Equating EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G scores and its use in oncological research (original) (raw)
Related papers
Quality of life measurement in oncology—a matter of the assessment instrument?
European Journal of Cancer, 2001
Two widely used quality of life questionnaires European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core (EORTC QLQ-C30), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) were examined for their comparability using four different groups of cancer patients. During a follow-up investigation, 418 cancer patients (Hodgkin's disease, breast cancer, bone marrow transplantation (BMT), chronic lymphatic leukaemia (CLL) completed both the EORTC QLC-C30 and the FACT-G during the same session. For an illustration of the differences between the two Quality of Life (QoL) instruments, pairs of diagnostic groups were formed and their QoL scores using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G compared. The corresponding subscales of the EORTC-QLC-C30 and the FACT-G show only low to moderate intercorrelations across all four groups of cancer patients studied. In particular, a comparison of pairs, namely Hodgkin's disease versus breast cancer patients and BMT versus CLL patients, highlights substantial differences in the corresponding subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-G. The results of the QoL investigations should not be interpreted independently of the instrument used and an interpretation of results must be based on the contents of items of the respective questionnaires.
The EORTC quality of life questionnaire (QLQ) is an integrated system for assessing the healthrelated quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients participating in international clinical trials. The core questionnaire, the QLQ-C30, is the product of more than a decade of collaborative research. Following its general release in 1993, the QLQ-C30 has been used in a wide range of cancer clinical trials, by a large number of research groups; it has additionally been used in various other, non-trial studies.
Journal of the Society for Integrative Oncology, 2008
Health-related quality of life (QoL) in cancer patients cannot be adequately captured with a single instrument. We compared the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index (QLI). We hypothesized that there would be little overlap among their subscales. Baseline QoL data were collected from a consecutive series of 954 cancer patients treated at our center. Data from the two questionnaires were analyzed on a subscale basis using correlation analysis and the Bland-Altman method. The mean and standard deviations of the difference in QoL subscale scores were used to construct 95% limits of agreement among the subscales. Five hundred seventy-nine were females and 375 were males, with a median age of 52 years. There were poor to modest correlations and poor agreement among the subscales of the two instruments. For QLQ-C30 physical and QLI health, the correlation and limits of agreeme...
European Journal of Cancer, 2004
The objective of this study was to examine and compare two core measures of Quality Of Life (QOL) used in cancer clinical trials: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Core Questionnaire 30 (EORTC QLQ-30) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT), in order to identify which one patients have the strongest preference for using. 68 patients suffering from Carcinomas of an Unknown Primary site (CUP) were recruited in a multicentric study; all of them completed both questionnaires, administered in a randomised manner. The criteria were the percentage of preferences, and four indicators of acceptability. The results indicated that an equal proportion of patients preferred the QLQ-C30 (19%) and FACIT (19%). 54% of patients felt both questionnaires were acceptable. All the indicators of acceptability favoured the QLQ-C30. Analysis of open-ended questions shed light on the difficulties encountered by the patients. As no significant preference was observed for one of the questionnaires, the QLQ-C30 was chosen on the basis of its significantly better acceptability criteria. #
Palliative Medicine, 2006
Palliative care Questionnaires Health status Self-assessment Treatment outcome A B S T R A C T This study aimed at developing a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30, one of the most widely used health-related quality of life questionnaires in oncology, for palliative care research. The study included interviews with 41 patients and 66 health care professionals in palliative care to determine the appropriateness, relevance and importance of the various domains of the QLQ-C30. Item response theory methods were used to shorten scales.
Testing the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire on cancer patients with heterogeneous diagnoses
Quality of Life Research, 1993
This study aimed to contribute to the validation of the 30-item Quality of Life Questionnaire developed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Study Group (EORTC QLQ-C30). The sample consisted of 177 cancer patients with heterogeneous diagnoses. A series of scales representing various dimensions of quality of life were tested, including those proposed by the EORTC Study Group. Mokken's non-parametric latent trait model for unidimensional scaling was used as the basic scaling procedure. This model gives coefficients of scalability in addition to reliability coefficients. In terms of scalability measured by Loevinger's H, all EORTC Study Group scales, except the cognitive functioning scale were found to be quite satisfactory. The cognitive functioning scale and the role functioning scale were below the satisfactory level in terms of reliability (internal consistency). In total, our study strengthens the external validity of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and confirms that it may be used on cancer patients with various diagnoses.
Supportive Care in Cancer Official Journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 1999
The objective of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Thai version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) version 3.0. The questionnaire was completed by 310 cancer patients during their follow-up at 2 teaching hospital oncology clinics. About 70% of participants had advanced stage of cancer and 72% had been receiving chemotherapy. Cronbach's a coefficients of the six scales were above 0.7, except for cognitive and social function scales. All test-retest reliability coefficients were high. Multitrait scaling analysis showed that all item-scale correlation coefficients met the standards of convergent and discriminant validity. Most scales and items could discriminate between subgroups of patients with different clinical status assessed with the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale. The results suggested that the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy -General (FACT-G) measured different aspects of quality of life and should be independently used. Testing psychometric properties of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in heterogeneous diagnostic group yield similar results as found in homogeneous group. These results support that the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) has proven to be a reliable and valid measure of the quality of life in Thai patients with various types of cancer.
European Journal of Cancer Care, 2009
The aim of the present study was to test the psychometric properties of the Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) in a sample of ambulatory cancer patients, mostly low educated and coming from rural areas of the island of Crete. The sample consisted of 188 lung, breast and colorectal cancer patients. Their quality of life (QoL) has been evaluated twice: before and after the first therapeutic intervention. Alpha coefficients ranged from 0.88 to 0.98. Inter-scale correlations were more substantial between the physical, role and fatigue scales. Mean score differences between groups of patients with different performance status (PS) were statistically significant for most of the sub-scales. Instead the patients with stable PS after treatment showed worse functioning in five from the nine sub-scales. For those whose PS has deteriorated, their subjective evaluation indicated deterioration only for physical, role and social functioning. In this sample of mainly ambulatory cancer patients, the instrument has high coefficients of reliability and good clinical validity. However, the results related to its sensitivity are not very consistent. It has proven able to detect clinically significant changes after the therapeutic intervention only for the patients who deteriorated over time and for three specific dimensions of QoL: physical, role and social functioning.