Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02233-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Pancreatic cancer and its treatments impact patients’ symptoms, functioning, and quality of life. Content-valid patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are required to assess outcomes in clinical trials. This study aimed to: (a) conceptualise the patient experience of pancreatic cancer; (b) identify relevant PRO instruments; (c) review the content validity of mapped instruments to guide PRO measurement in clinical trials.
Qualitative literature and interviews with clinicians and patients were analysed thematically to develop a conceptual model of patient experience. PRO instruments were reviewed against the conceptual model to identify gaps in measurement. Cognitive debriefing explored PRO conceptual relevance and patients’ understanding.
Patients in the USA (N = 24, aged 35–84) and six clinicians (from US and Europe) were interviewed. Pre-diagnosis, pain was the most frequently reported symptom (N = 21). Treatments included surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. Surgery was associated with acute pain and gastrointestinal symptoms. Chemotherapy/chemoradiation side effects were cyclical and included fatigue/tiredness (N = 21), appetite loss (N = 15), bowel problems (N = 15), and nausea/vomiting (N = 15). Patients’ functioning and well-being were impaired. The literature review identified 49 PRO measures; the EORTC QLQ-C30/PAN26 were used most frequently and mapped with interview concepts. Patients found the EORTC QLQ-C30/PAN26 to be understandable and relevant; neuropathic side effects were suggested additions.
This is the first study to develop a conceptual model of patients’ experience of metastatic/recurrent pancreatic cancer and explore the content validity of the EORTC QLQ-C30/PAN26 following therapeutic advances. The EORTC QLQ-C30/PAN26 appears conceptually relevant; additional items to assess neuropathic side effects are recommended. A recall period should be stated throughout to standardise responses.
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)11136_2019_2233_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 15 kb)11136_2019_2233_MOESM2_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 12 kb)11136_2019_2233_MOESM3_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 62 kb)11136_2019_2233_MOESM4_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 15 kb)11136_2019_2233_MOESM5_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 6 (DOCX 167 kb)11136_2019_2233_MOESM6_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 7 (DOCX 13 kb)11136_2019_2233_MOESM7_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 8 (DOCX 12 kb)11136_2019_2233_MOESM8_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 9 (DOCX 12 kb)11136_2019_2233_MOESM9_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 10 (DOCX 34 kb)11136_2019_2233_MOESM10_ESM.docx
NIH, National Cancer Institute. Pancreatic Cancer Treatment (PDQ ®)–Health Professional Version. Retrieved October 11, 2018 from https://www.cancer.gov/types/pancreatic/hp/pancreatic-treatment-pdq
Serrano, P., Herman, J., Griffith, K., Zalupski, M., Kim, E., Bekaii-Saab, T., et al. (2014). Quality of life in a prospective, multicenter phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant full-dose gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, and radiation in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 90(2), 270–277. CrossRef
US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for Industry: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2014.
Brod, M., Tesler, L., & Christensen, T. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality Of Life Research: An International Journal Of Quality Of Life Aspects Of Treatment, Care And Rehabilitation, 18(9), 1263–1278. CrossRef
Patrick, D., Burke, L., Gwaltney, C., Leidy, N., Martin, M., Molsen, E., et al. (2011). Content validity-establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 2—Assessing respondent understanding. Value in Health, 14(8), 978–988. CrossRefPubMed
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. CrossRef
Fusch, P., & Ness, L. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. CrossRef
Turner-Bowker, D., Lamoureux, R., Stokes, J., Litcher-Kelly, L., Galipeau, N., Yaworsky, A., et al. (2018). Informing a priori sample size estimation in qualitative concept elicitation interview studies for clinical outcome assessment instrument development. Value in Health, 21(7), 839–842. CrossRefPubMed
Evans, J., Chapple, A., Salisbury, H., Corrie, P., & Ziebland, S. (2014). “It can’t be very important because it comes and goes”—Patients’ accounts of intermittent symptoms preceding a pancreatic cancer diagnosis: A qualitative study. British Medical Journal Open, 4(2), 1–8.
Schildmann, J., Ritter, P., Salloch, S., Uhl, W., & Vollmann, J. (2013). ‘One also needs a bit of trust in the doctor…’: A qualitative interview study with pancreatic cancer patients about their perceptions and views on information and treatment decision-making. Annals of Oncology, 24(9), 2444–2449. CrossRefPubMed
Brown, P., & de Graaf, S. (2013). Considering a future which may not exist: The construction of time and expectations amidst advanced-stage cancer. Health, Risk and Society, 15(6–07), 543–560. CrossRef
Aaronson, N., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N., et al. (1993). The European Organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376. CrossRefPubMed
Fitzsimmons, D., Johnson, C., George, S., Payne, S., Sandberg, A., Bassi, C., et al. (1999). Development of a disease specific quality of life (QoL) questionnaire module to supplement the EORTC core cancer QoL questionnaire, the QLQ-C30 in patients with pancreatic cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 35(6), 939–941. CrossRefPubMed
Heffernan, N., Cella, D., Webster, K., Odom, L., Martone, M., Passik, S., et al. (2002). Measuring health-related quality of life in patients with hepatobiliary cancers: The functional assessment of cancer therapy-hepatobiliary questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 20(9), 2229–2239. CrossRefPubMed
Vanagas, T., Johnson, C., Pundzius, J., & Barauskas, G. (2006). Translation and validation of the EORTC QLQ-PAN26 quality of life questionnaire for patients with pancreatic cancer. Acta medica Lituanica, 13(4), 272–275.
Hurt, C., Mukherjee, S., Bridgewater, J., Falk, S., Crosby, T., McDonald, A., et al. (2015). Health-related quality of life in SCALOP, a randomized phase 2 trial comparing chemoradiation therapy regimens in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 93(4), 810–818. CrossRef
Eaton, A., Karanicolas, P., Bottomley, A., Allen, P., & Gonen, M. (2017). Psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-PAN26 pancreatic cancer module for assessing health related quality of life after pancreatic resection. Journal of the Pancreas (Online), 18(1), 19–25.
- Exploring the patient experience of locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer to inform patient-reported outcomes assessment
Joseph M. Herman
Natalie V. J. Aldhouse
Colin D. Johnson
- Springer International Publishing
Quality of Life Research
An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation - An Official Journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta