RESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Two commonly used quality of life questionnaires in breast cancer are EORTC QLQ-BR23, the FACT-B, and the extended FACT-B + 4. More recently, the EORTC EORTC QLQ-BR42 was developed. This systematic review compares the various versions of the EORTC QLQ and FACT tools for breast cancer in terms of their content, validity, and psychometric properties. RECENT FINDINGS: Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. All questionnaires have been proven to be valid, reliable and responsive. The provisional EORTC QLQ-BR45 transitioned to the EORTC QLQ-BR42 in Phase IV of its development, which encompasses the side effects associated with the latest breast cancer treatments. Both the EORTC and FACT measures assess physical and mental dimensions of quality of life, with the EORTC measure placing relatively more emphasis on physical content and FACT placing relatively more emphasis on mental (social and emotional) content. The four additional items in the FACT-B + 4 were developed to address arm lymphoedema following axillary surgery. SUMMARY: The development and uptake of quality of life tools are essential in the evaluation of breast cancer treatments. The EORTC QLQ-BR42 and FACT-B are both valid, reliable, and responsive QoL questionnaires.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Two commonly used quality of life (QoL) questionnaires in lung cancer patients are the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L). More recently, the EORTC QLQ-LC29 was developed. This systematic review compares the EORTC QLQ-LC29, EORTC QLQ-LC13 and FACT-L in terms of the content, validity and psychometric properties in assessing the QoL of lung cancer patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Fourteen studies were included. The EORTC QLQ-LC29 is a 29-item scale that serves as an update of the EORTC QLQ-LC13 to include symptoms from surgery and new targeted therapies. It shows validity, high internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and sensitivity. The FACT-L continues to assess general quality of life and lung cancer-specific symptoms. SUMMARY: The EORTC QLQ-LC29, EORTC QLQ-LC13, and FACT-L were reviewed to assess their validity in measuring QoL of lung cancer patients. All were found to be sufficiently validated, The choice of which to use should depend on the primary goals of the study.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that palliative care (PC) can improve quality of life and survival for outpatients with advanced cancer, but there are limited population-based data on the value of inpatient PC. We assessed PC as a component of high-value care among a nationally representative sample of inpatients with metastatic cancer and identified hospitalization characteristics significantly associated with high costs. METHODS: Hospitalizations of patients 18 years and older with a primary diagnosis of metastatic cancer from the National Inpatient Sample from 2010 to 2019 were analyzed. We used multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to assess medical services, patient demographics, and hospital characteristics associated with higher charges billed to insurance and hospital costs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to determine cost savings associated with provision of PC. RESULTS: Among 397,691 hospitalizations from 2010 to 2019, the median charge per admission increased by 24.9%, from $44,904 in US dollars (USD) to $56,098 USD, whereas the median hospital cost remained stable at $14,300 USD. Receipt of inpatient PC was associated with significantly lower charges (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.64]; P < .001) and costs (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.61]; P < .001). Factors associated with high charges were receipt of invasive medical ventilation (P < .001) or systemic therapy (P < .001), Hispanic patients (P < .001), young age (18-49 years, P < .001), and for-profit hospitals (P < .001). PC provision was associated with a $1,310 USD (-13.6%, P < .001) reduction in costs per hospitalization compared with no PC, independent of the receipt of invasive care and age. CONCLUSION: Inpatient PC is associated with reduced hospital costs for patients with metastatic cancer, irrespective of age and receipt of aggressive interventions. Integration of inpatient PC may de-escalate costs incurred through low-value inpatient interventions.