Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Development of a Concise QOL Questionnaire for Brain Tumor Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Philippe Goffaux
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosurgery and Neuro-oncology, Université de Sherbrooke, Faculty of Medicine, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
Marie Boudrias
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosurgery and Neuro-oncology, Université de Sherbrooke, Faculty of Medicine, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
David Mathieu
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosurgery and Neuro-oncology, Université de Sherbrooke, Faculty of Medicine, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
Catherine Charpentier
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosurgery and Neuro-oncology, Université de Sherbrooke, Faculty of Medicine, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
Nadia Veilleux
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosurgery and Neuro-oncology, Université de Sherbrooke, Faculty of Medicine, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
David Fortin
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosurgery and Neuro-oncology, Université de Sherbrooke, Faculty of Medicine, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a self-administered questionnaire to measure the health-related quality of life (QOL) of patients with brain cancer. We wanted to assess both core and disease-specific concerns in a single, easy-to-use instrument, thus promoting concision and clinical utility. The questionnaire departs from its predecessors in that it was designed for- and validated among French speaking Canadians.

Methods:

A focus group of health professionals was used to develop items for the questionnaire, which was later validated with 105 patients suffering from brain cancer. The underlying structure of the questionnaire was investigated using principal component analysis and confirmed using a principal factor analysis.

Results:

The final version of the questionnaire contains 30 items. Seven multi-item scales, tapping into distinct dimensions of QOL, were uncovered (i.e., functional well-being, symptom severity/fear of death, social support/acceptance of disease, autonomy in personal care, digestive symptomatology, neurocognitive function, and pain). Assessment of reliability revealed elevated internal consistency for each of the seven scales (Cronbach coefficient alpha ≥≥.65), whereas known-groups validity (anchor-based approach) revealed that the different dimensions uniquely discriminated between patients with different functional levels (Karnofsky Performance Scores) and clinical status (exposure to neurosurgery, radiotherapy, and use of chemotherapy and anticonvulsants).

Conclusion:

Our QOL questionnaire, the Sherbrooke Neuro-Oncology Assessment Scale, or SNAS, taps into both core and disease-specific issues relevant to neuro-oncology patients. It has good validity and reliability, and clearly reflects the multidimensional nature of QOL. Depending on the research focus, it may be used in clinical trials to track the impact of disease and/or treatment on satisfaction, functional status, and general well-being.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2009

References

1. Mauer, ME, Taphoorn, MJ, Bottomley, A, Coens, C, Efficace, F, Sanson, M, et al. Prognostic value of health-related quality-of-life data in predicting survival in patients with anaplastic oligodendrogliomas, from a phase III EORTC brain cancer group study. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25:57317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Bampoe, J, Laperriere, N, Pintilie, M, Glen, J, Micallef, J, Bernstein, M. Quality of life in patients with glioblastoma multiforme participating in a randomized study of brachytherapy as a boost treatment. J Neurosurg. 2000; 93:91726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Aaronson, NK, Ahmedzai, S, Bergman, B, Bullinger, M, Cull, A, Duez, NJ, 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; 85:36576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Cella, DF, Tulsky, DS, Gray, G, Sarafian, B, Linn, E, Bonomi, A, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993; 11:5709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Conroy, T, Mercier, M, Bonneterre, J, Luporsi, E, Lefebvre, JL, Lapeyre, M, et al. French version of FACT-G: validation and comparison with other cancer-specific instruments. Eur J Cancer. 2004; 40:224352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Taphoorn, MJ, Stupp, R, Coens, C, Osoba, D, Kortmann, R, van den Bent, MJ, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with glioblastoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005; 6:93744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Li, J, Bentzen, SM, Li, J, Renschler, M, Mehta, MP. Relationship between neurocognitive function and quality of life after wholebrain radiotherapy in patients with brain metastasis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 71:6470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Coyne, JC, Pajak, TF, Harris, J, Konski, A, Movsas, B, Ang, K, et al. Emotional well-being does not predict survival in head and neck cancer patients: a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group study. Cancer. 2007; 110:256875.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Rosenberg, J. How well are we doing in caring for the patient with primary malignant brain tumor? Are we measuring the outcomes that truly matter? A commentary. Neurosurg Focus. 1998; 4:e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Mackworth, N, Fobair, P, Prados, MD. Quality of life self-reports from 200 brain tumor patients: comparisons with Karnofsky performance scores. J Neurooncol. 1992; 14:24353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Gerrard, GE, Prestwich, RJ, Edwards, A, Russon, LJ, Richards, F, Johnston, CF, et al. Investigating the palliative efficacy of wholebrain radiotherapy for patients with multiple-brain metastases and poor prognostic features. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2003; 15:4228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Roa, W, Brasher, PM, Bauman, G, Anthes, M, Bruera, E, Chan, A, et al. Abbreviated course of radiation therapy in older patients with glioblastoma multiforme: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22:15838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Schag, CC, Heinrich, RL, Ganz, PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1984; 2:18793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Mor, V, Laliberte, L, Morris, JN, Wiemann, M. The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. An examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting. Cancer. 1984; 53:20027.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Rat, AC, Pouchot, J, Guillemin, F, Baumann, M, Retel-Rude, N, Spitz, E, et al. Content of quality-of-life instruments is affected by item-generation methods. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19: 3908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Kan, P, Cusimano, M. Validation of a quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with pituitary adenoma. Can J Neurol Sci. 2006; 33: 805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Schipper, H, Clinch, J, McMurray, A, Levitt, M. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: the Functional Living Index-Cancer: development and validation. J Clin Oncol. 1984; 2: 47283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Stewart, AL, Ware, JE Jr., Brook, RH. Advances in the measurement of functional status: construction of aggregate indexes. Med Care. 1981; 19:47388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Groenvold, M, Petersen, MA, Aaronson, NK, Arraras, JI, Blazeby, JM, Bottomley, A, et al. The development of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL: a shortened questionnaire for cancer patients in palliative care. Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42:5564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Schiff, D, O’Neill, BP. Principles of Neuro-Oncology. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005.Google Scholar
21. Ray, A, Block, SD, Friedlander, RJ, Zhang, B, Maciejewski, PK, Prigerson, HG. Peaceful awareness in patients with advanced cancer. J Palliat Med. 2006; 9:135968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Mack, JW, Nilsson, M, Balboni, T, Friedlander, RJ, Block, SD, Trice, E, et al. Peace, Equanimity, and Acceptance in the Cancer Experience (PEACE): validation of a scale to assess acceptance and struggle with terminal illness. Cancer. 2008; 112:250917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Erikson, EH. The life cycle completed. New York: Norton; 1982.Google Scholar
24. Osoba, D, Aaronson, NK, Muller, M, Sneeuw, K, Hsu, MA, Yung, WK, et al. The development and psychometric validation of a brain cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for use in combination with general cancer-specific questionnaires. Qual Life Res. 1996; 5: 13950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Weitzner, MA, Meyers, CA, Gelke, CK, Byrne, KS, Cella, DF, Levin, VA. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scale. Development of a brain subscale and revalidation of the general version (FACT-G) in patients with primary brain tumors. Cancer. 1995; 75:115161.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Osoba, D, Brada, M, Prados, MD, Yung, WK. Effect of disease burden on health-related quality of life in patients with malignant gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2000; 2:2218.Google ScholarPubMed

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 177 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access
Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-kdwz2 Total loading time: 0.46 Render date: 2021-01-20T03:12:58.293Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "1", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Development of a Concise QOL Questionnaire for Brain Tumor Patients
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Development of a Concise QOL Questionnaire for Brain Tumor Patients
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Development of a Concise QOL Questionnaire for Brain Tumor Patients
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *