Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Apr;63(4):469-487.
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001575.

Reducing Patient Burden and Improving Data Quality With the New Cleveland Clinic Colorectal Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Reducing Patient Burden and Improving Data Quality With the New Cleveland Clinic Colorectal Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire

Massarat Zutshi et al. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020 Apr.

Abstract

Background: The Cleveland Clinic Colorectal Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire was developed in response to the need for a new, fast, and comprehensive tool for evaluating quality of life in patients who have colorectal cancer. Available surveys such as the SF-12, SF-36, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer are either too general to be informative or too lengthy to complete.

Objective: The aim was to validate the Cleveland Clinic Foundation Colorectal Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Design: Data were obtained as part of a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Settings: This was a worldwide multicenter study with 2 domestic and 5 international locations.

Patients: This study randomly assigned 190 patients between the ages of 18 and 80 undergoing surgery for low rectal cancer. Of those randomly assigned, 142 with partially complete surveys were analyzed for selection bias and acceptability, and 95 with complete surveys were analyzed for survey validity.

Interventions: Patients received either a J-pouch, side-to-end anastomosis, or straight anastomosis.

Main outcome measure: The study evaluated survey validity measures such as standardized Cronbach α for internal consistency and Spearman correlation coefficients for construct validity, convergent validity, and responsiveness. Univariate analyses were used to assess discriminative validity.

Results: Sufficient acceptability, construct, and convergent validity and responsiveness were achieved. All scores showed great internal consistency (Cronbach α >0.8). Superior discriminative ability was demonstrated by significant differences (p < 0.05) in 2 of 7 scores between neoadjuvant treatment groups, and in 6 of 7 scores between complication groups, none of which were detected by the SF-12 or Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal surveys.

Limitations: Limitations included a small sample size, cultural differences, and failure to assess test-retest ability of the questionnaire.

Conclusions: The Cleveland Clinic Colorectal Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire is an efficient and reliable quality-of-life measure that better incorporates factors specific to colorectal cancer surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B155. REDUCIENDO LA CARGA AL PACIENTE Y MEJORANDO LA CALIDAD DE DATOS CON EL NUEVO CUESTIONARIO DE CALIDAD DE VIDA EN CÁNCER COLORRECTAL DE CLEVELAND CLINIC (CCF-CAQL): El cuestionario de calidad de vida en cáncer colorrectal de Cleveland Clinic se desarrolló en respuesta a la necesidad de una herramienta nueva, rápida e integral para evaluar la calidad de vida en pacientes con cáncer colorrectal. Los cuestionarios disponibles como SF-12, SF-36, FACT-C y EORTC son demasiado generales para ser informativas o demasiado largas para completar.El objetivo fue validar el cuestionario de calidad de vida colorrectal de la Cleveland Clinic Foundation.Los datos se obtuvieron como parte de un ensayo prospectivo aleatorizado y controlado.Este fue un estudio multicéntrico mundial con dos sedes nacionales y cinco internacionales.Este estudio aleatorizó a 190 pacientes entre las edades de 18 y 80 sometidos a cirugía por cáncer rectal bajo. De aquellos aleatorizados, 142 con encuestas parcialmente completas se analizaron para determinar el sesgo de selección y la aceptabilidad, y 95 con encuestas completas se analizaron para determinar la validez de la encuesta.Los pacientes recibieron un reservorio en J, anastomosis latero-terminal o anastomosis termino-terminal.El estudio evaluó medidas de validez de la encuesta, como el Alfa de Cronbach estandarizado para la consistencia interna y los coeficientes de correlación de Spearman para la validez de construcción, la validez de convergencia y la capacidad de respuesta. Se utilizaron análisis univariados para evaluar la validez discriminativa.Se obtuvo suficiente aceptabilidad, construcción, validez de convergencia, y capacidad de respuesta. Todos los puntajes mostraron una gran consistencia interna (alfa de Cronbach > 0.8). Una capacidad discriminativa superior fue demostrada por diferencias significativas (p < 0.05) en dos de siete puntajes entre grupos de tratamiento neoadyuvante, y en seis de siete puntajes entre grupos de complicaciones, ninguno de los cuales fue detectado por SF-12 o FACT-C.Las limitaciones incluyeron un tamaño de muestra pequeño, diferencias culturales y la falta de evaluación de la confiabilidad test-retest del cuestionario.El Cuestionario de Calidad de Vida en Cáncer Colorrectal de Cleveland Clinic es una medida de calidad de vida eficiente y confiable que incorpora mejor factores específicos asociados a la cirugía de cáncer colorrectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B155.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lee L, Dumitra T, Fiore JF Jr, Mayo NE, Feldman LS. How well are we measuring postoperative “recovery” after abdominal surgery? Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2583–2590.
    1. Fiore JF Jr, Figueiredo S, Balvardi S, et al. How do we value postoperative recovery?: A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcomes after abdominal surgery. Ann Surg. 2018;267:656–669.
    1. Pezold ML, Pusic AL, Cohen WA, et al. Defining a research agenda for patient-reported outcomes in surgery: using a Delphi survey of stakeholders. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:930–936.
    1. Bilimoria KY, Cella D, Butt Z. Current challenges in using patient-reported outcomes for surgical care and performance measurement: everybody wants to hear from the patient, but are we ready to listen? JAMA Surg. 2014;149:505–506.
    1. Liu M, Sun W, Cai YY, Wu HZ. Validation of Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients - Colorectal Cancer (QLICP-CR) in patients with colorectal cancer in Northeast China. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:1228.

Publication types