Reducing Patient Burden and Improving Data Quality With the New Cleveland Clinic Colorectal Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire.
Journal
Diseases of the colon and rectum
ISSN: 1530-0358
Titre abrégé: Dis Colon Rectum
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372764
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2020
04 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
17
7
2020
entrez:
5
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Cleveland Clinic Colorectal Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire was developed in response to the need for a new, fast, and comprehensive tool for evaluating quality of life in patients who have colorectal cancer. Available surveys such as the SF-12, SF-36, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer are either too general to be informative or too lengthy to complete. The aim was to validate the Cleveland Clinic Foundation Colorectal Quality of Life Questionnaire. Data were obtained as part of a prospective randomized controlled trial. This was a worldwide multicenter study with 2 domestic and 5 international locations. This study randomly assigned 190 patients between the ages of 18 and 80 undergoing surgery for low rectal cancer. Of those randomly assigned, 142 with partially complete surveys were analyzed for selection bias and acceptability, and 95 with complete surveys were analyzed for survey validity. Patients received either a J-pouch, side-to-end anastomosis, or straight anastomosis. The study evaluated survey validity measures such as standardized Cronbach α for internal consistency and Spearman correlation coefficients for construct validity, convergent validity, and responsiveness. Univariate analyses were used to assess discriminative validity. Sufficient acceptability, construct, and convergent validity and responsiveness were achieved. All scores showed great internal consistency (Cronbach α >0.8). Superior discriminative ability was demonstrated by significant differences (p < 0.05) in 2 of 7 scores between neoadjuvant treatment groups, and in 6 of 7 scores between complication groups, none of which were detected by the SF-12 or Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal surveys. Limitations included a small sample size, cultural differences, and failure to assess test-retest ability of the questionnaire. The Cleveland Clinic Colorectal Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire is an efficient and reliable quality-of-life measure that better incorporates factors specific to colorectal cancer surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B155. REDUCIENDO LA CARGA AL PACIENTE Y MEJORANDO LA CALIDAD DE DATOS CON EL NUEVO CUESTIONARIO DE CALIDAD DE VIDA EN CÁNCER COLORRECTAL DE CLEVELAND CLINIC (CCF-CAQL): El cuestionario de calidad de vida en cáncer colorrectal de Cleveland Clinic se desarrolló en respuesta a la necesidad de una herramienta nueva, rápida e integral para evaluar la calidad de vida en pacientes con cáncer colorrectal. Los cuestionarios disponibles como SF-12, SF-36, FACT-C y EORTC son demasiado generales para ser informativas o demasiado largas para completar.El objetivo fue validar el cuestionario de calidad de vida colorrectal de la Cleveland Clinic Foundation.Los datos se obtuvieron como parte de un ensayo prospectivo aleatorizado y controlado.Este fue un estudio multicéntrico mundial con dos sedes nacionales y cinco internacionales.Este estudio aleatorizó a 190 pacientes entre las edades de 18 y 80 sometidos a cirugía por cáncer rectal bajo. De aquellos aleatorizados, 142 con encuestas parcialmente completas se analizaron para determinar el sesgo de selección y la aceptabilidad, y 95 con encuestas completas se analizaron para determinar la validez de la encuesta.Los pacientes recibieron un reservorio en J, anastomosis latero-terminal o anastomosis termino-terminal.El estudio evaluó medidas de validez de la encuesta, como el Alfa de Cronbach estandarizado para la consistencia interna y los coeficientes de correlación de Spearman para la validez de construcción, la validez de convergencia y la capacidad de respuesta. Se utilizaron análisis univariados para evaluar la validez discriminativa.Se obtuvo suficiente aceptabilidad, construcción, validez de convergencia, y capacidad de respuesta. Todos los puntajes mostraron una gran consistencia interna (alfa de Cronbach > 0.8). Una capacidad discriminativa superior fue demostrada por diferencias significativas (p < 0.05) en dos de siete puntajes entre grupos de tratamiento neoadyuvante, y en seis de siete puntajes entre grupos de complicaciones, ninguno de los cuales fue detectado por SF-12 o FACT-C.Las limitaciones incluyeron un tamaño de muestra pequeño, diferencias culturales y la falta de evaluación de la confiabilidad test-retest del cuestionario.El Cuestionario de Calidad de Vida en Cáncer Colorrectal de Cleveland Clinic es una medida de calidad de vida eficiente y confiable que incorpora mejor factores específicos asociados a la cirugía de cáncer colorrectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B155.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Cleveland Clinic Colorectal Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire was developed in response to the need for a new, fast, and comprehensive tool for evaluating quality of life in patients who have colorectal cancer. Available surveys such as the SF-12, SF-36, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer are either too general to be informative or too lengthy to complete.
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to validate the Cleveland Clinic Foundation Colorectal Quality of Life Questionnaire.
DESIGN
Data were obtained as part of a prospective randomized controlled trial.
SETTINGS
This was a worldwide multicenter study with 2 domestic and 5 international locations.
PATIENTS
This study randomly assigned 190 patients between the ages of 18 and 80 undergoing surgery for low rectal cancer. Of those randomly assigned, 142 with partially complete surveys were analyzed for selection bias and acceptability, and 95 with complete surveys were analyzed for survey validity.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients received either a J-pouch, side-to-end anastomosis, or straight anastomosis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
The study evaluated survey validity measures such as standardized Cronbach α for internal consistency and Spearman correlation coefficients for construct validity, convergent validity, and responsiveness. Univariate analyses were used to assess discriminative validity.
RESULTS
Sufficient acceptability, construct, and convergent validity and responsiveness were achieved. All scores showed great internal consistency (Cronbach α >0.8). Superior discriminative ability was demonstrated by significant differences (p < 0.05) in 2 of 7 scores between neoadjuvant treatment groups, and in 6 of 7 scores between complication groups, none of which were detected by the SF-12 or Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal surveys.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations included a small sample size, cultural differences, and failure to assess test-retest ability of the questionnaire.
CONCLUSIONS
The Cleveland Clinic Colorectal Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire is an efficient and reliable quality-of-life measure that better incorporates factors specific to colorectal cancer surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B155. REDUCIENDO LA CARGA AL PACIENTE Y MEJORANDO LA CALIDAD DE DATOS CON EL NUEVO CUESTIONARIO DE CALIDAD DE VIDA EN CÁNCER COLORRECTAL DE CLEVELAND CLINIC (CCF-CAQL): El cuestionario de calidad de vida en cáncer colorrectal de Cleveland Clinic se desarrolló en respuesta a la necesidad de una herramienta nueva, rápida e integral para evaluar la calidad de vida en pacientes con cáncer colorrectal. Los cuestionarios disponibles como SF-12, SF-36, FACT-C y EORTC son demasiado generales para ser informativas o demasiado largas para completar.El objetivo fue validar el cuestionario de calidad de vida colorrectal de la Cleveland Clinic Foundation.Los datos se obtuvieron como parte de un ensayo prospectivo aleatorizado y controlado.Este fue un estudio multicéntrico mundial con dos sedes nacionales y cinco internacionales.Este estudio aleatorizó a 190 pacientes entre las edades de 18 y 80 sometidos a cirugía por cáncer rectal bajo. De aquellos aleatorizados, 142 con encuestas parcialmente completas se analizaron para determinar el sesgo de selección y la aceptabilidad, y 95 con encuestas completas se analizaron para determinar la validez de la encuesta.Los pacientes recibieron un reservorio en J, anastomosis latero-terminal o anastomosis termino-terminal.El estudio evaluó medidas de validez de la encuesta, como el Alfa de Cronbach estandarizado para la consistencia interna y los coeficientes de correlación de Spearman para la validez de construcción, la validez de convergencia y la capacidad de respuesta. Se utilizaron análisis univariados para evaluar la validez discriminativa.Se obtuvo suficiente aceptabilidad, construcción, validez de convergencia, y capacidad de respuesta. Todos los puntajes mostraron una gran consistencia interna (alfa de Cronbach > 0.8). Una capacidad discriminativa superior fue demostrada por diferencias significativas (p < 0.05) en dos de siete puntajes entre grupos de tratamiento neoadyuvante, y en seis de siete puntajes entre grupos de complicaciones, ninguno de los cuales fue detectado por SF-12 o FACT-C.Las limitaciones incluyeron un tamaño de muestra pequeño, diferencias culturales y la falta de evaluación de la confiabilidad test-retest del cuestionario.El Cuestionario de Calidad de Vida en Cáncer Colorrectal de Cleveland Clinic es una medida de calidad de vida eficiente y confiable que incorpora mejor factores específicos asociados a la cirugía de cáncer colorrectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B155.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32015285
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001575
pii: 00003453-202004000-00010
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Video-Audio Media
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
469-487Références
Lee L, Dumitra T, Fiore JF Jr, Mayo NE, Feldman LS. How well are we measuring postoperative “recovery” after abdominal surgery? Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2583–2590.
Fiore JF Jr, Figueiredo S, Balvardi S, et al. How do we value postoperative recovery?: A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcomes after abdominal surgery. Ann Surg. 2018;267:656–669.
Pezold ML, Pusic AL, Cohen WA, et al. Defining a research agenda for patient-reported outcomes in surgery: using a Delphi survey of stakeholders. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:930–936.
Bilimoria KY, Cella D, Butt Z. Current challenges in using patient-reported outcomes for surgical care and performance measurement: everybody wants to hear from the patient, but are we ready to listen? JAMA Surg. 2014;149:505–506.
Liu M, Sun W, Cai YY, Wu HZ. Validation of Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients - Colorectal Cancer (QLICP-CR) in patients with colorectal cancer in Northeast China. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:1228.
Braun DP, Gupta D, Grutsch JF, Staren ED. Can changes in health related quality of life scores predict survival in stages III and IV colorectal cancer? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:62.
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.
Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.
Yoo HJ, Kim JC, Eremenco S, Han OS. Quality of life in colorectal cancer patients with colectomy and the validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C), Version 4. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;30:24–32.
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;85:365–376.
Whistance RN, Conroy T, Chie W, et al.; European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group. 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. 2009;45:3017–3026.
Sprangers MA, te Velde A, Aaronson NK. The construction and testing of the EORTC colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Study Group on Quality of Life. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:238–247.
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. 2016;24:3661–3668.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–549.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.
Snyder CF, Watson ME, Jackson JD, Cella D, Halyard MY; Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. Patient-reported outcome instrument selection: designing a measurement strategy. Value Health. 2007;10 (suppl 2):S76–S85.
Frost MH, Reeve BB, Liepa AM, Stauffer JW, Hays RD; Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value Health. 2007;10(suppl 2):S94–S105.
Burton LJ, Mazerolle SM. Survey instrument validity part I: principles of survey instrument development and validation in athletic training education research. Athletic Training Educ J. 2011;6:27–35.
Burton LJ, Mazerolle SM. Survey instrument validity Part II: validation of a survey instrument examining athletic trainers’ knowledge and practice beliefs regarding exertional heat stroke. Athletic Training Educ J. 2011;6:36–45.
Parc Y, Ruppert R, Fuerst A, et al. Better function with a colonic J-pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis?: A randomized controlled trial to compare the complications, functional outcome, and quality of life in patients with low rectal cancer after a J-pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis. Ann Surg. 2019;269:815–826.
Thyø A, Emmertsen KJ, Pinkney TD, Christensen P, Laurberg S. The colostomy impact score: development and validation of a patient reported outcome measure for rectal cancer patients with a permanent colostomy. A population-based study. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19:O25–O33.
Feldt LS, Woodruff DJ, Salih FA. Statistical inference for coefficient alpha. Appl Psychological Meas. 1987;11:93–103.
Vale L, Silcock J, Rawles J. An economic evaluation of thrombolysis in a remote rural community. BMJ. 1997;314:570–572.
Thyø A, Emmertsen KJ, Laurberg S. The rectal cancer female sexuality score: development and validation of a scoring system for female sexual function after rectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61:656–666.
Emmertsen KJ, Laurberg S. Low anterior resection syndrome score: development and validation of a symptom-based scoring system for bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2012;255:922–928.
Fazio VW, O’Riordain MG, Lavery IC, et al. Long-term functional outcome and quality of life after stapled restorative proctocolectomy. Ann Surg. 1999;230:575–584.
Keller DS, McGee MF, Goyal S, et al. Construct validation and comparison of a novel postoperative quality-of-life metric and the Short Form-36 in colorectal surgery patients. Surgery. 2013;154:690–695.
Camilleri-Brennan J, Ruta DA, Steele RJ. Patient generated index: new instrument for measuring quality of life in patients with rectal cancer. World J Surg. 2002;26:1354–1359.