Interpretation of the Skin Cancer Quality of Life Score: A Validated Quality of Life Questionnaire for Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer

Vinding, Gabrielle Randskov; Esmann, Solveig; Olesen, Anne Braae; Hansen, Lars; Jemec, Gregor B. E.

doi:10.1159/000362807

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the publications identified were clinical trials and studies on creation and/or validation of QoL instruments. Data on creation and/or validation including national language versions of cancer‐specific, SC‐specific, facial SC‐specific, NMSC‐specific, BCC‐specific and melanoma‐specific QoL questionnaires were identified . Information on minimal clinical important difference was only given for one questionnaire, FACT‐M …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of life measurement in skin cancer patients: literature review and position paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non‐Melanoma Skin Cancer

Chernyshov

Lallas

Tómas-Aragonés

et al. 2019

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (NMSC) present a review of the literature and position statement on health-related (HR) QoL assessment in skin cancer patients. A literature search was carried out to identify publications since 1980 that included information about the impact of SC on QoL. Generic, dermatology-specific, cancer-specific, SC-specific, facial SC-specific, NMSC-specific, basal cell carcinoma-specific and melanoma-specific QoL questionnaires have been used to assess HRQoL in SC patients. HRQoL was assessed in the context of creation and validation of the HRQoL instruments, clinical trials, comparison of QoL in SC and other cancers, other diseases or controls, HRQoL assessment after treatment, comorbidities, behaviour modification, predictors of QoL and survival, supportive care needs, coping strategies and fear of cancer recurrence. The most widely used instruments for HRQoL assessment in SC patients are the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M), Skin Cancer Index (SCI), ShortForm 36 Item Health Survey (SF-36) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The TFs recommend the use of the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30, especially in late stages of disease, and the melanoma-specific FACT-M and SCspecific SCI questionnaires. These instruments have been well validated and used in several studies. Other HRQoL instruments, also with good basic validation, are not currently recommended because the experience of their use is too limited. Dermatology-specific HRQoL instruments can be used to assess the impact of skin-related problems in SC. The

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of life measurement in skin cancer patients: literature review and position paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non‐Melanoma Skin Cancer

Chernyshov

Lallas

Tómas-Aragonés

et al. 2019

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the addition of articles identified during reference searching a total of 24 studies were finally included (Fig. ) . Of those articles included, 11 different PROMs were identified: two generic PROMs (SF‐36 and FACT‐G) and nine skin cancer‐specific (FACT‐M, POS‐H/N, SCI, SCQoL, aBCCdex, SCQOLIT, FACE‐Q, DLQI, Essers et al .).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As per the inclusion criteria, all included PROMs demonstrated some aspect of validation in the facial skin cancer population. A summary of identified PROMs and included papers describing aspects of design or validation are presented in Table . A more detailed assessment of each instrument is presented in Supplementary Results S1 (see Supporting Information).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient‐reported outcome measures for facial skin cancer: a systematic review and evaluation of the quality of their measurement properties

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Skin cancer is the commonest malignancy worldwide, often occurring on the face. Both the condition and treatment can lead to scarring and facial disfigurement, affecting a patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which can be measured using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Objectives This systematic review identifies PROMs for facial skin cancer and appraises their methodological quality and psychometric properties using up-to-date methods. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL were searched systematically in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, identifying all PROMs designed for or validated in facial skin cancer. Methodological quality and evidence of psychometric properties were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and criteria proposed by Terwee and colleagues. A best-evidence synthesis and assessment of instrument focus on post-resection reconstruction was also performed.

show abstract

“…In general, terms such as little or mild are considered to be small enough to represent a minimal difference. To avoid discussion around the word minimal , some authors prefer the terms clinically important or meaningful …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Credibility and Generalization of the Minimally Important Difference Concept in Dermatology

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceThe minimally important difference (MID) represents the point at which a difference in an outcome measure (eg, Dermatology Life Quality Index) is important enough that it warrants a change in treatment, and, to the authors’ knowledge, the robustness and limitations of MIDs have not been thoroughly evaluated in skin diseases. The MID is increasingly used in clinical trials to demonstrate that an intervention is worthwhile for patients; furthermore, MIDs also contribute to sample size calculations in clinical trials, influence treatment guidelines, and can guide clinicians to modify treatment.ObjectiveTo evaluate the credibility and generalization of MIDs for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in skin disorders.Evidence ReviewA systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase for all original articles using the MID concept for skin disorders from inception to December 29, 2021. The credibility of MIDs obtained via an anchor-based approach (eg, global rating of change scale) was assessed with a previously developed credibility instrument. The validity of generalizing established MIDs to other patient groups was evaluated based on the diagnosis and the patient characteristics.FindingsA total of 126 articles were selected, and 84 different MIDs were identified for PROMs. A total of 13 of 84 MIDs (15.5%) for PROMs displayed acceptable credibility. The anchors used had varying capacity to assess minimal important changes from a patient’s perspective and were deemed inappropriate for this purpose in 52 of 84 cases (61.9%). Correlations between the anchors and PROMs were frequently not determined (39 of 84; 46.4%). The time interval for anchor questions assessing a change in the experienced disease burden was not optimal for 10 of 32 transition anchors (&gt;3 months), introducing potential recall bias. Previously reported MIDs were widely used to examine relevant changes in other study populations. However, the diagnosis and disease severity were different from the original MID population in 39 of 70 (55.7%) and 45 of 70 (64.3%) cases, respectively.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this scoping review, only a minority of MIDs for PROMs demonstrated sufficient credibility in dermatology. Inappropriate generalization of previously reported MIDs to patient populations with different disease characteristics was found to be a major concern. Furthermore, the study supported the use of multiple anchors and encouraged consistent reporting of the correlation between changes in the anchor and changes in the outcome measures.

show abstract

Interpretation of the Skin Cancer Quality of Life Score: A Validated Quality of Life Questionnaire for Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer

Cited by 4 publications

References 37 publications

Quality of life measurement in skin cancer patients: literature review and position paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non‐Melanoma Skin Cancer

Quality of life measurement in skin cancer patients: literature review and position paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non‐Melanoma Skin Cancer

Patient‐reported outcome measures for facial skin cancer: a systematic review and evaluation of the quality of their measurement properties

Credibility and Generalization of the Minimally Important Difference Concept in Dermatology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About