1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development and validation of a patient reported outcome measure for health-related quality of life for locally recurrent rectal cancer: a multicentre, three-phase, mixed-methods, cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) occurs in 5–10% of patients following previous treatment of rectal cancer. It has a significant impact on patients’ overall health-related quality of life (HrQoL). Major advances in surgical treatments have led to improved survival outcomes. However, due to the lack of disease-specific, validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), HrQoL, is variably assessed. The aim of this study is to develop a disease-specific, psychometrically robust, and validated PROM for use in LRRC.

          Methods

          A multicentre, three phase, mixed-methods, observational study was performed across five centres in the UK and Australia. Adult patients (>18 years old) with an existing or previously treated LRRC within the last 2 years were eligible to participate. Patients completed the proposed LRRC-QoL, EORTC QLQ-CR29, and FACT-C questionnaires. Scale structure was analysed using multi-trait scaling analysis and exploratory factor analysis, reliability was assessed using Cronbach's and the intra-class coefficient, convergent validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation, and known-groups comparison was assessed using the student t-test or ANOVA.

          Findings

          Between 01/03/2015 and 31/12/2019, 117 patients with a diagnosis of LRRC were recruited. The final scale structure of the LRRC-QoL consisted of nine multi-item scales (healthcare services, psychological impact, pain, urostomy-related symptoms, lower limb symptoms, stoma, sexual function, sexual interest, and urinary symptoms) and three single items. Cronbach's Alpha and Intraclass correlation values of >0.7 across the majority of scales supported overall reliability. Convergent validity was demonstrated between LRRC-QoL Pain Scale and FACT-C Physical Well Being scale (r = 0.528, p < 0.001), LRRC-QoL Psychological Impact scale with EORTC QLQ CR29 Body Image (r = 0.680, p < 0.001) and the FACT-C Emotional Well Being scale (r = 0.326, p < 0.001), and LRRC-QoL Urinary Symptoms scale with EORTC QLQ-CR29 Urinary Frequency scale (r = 0.310, p < 0.001). Known-groups validity was demonstrated for gender, disease location, treatment intent, and re-recurrent disease.

          Interpretation

          The LRRC-QoL has demonstrated robust psychometric properties and can be used in clinical and academic practice.

          Funding

          None.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance

            (2006)
            This guidance describes how the FDA evaluates patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used as effectiveness endpoints in clinical trials. It also describes our current thinking on how sponsors can develop and use study results measured by PRO instruments to support claims in approved product labeling (see appendix point 1). It does not address the use of PRO instruments for purposes beyond evaluation of claims made about a drug or medical product in its labeling. By explicitly addressing the review issues identified in this guidance, sponsors can increase the efficiency of their endpoint discussions with the FDA during the product development process, streamline the FDA's review of PRO endpoint adequacy, and provide optimal information about the patient's perspective of treatment benefit at the time of product approval. A PRO is a measurement of any aspect of a patient's health status that comes directly from the patient (i.e., without the interpretation of the patient's responses by a physician or anyone else). In clinical trials, a PRO instrument can be used to measure the impact of an intervention on one or more aspects of patients' health status, hereafter referred to as PRO concepts, ranging from the purely symptomatic (response of a headache) to more complex concepts (e.g., ability to carry out activities of daily living), to extremely complex concepts such as quality of life, which is widely understood to be a multidomain concept with physical, psychological, and social components. Data generated by a PRO instrument can provide evidence of a treatment benefit from the patient perspective. For this data to be meaningful, however, there should be evidence that the PRO instrument effectively measures the particular concept that is studied. Generally, findings measured by PRO instruments may be used to support claims in approved product labeling if the claims are derived from adequate and well-controlled investigations that use PRO instruments that reliably and validly measure the specific concepts at issue. The glossary defines many of the terms used in this guidance. In particular, the term instrument refers to the actual questions or items contained in a questionnaire or interview schedule along with all the additional information and documentation that supports the use of these items in producing a PRO measure (e.g., interviewer training and instructions, scoring and interpretation manual). The term conceptual framework refers to how items are grouped according to subconcepts or domains (e.g., the item walking without help may be grouped with another item, walking with difficulty, within the domain of ambulation, and ambulation may be further grouped into the concept of physical ability). FDA's guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidance documents describe the Agency's current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word should in Agency guidance documents means that something is suggested or recommended but not required. First publication of the Draft Guidance by the Food and Drug Administration- February 2006.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                eClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                eClinicalMedicine
                Elsevier
                2589-5370
                17 May 2023
                May 2023
                17 May 2023
                : 59
                : 101945
                Affiliations
                [a ]Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [b ]Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
                [c ]Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [d ]Faculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [e ]RPA Institute of Academic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [f ]Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [g ]Department of Surgery, Morriston HospitalHeol Maes Eglwys, Morriston, Swansea, Wales, UK
                [h ]Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                [i ]The John Goligher Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
                [j ]Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [k ]St James's Institute of Oncology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe Hospital, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK. Deena.Harji@ 123456mft.nhs.uk
                Article
                S2589-5370(23)00122-0 101945
                10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101945
                10225622
                37256101
                7b613792-bfa9-490b-ace1-f120f89351a0
                © 2023 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 7 December 2022
                : 18 March 2023
                : 20 March 2023
                Categories
                Articles

                quality of life,patient reported outcomes,locally recurrent rectal cancer

                Comments

                Comment on this article