A Systematic Review to Evaluate Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Metastatic Prostate Cancer According to the COnsensus-Based Standard for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Methodology.
COSMIN
PROMs
core outcome set
erectile dysfunction
metastatic
prostate cancer
prostatic neoplasms
quality of life
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Oct 2022
19 Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
12
09
2022
revised:
07
10
2022
accepted:
17
10
2022
entrez:
27
10
2022
pubmed:
28
10
2022
medline:
28
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent important endpoints in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). However, the clinically valid and accurate measurement of health-related quality of life depends on the psychometric properties of the PROMs considered. To appraise, compare, and summarize the properties of PROMs in mPCa. We performed a review of PROMs used in RCTs, including patients with mPCa, using Medline in September 2021, according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. This systematic review is part of PIONEER (an IMI2 European network of excellence for big data in PCa). The most frequently used PROMs in RCTs of patients with mPCa were the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) ( The use of BPI and FACT-P in mPCa patients is supported by their high content validity and internal consistency. Since BPI is focused on pain assessment, we recommend FACT-P, which provides a broader assessment of QoL and wellbeing, for the clinical evaluation of mPCa patients. However, these considerations have been elaborated on in a very limited number of studies. In this paper, we review the psychometric properties of PROMs used with patients with mPCa to find the questionnaires that best assess patients' QoL, in order to help professionals in their intervention and improve patients' QoL. We recommend the use of BPI and FACT-P for their high content validity and internal consistency despite the limited number of studies considered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36291905
pii: cancers14205120
doi: 10.3390/cancers14205120
pmc: PMC9600015
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Jul 04;12:104
pubmed: 24989428
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
Eur Urol. 2021 Feb;79(2):263-282
pubmed: 33039206
Urology. 1997 Dec;50(6):920-8
pubmed: 9426724
Qual Life Res. 2013 Dec;22(10):2777-86
pubmed: 23589119
Pain. 1983 Oct;17(2):197-210
pubmed: 6646795
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011 Oct 12;9:88
pubmed: 21992720
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1159-1170
pubmed: 29550964
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1171-1179
pubmed: 29260445
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157
pubmed: 29435801
Eur Urol Oncol. 2022 Apr;5(2):153-163
pubmed: 34785188
Trials. 2015 Mar 04;16:76
pubmed: 25887437
Eur J Cancer. 2008 Nov;44(16):2418-24
pubmed: 18774706
Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994 Mar;23(2):129-38
pubmed: 8080219
J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27-36
pubmed: 3972947
Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 Dec;4(6):877-892
pubmed: 34716119
Qual Life Res. 2012 May;21(4):651-7
pubmed: 21732199