK, Barlow SE, Supran SE, Levy SL, Greenield S, Kaplan SH. Preliminary psychometric evaluation of the Child Health Ratings Inventory (CHRIs) and Disease-Specific Impairment Inventory-Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (DSII-HSCT) in parents and children. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(86):1613–25.
Phipps S, Hinds PS, Channell S, et al. Measurement of behavioral, affective, and somatic responses to pediatric bone marrow transplantation: development of the BASES scale. J Pediat Oncol Nurs. 1994;11:109–17; discussion 118–119.
Pidala J, Anasetti C, Jim H. Health-related quality of life following haematopoietic cell transplantation: patient education, evaluation and intervention. Br J Haematol. 2010;148:373–85.
Russell KMW, Hudson M, Long A, et al. Assessment of health-related quality of life in children with cancer: consistency and agreement between parent and child reports. Cancer. 2006;106:2267–74.
Shaw BE, Lee SJ, Horowitz MM, et al. Can we agree on patient-reported outcome measures for assessing hematopoietic cell transplantation patients? A study from the CIBMTR and BMT CTN. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51:1173–9.
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. US Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. 2009. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm193282.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2018.
van Reenen M, Jansen B. EQ-5D-5L user guide. Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. 2015. https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/EQ-5D-5L_UserGuide_2015.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2018.
Varni JW, Seid M, Kurtin PS. PedsQL 4.0: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care. 2001;39:800–12.
Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Katz ER, et al. The PedsQL in pediatric cancer: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory generic core scales, multidimensional fatigue scale, and cancer module. Cancer. 2002;94:2090–106.
Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller S. SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: a user’s manual. Boston: Health Institute; 1994.
Young TA, Mukuria C, Rowen D, et al. Mapping functions in health-related quality of life: mapping from two cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life instruments to EQ-5D-3L. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35:912–26.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barata, A., Jim, H. (2024). Quality of Life Assessment After HCT for Pediatric and Adults. In: Sureda, A., Corbacioglu, S., Greco, R., Kröger, N., Carreras, E. (eds) The EBMT Handbook. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44080-9_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44080-9_34
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-44079-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-44080-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)