Background Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) are gaining more and more importance in the context of clinical trials. The assessment of PRO is frequently performed by questionnaires where the multiple items of a questionnaire are usually pooled within summarizing scores. These scores are used as variables to measure subjective aspects of treatments and diseases. In clinical research, the calculation of these scores is mostly kept very simple, e.g. by a simple summation of item values. In the medical literature, there is hardly any guidance for performing a refinements of questionnaires and for deducing adequate scores. In contrast, in psychometric literature, there are plenty of more sophisticated methods, which overcome typical assumptions made in traditional (sum) scores, however to the prize of more complicated algorithms, which might be difficult to communicate. When faced with the practical task to refine an existing questionnaire, there exist a clear gap of guidance for applied medical researchers. By this article we try to fill this important gap between psychometric theory and medical application by illustrating our methodological choices on the example of a clinical PRO questionnaire. Methods Based on our experiences with the refinement of the BCTOS, a PRO questionnaire to assess aesthetic and function after breast conserving therapy in breast cancer patients, we present the following general steps that we performed by refining the BCTOS questionnaire and its scores: 1. Refinement of the length of the questionnaire and the (item-factor) structure. 2. Selection of the factor score estimation method. 3. Validation of the refined questionnaire and scores with respect to validity, reliability and structure based on a validation cohort. Results Our step-step-step procedure helped us to shorten the current form of the BCTOS and to redefine the factor structure. By this, the compliance of patients can be increased and the interpretation of the results becomes more coherent. Conclusions We present a step-by-step procedure to refine an existing medical questionnaire along with its scores illustrated and discussed by the refinement of the BCTOS. Trial registration Due to the character of the study (no intervention study), no registration was performed.

No abstract

When cancer patients have advanced disease and a primary cure is no longer possible, the focus is on maintaining the patient's quality of life. Recent therapeutic advances in breast cancer treatment mean that even patients with metastatic disease can remain stable for long periods of time. The aim of this study was to look at the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of these patients and compare it with data for the general population and to show the differences in outcomes for different survey instruments used to measure quality of life. A total of 96 breast cancer patients with metastatic disesae or receiving adjuvant therapy were questioned about their quality of life. Patients were investigated using the established survey instruments EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, EQ-5D-5L and EQ VAS. All patients filled out questionnaires. Statistical analysis was done using MS Excel and SPSS. Although the questionnaires were completed at the same time, the different questionnaires showed significant differences with regard to the level of stress experienced by the patient. When the EQ VAS questionnaire was used, the patient's current state of health was assessed as significantly better than with the EORTC QLQ-C30. Overall, all aspects of patients' quality of life were found to be in need of optimization and HRQL of patients was significantly poorer in all areas compared to the reference population. To improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease, it is necessary to continuously monitor the success of therapy. The choice of survey tools is highly relevant as assessments differ considerably depending on the choice of questionnaire.

Background Poor patient-reported satisfaction after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) has been associated with impaired health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and subsequent depression in retrospective analysis. This prospective cohort study aimed to assess the HRQOL of patients who have undergone BCT using the BREAST-Q, and to identify clinical risk factors for lower patient satisfaction. Methods Patients with primary breast cancer undergoing BCT were asked to complete the BREAST-Q preoperatively (T1) for baseline evaluation, then 3 to 4 weeks postoperatively (T2), and finally 1 year after surgery (T3). Clinicopathologic data were extracted from the patients’ charts. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine significant differences in mean satisfaction and well-being levels among the test intervals. Multiple linear regression was used to evaluate risk factors for lower satisfaction. Results The study enrolled 250 patients. The lowest baseline BREAST-Q score was reported for “satisfaction with breast” (mean, 61 ± 19), but this increased postoperatively (mean, 66 ± 18) and was maintained at the 1 year follow-up evaluation (mean, 67 ± 21). “Physical well-being” decreased from T1 (mean, 82 ± 17) to T2 (mean, 28 ± 13) and did not recover much by T3 (mean, 33 ± 13), being the lowest BREAST-Q score postoperatively and in the 1-year follow-up evaluation. In multiple regression, baseline psychosocial well-being, body mass index (BMI), and type of incision were risk factors for lower “satisfaction with breasts.” Conclusion Both the aesthetic/surgery-related and psychological aspects are equally important with regard to “satisfaction with breasts” after BCT. The data could serve as the benchmark for future studies.

No abstract