Comparing FACT and EORTC QLQ modules for the assessment of quality of life in patients with hepatobiliary cancers.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Erika Z Chung, Dominic Sferrazza, Shing Fung Lee, Andrew Bottomley, David Cella, Laura A Dawson, Ali Hosni, Adrian W Chan, Edward Chow, Henry C Y Wong
{"title":"Comparing FACT and EORTC QLQ modules for the assessment of quality of life in patients with hepatobiliary cancers.","authors":"Erika Z Chung, Dominic Sferrazza, Shing Fung Lee, Andrew Bottomley, David Cella, Laura A Dawson, Ali Hosni, Adrian W Chan, Edward Chow, Henry C Y Wong","doi":"10.1097/SPC.0000000000000764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of the review: </strong>Four commonly used quality of life (QoL) questionnaires for patients with hepatobiliary cancers are the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Liver Module (QLQ-LMC21), the Quality of Life Questionnaire Hepatocellular Carcinoma-Specific Module (QLQ-HCC18), the Quality of Life Questionnaire Biliary Tract Cancer and Gallbladder Cancer Module (QLQ-BIL21), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep). The objective of this systematic review is to compare the characteristics and psychometric properties of these four QoL instruments.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>From 276 studies, 14 were included: QLQ-LMC21 (3), QLQ-HCC18 (6), QLQ-BIL21 (2), and FACT-Hep (3). All were rigorously developed using a multiphase, standardised approach and shown to be psychometrically valid. In the development/validation of the QLQ-LMC21 and QLQ-BIL21, a majority of patients were recruited from European countries, but race was not specified. In contrast, the QLQ-HCC18, despite including a greater proportion of East Asian participants, lacked representation from other regions and races. Furthermore, challenges in assessing jaundice in Asian patients were identified during the validation phase. The FACT-Hep was developed in the United States and only validated in the United States (90% Caucasian) and China. Notably, QLQ-BIL21 was limited by its small sample size ( n = 52) during the Phase III of its development.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The EORTC QLQ-LMC21, QLQ-HCC18, QLQ-BIL21, and FACT-Hep have proven to be reliable, valid, and responsive. However, additional cross-cultural validation studies may enhance global applicability.</p>","PeriodicalId":48837,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":"203-213"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPC.0000000000000764","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of the review: Four commonly used quality of life (QoL) questionnaires for patients with hepatobiliary cancers are the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Liver Module (QLQ-LMC21), the Quality of Life Questionnaire Hepatocellular Carcinoma-Specific Module (QLQ-HCC18), the Quality of Life Questionnaire Biliary Tract Cancer and Gallbladder Cancer Module (QLQ-BIL21), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep). The objective of this systematic review is to compare the characteristics and psychometric properties of these four QoL instruments.

Recent findings: From 276 studies, 14 were included: QLQ-LMC21 (3), QLQ-HCC18 (6), QLQ-BIL21 (2), and FACT-Hep (3). All were rigorously developed using a multiphase, standardised approach and shown to be psychometrically valid. In the development/validation of the QLQ-LMC21 and QLQ-BIL21, a majority of patients were recruited from European countries, but race was not specified. In contrast, the QLQ-HCC18, despite including a greater proportion of East Asian participants, lacked representation from other regions and races. Furthermore, challenges in assessing jaundice in Asian patients were identified during the validation phase. The FACT-Hep was developed in the United States and only validated in the United States (90% Caucasian) and China. Notably, QLQ-BIL21 was limited by its small sample size ( n = 52) during the Phase III of its development.

Summary: The EORTC QLQ-LMC21, QLQ-HCC18, QLQ-BIL21, and FACT-Hep have proven to be reliable, valid, and responsive. However, additional cross-cultural validation studies may enhance global applicability.

比较肝癌治疗功能评估与欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织生活质量问卷模块对肝胆癌患者生活质量的评估。
检讨目的:肝癌患者常用的四种生活质量(QoL)问卷分别是欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织(EORTC)生活质量问卷肝脏模块(QLQ-LMC21)、生活质量问卷肝细胞癌特异性模块(QLQ-HCC18)、生活质量问卷胆道癌和胆囊癌模块(QLQ-BIL21)和肿瘤治疗-肝胆功能评估(FACT-Hep)。本系统综述的目的是比较这四种生活质量测量工具的特点和心理测量特性。最近的发现:从276项研究中,包括14项:QLQ-LMC21 (3), QLQ-HCC18 (6), QLQ-BIL21(2)和FACT-Hep(3)。所有这些都是采用多阶段、标准化方法严格开发的,并在心理测量学上有效。在QLQ-LMC21和QLQ-BIL21的开发/验证中,大多数患者来自欧洲国家,但未指定种族。相比之下,QLQ-HCC18尽管包括了更大比例的东亚参与者,但缺乏来自其他地区和种族的代表。此外,在验证阶段确定了评估亚洲患者黄疸的挑战。FACT-Hep是在美国开发的,仅在美国(90%的高加索人)和中国得到验证。值得注意的是,在其开发的第三阶段,QLQ-BIL21受到样本量小(n = 52)的限制。总结:EORTC的QLQ-LMC21、QLQ-HCC18、QLQ-BIL21和FACT-Hep已被证明是可靠、有效和响应迅速的。然而,额外的跨文化验证研究可能会增强全球适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care
Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: A reader-friendly resource, Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care provides an up-to-date account of the most important advances in the field of supportive and palliative care. Each issue contains either two or three sections delivering a diverse and comprehensive coverage of all the key issues, including end-of-life management, gastrointestinal systems and respiratory problems. Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care is an indispensable journal for the busy clinician, researcher or student.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信