Ensuring comprehensive assessment of urinary problems in prostate cancer through patient-physician concordance.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the concordance between clinicians and men diagnosed with prostate cancer on a clinician-derived pathophysiological classification of the following self-reported urinary complications: storage (irritative), voiding (obstructive), and leakage/incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen urology experts classified 37 urinary function questionnaire items into 3 primary conceptual dimensions (e.g., storage [irritative], voiding [obstructive] and urinary leakage/incontinence) that would best reflect each item's content. In addition, 218 patient participants provided responses to the 37 items. Using classifications by experts to develop the conceptual framework, the structure was tested using confirmatory factor analyses with patient data. RESULTS: Expert consensus was achieved in the classification of 31 out of 37 items. Using the 3-factor conceptual framework and patient data, the fit indices for the overall correlated factor model suggested an acceptable overall model fit. The analyses of the separate domains showed acceptable fit for the storage/irritative domain and the leaking/incontinence domain. The dimensionality of the voiding/obstructive domain was too difficult to estimate. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found items that conceptually and psychometrically support 2 constructs (leaking/incontinence and storage/irritative). The consistency of this support between the groups suggests a clinical relevance that is useful in treating patients. We have conceptual support for a third hypothesis (voiding/obstructive), although there were too few items to assess this psychometrically. Relative motivating factors of bother and urinary complaints were not addressed and remain an unmet need in this field.

General population and cancer patient norms for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G).

Given the number of new cancer cases diagnosed each year and the increases in survival rates, the importance of having a clinically useful health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instrument has increased. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) is one such instrument that has been used worldwide to assess HRQOL. Previously, the use of the FACT-G had been limited because of a lack of published normative data. Normative data are useful for consumers to place their results in an appropriate context by comparing their scores of individuals or group of individuals to a reference group. Here, we present normative data for the FACT-G for two reference groups: (a) a sample of the general U.S. adult population and (b) a large, heterogeneous sample of adult patients with cancer. In addition, we demonstrate various uses of the normative data.