Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review

Abstract

Aim: To provide perspective on patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments to adopt in patients diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify PROMs developed for or applied in gynecological cancer populations. PROMs identified in more than one study subsequently underwent assessment according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results: Overall, 55 PROMs were identified within the gynecological cancer setting, and 20 were assessed according to COSMIN guidelines. Most PROMs had limited information reported, but a best fit approach was adopted to recommend a number of instruments for use in patients with gynecological cancer. Conclusion: Further study to assess the methodological quality of each PROM utilized in gynecological cancers is warranted to endorse the recommendations of this review.

Plain language summary

Gynecological cancers are cancers which occur in the reproductive system of women. The cervical cancer screening program and development of new treatments mean that women with gynecological cancers are now living longer than before. However, these new treatments may have side effects that can affect the quality of life of women with cancer. Many care providers now agree that looking at women’s quality of life during their gynecological cancer journey is an important part of their treatment. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are questionnaires that the patient completes to measure their symptoms and quality of life. There are a lot of PROMs available to choose from, and it can be difficult to select one that is relevant and understandable for all women with gynecological cancer. This article searched the literature to find all PROMs that can be completed by women with gynecological cancer and then measured each of the PROM’s quality. PROM quality was measured by looking at validity (whether the questionnaire measures what it is supposed to measure), reliability (that the questionnaire is not subject to different errors in measuring), and sensitivity (that the questionnaire can measure changes in questionnaire scores over time). Overall, this study found that there were a few PROMs that were of good enough quality to be completed by women with gynecological cancers. These questionnaires are called the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Cervical Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-CX24), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Endometrial Cancer (EORTC QLQ-EN24), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Gynecologic Oncology Group – Neurotoxicity (FACT-GOG/Ntx), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Ovarian (FACT-O) and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Each questionnaire can be filled out by women with different types of gynecological cancer, and the FSFI measures sexual problems that women may experience after cancer treatment.

Keywords::

• gynecologic
• measurement properties
• patient-reported outcome measurements
• PROMs
• quality of life

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fon-2022-0111

Author contributions

Review design: CL Moss, T Guerrero-Urbano, L Fox, K Beyer, M Sztankay, S MacLennan, N Wood, LM Wintner, M Van Hemelrijck. Systematic searching and data extraction: CL Moss, T Guerrero-Urbano, M Sztankay, LM Wintner, M Van Hemelrijck. Quality assessment: CL Moss, T Guerrero-Urbano, L Fox, K Beyer, MM Ratti, ES Sisca, A Derevianko, S MacLennan, LM Wintner, M Van Hemelrijck. Preparation of manuscript: CL Moss, T Guerrero-Urbano, M Van Hemelrijck, I White, B Taylor, R Kristeleit, A Montes, N Wood, LM Wintner. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.