Актуальность

rehab

Реабилитология

Journal of Medical Rehabilitation

2949-58732949-5881

IRBIS LLC

10.17749/2949-5873/rehabil.2023.7

rehab-12

Research Article

ОБЗОРНЫЕ СТАТЬИ

REVIEW ARTICLES

Методы оценки качества жизни при раке

Methods for assessing quality of life in cancer

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5849-5585

Петренко

Д. А.

Petrenko

D. A.

Петренко Дарья Андреевна

Ул. Трубецкая, д. 8/2, Москва 119048

Daria А. Petrenko

8/2 Trubetskaya Str., Moscow 119048

petrenkodasha16@yandex.ru

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0459-0488

Корабельников

Д. И.

Korabelnikov

D. I.

Корабельников Даниил Иванович - к.м.н., доцент. Scopus Author ID: 7801382184.

Ул. 2-я Брестская, д. 5, Москва 123056, Россия)

Daniil I. Korabelnikov, PhD, Assoc. Prof. Scopus Author ID: 7801382184.

5 Brestskaya Str., Moscow 123056

Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И.М. Сеченова» Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации (Сеченовский Университет)РоссияSechenov UniversityRussian Federation

Автономная некоммерческая организация дополнительного профессионального образования «Московский медико-социальный институт им. Ф.П. Гааза»РоссияHaass Moscow Medical Social InstituteRussian Federation

2023

06092024

113348

2024

Петренко Д.А., Корабельников Д.И.

Petrenko D.A., Korabelnikov D.I.

Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://www.rehabilitology.com/jour/article/view/12

Актуальность

Актуальность. Проблема существенного снижения качества жизни (КЖ) пациентов с онкологическими заболеваниями, несмотря на современные достижения медицины, остается актуальной. Сравнительно остро стоит вопрос стандартизации методов оценки КЖ у больных данного профиля. Такую оценку пациенты проходят от этапа диагностики до окончания реабилитации, и выбор точного и воспроизводимого метода имеет большое значение.

Цель

Цель: проанализировать существующие основанные на анкетировании методы оценки КЖ пациентов онкологического профиля.

Материал и методы

Материал и методы. Поиск публикаций проведен в научных базах данных PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect и eLibrary. Дополнительно рассматривали источники, найденные по запросам в поисковых системах Яндекс и Google каждым исследователем индивидуально. В обзор литературы вошло 38 статей.

Результаты

Результаты. Подавляющее большинство опросников, используемых для оценки КЖ у пациентов онкологического профиля, можно разделить на две большие группы: анкеты, основанные на опроснике QLQ-C30, и анкеты, основанные на опроснике FACT-G. Несмотря на схожесть анкет QLQ-C30 и FACT-G, показано некоторое смещение их фокуса. QLQ-C30 больше ориентирован на физические показатели, в то время как FACT-G скорее направлен на оценку социального и эмоционального благополучия. Помимо указанных анкет представлены опросники, зарекомендовавшие себя в выявлении и мониторинге отдельных групп симптомов и синдромов: FSFI, HADS и САН.

Заключение

Заключение. Полученные результаты указали на достаточно широкий выбор опросников для общей оценки КЖ и отдельных его элементов. Среди анкет представлены как зарекомендовавшие себя инструменты скрининга и мониторинга состояния больных, так и требующие валидации и расширения доказательной базы. Ввиду высокой эффективности опросников как инструментов скрининга и мониторинга КЖ пациентов с онкологическими заболеваниями необходимо провести дальнейшие работы с целью широкого представления методов анкетирования в клинических рекомендациях.

Background

Background. The problem of a significant reduction in the quality of life (QoL) of oncological patients remains relevant despite current achievements in medicine. The issue of standardizing methods for assessing QoL in such patients is relatively acute. Patients undergo this assessment from the diagnostic stage to the end of rehabilitation, so it’s important to choose an accurate and precise method for QoL evaluation.

Objective

Objective: to analyze existing questionnaire-based methods for assessing QoL in cancer patients.

Material and methods

Material and methods. The search for publications was conducted in the scientific databases PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and eLibrary. Additionally, the sources found by queries in Yandex and Google search engines by each researcher individually were considered. The review included 38 articles.

Results

Results. The vast majority of questionnaires used to assess QoL in oncological patients can be divided into two large groups: based on QLQ-C30 and FACT-G. Despite the similarity between QLQ-C30 and FACT-G questionnaires, some shift in their focus was shown. QLQ-C30 is more oriented on physical indicators, and FACT-G is more aimed at social and emotional well-being. Besides them, questionnaires that proved to identify and monitor individual groups of symptoms and syndromes were presented: FSFI, HADS and Russian questionnaire on well-being, activity, mood.

Conclusion

Conclusion. The obtained results indicated a fairly wide choice of questionnaires for the overall assessment of QoL and its individual elements. They include both proven screening and monitoring tools and those requiring validation and expansion of the evidence base. Due to high effectiveness of questionnaires as QoL screening and monitoring tools, further work is needed to ensure that they are widely included in clinical guidelines.

Опросникикачество жизниКЖраконкологические заболеванияведение пациентовреабилитация

Questionnairesquality of lifeQoLcanceroncological diseasespatient supportrehabilitation

References1

Ho P.J., Gernaat S.A.M., Hartman M., Verkooijen H.M. Health-related quality of life in Asian patients with breast cancer: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018; 8 (4): e020512. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020512.

Nguyen L.B., Vu L.G., Le T.T., et al. Impact of interventions on the quality of life of cancer patients: a systematic review and metaanalysis of longitudinal research. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023; 21 (1): 112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02189-9.

Leppert W., Majkowicz M., Forycka M., et al. Quality of life assessment in advanced cancer patients treated at home, an inpatient unit, and a day care center. Onco Targets Ther. 2014; 7: 687–95. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S57338.

Lewandowska A., Rudzki G., Lewandowski T., et al. Quality of life of cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. Int J ENVIRON Res Public Health. 2020; 17 (19): 6938. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17196938.

The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med. 1995; 41 (10): 1403–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-k.

Tamburini M., Gangeri L., Brunelli C., et al. Assessment of hospitalised cancer patients’ needs by the Needs Evaluation Questionnaire. Ann Oncol. 2000; 11 (1): 31–7. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008396930832.

Bonacchi A., Miccinesi G., Galli S., et al. Use of the Needs Evaluation Questionnaire with cancer outpatients. Support Care Cancer. 2016; 24 (8): 3507–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3176-4.

Bager L., Elsbernd A., Nissen A., et al. Danish translation and pilot testing of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-TC 26 (EORTC QLQ-TC26) questionnaire to assess healthrelated quality of life in patients with testicular cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018; 16: 128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0954-3.

Lewandowska A., Rudzki G., Lewandowski T., Rudzki S. The problems and needs of patients diagnosed with cancer and their caregivers. Int J ENVIRON Res Public Health. 2020; 18 (1): 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010087.

Groenvold M., Petersen M.A., Aaronson N.K., et al. The development of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL: a shortened questionnaire for cancer patients in palliative care. Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42 (1): 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2005.06.022.

Soerjomataram I., Bray F. Planning for tomorrow: global cancer incidence and the role of prevention 2020-2070. Nat REV Clin Oncol. 2021; 18 (10): 663–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-021-00514-z.

Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L., et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71 (3): 209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660.

Schütte K., Schulz C., Middelberg-Bisping K. Impact of gastric cancer treatment on quality of life of patients. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2021; 50–51: 101727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2021.101727.

Giesinger J.M., Blazeby J., Aaronson N.K., et al. Differences in patientreported outcomes that are most frequently detected in randomized controlled trials in patients with solid tumors: a pooled analysis of 229 trials. Value Health. 2020; 23 (5): 666–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.007.

Bonomi A.E., Cella D.F., Hahn E.A., et al. Multilingual translation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) quality of life measurement system. Qual Life Res. 1996; 5 (3): 309–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00433915.

FACIT Measures & Languages. URL: https://www.facit.org/measureslanguage-availability (дата обращения 07.06.2023).

FACIT Measures & Languages. Available at: https://www.facit.org/measures-language-availability (accessed 07.06.2023).

EORTC Quality of Life. Questionnaires. URL: https://qol.eortc.org/questionnaires/ (дата обращения 07.06.2023).

EORTC Quality of Life. Questionnaires. Available at: https://qol.eortc.org/questionnaires/ (accessed 07.06.2023).

Blazeby J.M., Conroy T., Bottomley A., et al. Clinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-STO 22, to assess quality of life in patients with gastric cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2004; 40 (15): 2260–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2004.05.023.

Woo A., Fu T., Popovic M., et al. Comparison of the EORTC STO-22 and the FACT-Ga quality of life questionnaires for patients with gastric cancer. Ann Palliat Med. 2016; 5 (1): 13–21. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2224-5820.2016.01.02.

Huang C.C., Lien H.H., Sung Y.C., et al. Quality of life of patients with gastric cancer in Taiwan: validation and clinical application of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-STO22. Psychooncology. 2007; 16 (10): 945–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1158.

Sadighi S., Montazeri A., Sedighi Z., et al. Quality of life in patients with gastric cancer: translation and psychometric evaluation of the Iranian version of EORTC QLQ-STO22. BMC Cancer. 2009; 9: 305. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-9-305.

Morita S., Kaptein A.A., Oba K., Sakamoto J. The domain structure of the EORTC QLQ-STO22 supported by Japanese validation data. Psychooncology. 2008; 17 (5): 474–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1256.

Oñate-Ocaña L.F., Alcántara-Pilar A., Vilar-Compte D., et al. Validation of the Mexican Spanish version of the EORTC C30 and STO22 questionnaires for the evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients with gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16 (1): 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-0175-9.

Garland S.N., Pelletier G., Lawe A., et al. Prospective evaluation of the reliability, validity, and minimally important difference of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-gastric (FACT-Ga) quality-oflife instrument. Cancer. 2011; 117 (6): 1302–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25556.

Cella D.F., Tulsky D.S., Gray G., et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993; 11 (3): 570–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570.

Misawa K., Terashima M., Uenosono Y., et al. Evaluation of postgastrectomy symptoms after distal gastrectomy with Billroth-I reconstruction using the Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale-45 (PGSAS-45). Gastric Cancer. 2015; 18 (3): 675–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-014-0407-6.

Terashima M., Tanabe K., Yoshida M., et al. Postgastrectomy Syndrome Assessment Scale (PGSAS)-45 and changes in body weight are useful tools for evaluation of reconstruction methods following distal gastrectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 21 (Suppl. 3): S370–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3583-z.

Nakada K., Ikeda M., Takahashi M., et al. Characteristics and clinical relevance of postgastrectomy syndrome assessment scale (PGSAS)45: newly developed integrated questionnaires for assessment of living status and quality of life in postgastrectomy patients. Gastric Cancer. 2015; 18 (1): 147–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-0140344-4.

Rabin R., de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001; 33 (5): 337–43. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002087.

Rencz F., Gulácsi L., Drummond M., et al. EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000–2015. Qual Life Res. 2016; 25 (11): 2693–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1375-6.

Gosain R., Gupta M., Roy A.M., et al. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review. Cancers. 2022; 14 (6): 1428. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14061428.

Cella D., Riley W., Stone A., et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63 (11): 1179–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.

Derogatis L.R. The psychosocial adjustment to illness scale (PAIS). J Psychosom Res. 1986; 30 (1): 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(86)90069-3.

Greimel E., Bottomley A., Cull A., et al. An international field study of the reliability and validity of a disease-specific questionnaire module (the QLQ-OV28) in assessing the quality of life of patients with ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2003; 39 (10): 1402–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(03)00307-1.

Greimel E., Nordin A., Lanceley A., et al. Psychometric validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Endometrial Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-EN24). Eur J Cancer. 2011; 47 (2): 183–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.08.014.

Санджиева Л.Н., Солопова А.Г., Блинов Д.В. и др. Сравнительный анализ качества жизни у пациенток с атипической гиперплазией и раком эндометрия при различных реабилитационных мероприятиях. Акушерство, гинекология и репродукция. 2022; 16 (4): 410–25. https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347/ob.gyn.rep.2022.344.

Sandzhieva L.N., Solopova A.G., Blinov D.V., et al. Comparatively analyzed quality of life in patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer during various rehabilitation activities. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction. 2022; 16 (4): 410–25 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347/ob.gyn.rep.2022.344.

Wiegel M., Meston C., Rosen R. The female sexual function index (FSFI): cross-validation and development of clinical cutoff scores. J Sex Marital Ther. 2005; 31 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230590475206.

Блинов Д.В., Солопова А.Г., Плутницкий А.Н. и др. Организация здравоохранения в сфере реабилитации пациенток с онкологическими заболеваниями репродуктивной системы. ФАРМАКОЭКОНОМИКА Современная фармакоэкономика и фармакоэпидемиология. 2022; 15 (1): 119–30. https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909/ farmakoekonomika.2022.132.

Blinov D.V., Solopova A.G., Plutnitskiy A.N., et al. Strengthening health care to provide rehabilitation services for women with cancer diseases of the reproductive system. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. SOVREMENNAYA farmakoekonomika i farmakoepidemiologiya / FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2022; 15 (1): 119–30 (in Rus.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2022.132.

Идрисова Л.Э., Солопова А.Г., Ачкасов Е.Е. и др. Оценка влияния реабилитации на качество жизни онкогинекологических больных. Вопросы гинекологии, акушерства и перинатологии. 2019; 18 (6): 41–5. https://doi.org/10.20953/1726-1678-2019-6-41-45.

Idrisova L.E., Solopova А.G., Achkasov E.E., et al. Assessment of the impact of rehabilitation on the quality of life of gynaecological oncology patients. Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology. 2019; 18 (6): 41–5 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.20953/1726-1678-2019-6-41-45.

Солопова А.Г., Идрисова Л.Э., Макацария А.Д. и др. Мультидисциплинарный подход к медицинской реабилитации онкогинекологических больных. Акушерство, гинекология и репродукция. 2018; 11 (4): 57–67. https://doi.org/10.17749/23137347.2017.11.4.057-067.

Solopova A.G., Idrisova L.E., Makatsariya A.D., et al. Multidisciplinary approach to medical rehabilitation of oncogynecologic patients. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction. 2018; 11 (4): 57–67 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347.2017.11.4.057-067.

Блбулян Т.А., Солопова А.Г., Иванов А.Е., Куркина Е.И. Влияние послеоперационной реабилитации на качество жизни больных с раком вульвы. Акушерство, гинекология и репродукция. 2020; 14 (4): 415–25. https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347/ob.gyn. rep.2020.156.

Blbulyan T.A., Solopova A.G., Ivanov A.E., Kurkina E.I. Effect of postoperative rehabilitation on quality of life in patients with vulvar cancer. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction. 2020; 14 (4): 415–25 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347/ob.gyn.rep.2020.156.

Annunziata M.A., Muzzatti B., Bidoli E., et al. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) accuracy in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2020; 28 (8): 3921–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-01905244-8.

Richardson J., Sinha K., Iezzi A., Khan M.A. Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. Qual Life Res. 2014; 23 (8): 2395–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0686-8.

Culbertson M.G., Bennett K., Kelly C.M., et al. The psychosocial determinants of quality of life in breast cancer survivors: a scoping review. BMC Cancer. 2020; 20 (1): 948. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07389-w.

Sarason I.G., Sarason B.R., Shearin E.N., Pierce G.R. A brief measure of social support: practical and theoretical implications. J Soc Person Relat. 1987; 4 (4): 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407587044007.

Radloff L.S. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977; 1 (3): 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306.

Carver C.S. You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: consider the brief COPE. Int J BEHAV Med. 1997; 4 (1): 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6.

Scheier M.F., Carver C.S. Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol. 1985; 4 (3): 219–47. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-6133.4.3.219.

Scheier M.F., Carver C.S., Bridges M.W. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994; 67 (6): 1063–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1063.

Солопова А.Г., Блинов Д.В., Ачкасов Е.Е. и др. Методы оценки качества жизни у женщин со злокачественными новообразованиями репродуктивной системы. Врач. 2023; 34 (1): 10–9. https://doi.org/10.29296/25877305-2023-01-02.

Solopova A.G., Blinov D.V., Achkasov E.E., et al. Methods of assessing the quality of life in women with malignant neoplasms of the reproductive system. Vrach / The Doctor. 2023; 34 (1): 10–9 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.29296/25877305-2023-01-02.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.