Kaposi's sarcoma is currently the most common tumor in Zimbabwe. The purpose of our study is to compare the effectiveness of supportive care vs. 3 intervention approaches, namely oral Etoposide, a 3-drug combination, and radiotherapy using quality of life (QOL) as the primary measure of success. In addition, our study was to determine whether a disease-specific module has greater sensitivity to group differences than a generic QOL questionnaire and to determine the most pragmatic approach to treating epidemic Kaposi's sarcoma (EKS) in Zimbabwe. In addition, on the physical and psychological subscales, the Etoposide group had a significantly better QOL than the other 3 treatment groups (p < 0.04). The 3-drug combination, supportive care and radiotherapy groups did not differ significantly from each other with respect to the total FLI-C score or its subscales. There were no group differences with respect to survival. Oral Etoposide therapy resulted in better total FLI-C QOL score than radiotherapy. As well, Etoposide resulted in better physical and psychological subscale scores than radiotherapy, 3-drugs and supportive care. Thus, funds permitting, oral Etoposide is a pragmatic approach to treating EKS in an environment where antiretroviral drugs are not universally available. The study underscores the value of undertaking studies in areas of disease prevalence and the necessity of selecting appropriate outcome measures.