Cited by 44Cancer survivorship and careHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

Determining issues of importance for the evaluation of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer: results of a survey of 1072 patients

Hollen, Patricia J., Msaouel, Pavlos, Gralla, Richard J.·2015·Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Abstract

Identifying key issues for patients is central to assessing treatment for cancer, especially when evaluating health-related quality of life (QL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This study was conducted to provide enhanced content validity support by incorporating the views of a large number of patients with breast cancer. This methodological study used an anonymous, cross-sectional, electronic web-based survey of 1072 patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer. Patients ranked the importance of 21 issues on a 5-point scale. Issues included general, physical, functional, psychosocial, and summative items. Analysis was also performed by four key factors (age group, time since diagnosis, adjuvant treatment or not, and tumor extent). All of the top five issues rated as either "very important" or "important" were global issues-rather than symptoms-such as maintaining quality of life (ranked in these two highest categories by 99 % of patients), maintaining independence (97 %), and ability to perform normal activities (97 %). The abilities to concentrate and to be able to sleep (97 and 96 %, respectively) were ranked above specific breast cancer symptoms. Specific symptoms included within the top ten highest ranked items were fatigue, depression, anxiety, shortness of breath, and pain. This is the largest analysis of evidence-based data determining support for content validity for QL and PROs provided by patients with breast cancer. While symptoms are important to patients, the survey also demonstrates that PRO measures that only evaluate symptoms are not fully responding to patient-expressed needs. These results provide confidence in the content of quality of life measures for large groups of patients with breast cancer, including the new Breast Cancer Symptom Scale (BCSS) questionnaire.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10549-015-3420-5

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hollen, P. J., Msaouel, P., & Gralla, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Hollen, Patricia J.
Venue
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published
2015-05-17
Volume
151
Issue
3
Pages
679-686
ISSN
  • 0167-6806 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7217
OpenAlex
W285014227
Cited by
44
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
breast cancer, health-related quality of life, patient-reported outcomes, content validity, patient priorities, fatigue, depression, anxiety, sleep, independence, adjuvant therapy, tumor extent
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Breast Neoplasms, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Metastasis, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Recurrence, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Self Report, Patient Outcome Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review