A systematic review to evaluate patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for metastatic prostate cancer according to the consensus-based standard for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) methodology

Maria Monica Ratti*, Giorgio Gandaglia, Elena Silvia Sisca, Alexandra Derevianko, Eugenia Alleva, Katharina Beyer, Charlotte Moss, Francesco Barletta, Simone Scuderic, Muhammad Imran Omar, Steven Maclennan, Paula R. Williamson, Jihong Zong, Sara J. MacLennan, Nicolas Mottet, Philip Cornford, Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Mieke Van Hemelrijck, James N’Dow, Alberto BrigantiPIONEER Consortium

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

48 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Introduction: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent important endpoints in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). However, the clinically valid and accurate measurement of health-related quality of life depends on the psychometric properties of the PROMs considered. Objective: To appraise, compare, and summarize the properties of PROMs in mPCa. Evidence acquisition: We performed a review of PROMs used in RCTs, including patients with mPCa, using Medline in September 2021, according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. This systematic review is part of PIONEER (an IMI2 European network of excellence for big data in PCa). Results: The most frequently used PROMs in RCTs of patients with mPCa were the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy—Prostate (FACT-P) (n = 18), the Brief Pain Inventory—Short Form (BPI-SF) (n = 8), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (n = 6). A total of 283 abstracts were screened and 12 full-text studies were evaluated. A total of two, one, and two studies reported the psychometric proprieties of FACT-P, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and BPI-SF, respectively. FACT-P and BPI showed a high content validity, while BPI-SF showed a moderate content validity. FACT-P and BPI showed a high internal consistency (summarized by Cronbach’s α 0.70–0.95). Conclusions: The use of BPI and FACT-P in mPCa patients is supported by their high content validity and internal consistency. Since BPI is focused on pain assessment, we recommend FACT-P, which provides a broader assessment of QoL and wellbeing, for the clinical evaluation of mPCa patients. However, these considerations have been elaborated on in a very limited number of studies. Patient summary: In this paper, we review the psychometric properties of PROMs used with patients with mPCa to find the questionnaires that best assess patients’ QoL, in order to help professionals in their intervention and improve patients’ QoL. We recommend the use of BPI and FACT-P for their high content validity and internal consistency despite the limited number of studies considered.
Original languageEnglish
Article number5120
Number of pages12
JournalCancers
Volume14
Issue number20
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 19 Oct 2022

Keywords

  • prostatic neoplasms
  • COSMIN
  • PROMs
  • quality of life
  • erectile dysfunction
  • metastatic
  • prostate cancer
  • core outcome set

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A systematic review to evaluate patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for metastatic prostate cancer according to the consensus-based standard for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) methodology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this