Comparison of the FACT-C, EORTC QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 quality of life questionnaires for patients with colorectal cancer: a literature review
A partir dune revue systématique de la littérature, cette étude compare 3 outils sous forme de questionnaire permettant d'évaluer la qualité de vie des patients atteints d'un cancer colorectal
Purpose : The purpose of this review was to compare the development, characteristics, validity, and reliability of three widely used quality of life (QOL) assessment tools used in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Colorectal Cancer Module (QLQ-CR38) and its successor, the QLQ-CR29. Methods : A literature search was conducted using Ovid EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1996–2015 Week 39), Ovid MEDLINE and OLDMEDLINE (1996 September Week 4 2015), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to August 2015) to identify studies that discussed the FACT-C, EORTC QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 including, but not limited to, their development, characteristics, validity, and reliability. Results : The FACT-C consists of 36 items, presented on a 5-point Likert scale, in four domains of well-being (physical, emotional, social, and functional), and the Colorectal Cancer Subscale (CCS). The physical and social well-being scales showed reasonable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient > 60) in all studied populations. The EORTC QLQ-CR38 (38 items) and the QLQ-CR29 (29 items) are implemented in conjunction with the core QLQ-C30 (30 items); all are presented in 4-point Likert scales. Seven scales in the QLQ-CR38 demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient > 0.70). In the QLQ-CR29, three scales had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of less than 0.70. Conclusion : The FACT-C, QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 have been extensively validated. However, analysis of their characteristics, validity, and reliability suggest differing suitability in assessing QOL in specific clinical situations.