Quality of life assessment in radiotherapy

Czech version

Authors: K. Procházková ¹; T. Kazda ^1,2; P. Šlampa ¹; I. Selingerová ^2,3
Authors‘ workplace: Klinika radiační onkologie LF MU a MOÚ Brno ¹; Výzkumné centrum aplikované molekulární onkologie (RECAMO), MOÚ Brno ²; Farmakologický ústav, LF MU Brno ³
Published in: Klin Onkol 2025; 38(1): 25-31
Category: Reviews
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/ccko202525

Overview

Background: The patient‘s quality of life is an integral part of the evaluation of anticancer treatment. We can meet its evaluation mainly within the framework of clinical studies and research projects, but it is increasingly included in routine clinical practice as well. In radiotherapy, this indicator needs to be evaluated especially with the advent of new fractionation regimes, which are supposed to ensure better clinical results, but also the same or better quality of life for patients compared to another fractionation scheme. There are several ways to measurably evaluate the quality of life. Questionnaires filled in by patients are most often used, so this is a subjective approach. It is essential to choose the right methodology, especially the type and form of questionnaires with regard to the specific situation (diagnosis, treatment, etc.). Aim: In this educational review article, quality of life and its role in the treatment of a patient with radiotherapy are defined. Next, selected methods of quality of life assessment in radiotherapy are described in detail. Emphasis is placed especially on available questionnaire surveys, generic or specific. Among the most commonly used quality of life questionnaires are those from the EORTC group, FACIT questionnaires and the EQ-5D, SF-36, WHOQOL-100 and WHOQOL-BREF questionnaires. The general EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, which is also often used in radiotherapy, is used to demonstrate the assessment on one specific example of a questionnaire completed by a patient. Conclusion: The quality of life of an oncology patient ranks among the most important evaluations of care outcomes (patient reported outcomes measures), and data collection for its evaluation should be part of routine clinical practice in radiation oncology as well, especially when introducing a new fractionation regimen. The purpose of this educational review article is to point out the various possibilities for evaluating the quality of life, different types of generic and specific questionnaires, and also to emphasize certain recommendations and procedures necessary for quality evaluation of questionnaires.

Keywords:

Quality of life – radiotherapy – oncology

Sources

1. Kim S. World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHO-QOL) Assessment. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research 2014; 7260–7261. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_3282.

2. Hagerty MR. Testing Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: National Quality-of-Life across time. Soc Indic Res 1999; 46 (3): 249–271. doi: 10.1023/A: 1006921107298.

3. Salajka F. Kvalita života onkologicky nemocných – kritérium úspěšnosti naší péče. Klin Onkol 2001; 14: 27–29.

4. Slováček L, Slováčková B, Blažek M et al. Kvalita života onkologických nemocných – definice, koncepce, možnosti hodnocení. Klin Onkol 2006; 19 (3): 161–166.

5. Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: what is the difference? Pharmacoeconomics 2016; 34 (7): 645–649. doi: 10.1007/S40273-016-0389-9.

6. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30 (6): 473–483.

7. Ventegodt S, Merrick J, Andersen NJ. Measurement of quality of life V. How to use the SEQOL, QOL5, QOL1, and other global and generic questionnaires for research. ScientificWorldJournal 2003; 3: 1002–1014. doi: 10.1100/TSW.2003.80.

8. Ventegodt S, Merrick J, Andersen NJ. Measurement of quality of life IV. Use of the SEQOL, QOL5, QOL1, and other global and generic questionnaires. ScientificWorldJournal 2003; 3: 992–1001. doi: 10.1100/TSW.2003.78.

9. Muller AE, Skurtveit S, Clausen T. Validating the generic quality of life tool “QOL10” in a substance use disorder treatment cohort exposes a unique social construct. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016; 16: 60. doi: 10.1186/S12874-016-0163-X.

10. EuroQol. EQ-5D-5L. [online]. Available from: https: //euroqol.org/information-and-support/euroqol-instruments/eq-5d-5l/.

11. Gondi V, Deshmukh S, Brown PD et al. Sustained preservation of cognition and prevention of patient-reported symptoms with hippocampal avoidance during whole- -brain radiation therapy for brain metastases: final results of NRG oncology CC001. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117 (3): 571–580. doi: 10.1016/J.IJROBP.2023.04.030.

12. Monteiro MR, Nunes NCC, Crespo J et al. Patient-centered outcomes in breast cancer: description of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC-QLQ-BR23 measurements in real-world data and their association with survival. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2022; 34 (9): 608–616. doi: 10.1016/J.CLON.2022.05.015.

13. Sprave T, Gkika E, Verma V et al. Patient reported outcomes based on EQ-5D-5L questionnaires in head and neck cancer patients: a real-world study. BMC Cancer 2022; 22 (1): 1236. doi: 10.1186/S12885-022-10346-4.

14. Franklin M, Hunter RM, Enrique A et al. Estimating cost-effectiveness using alternative preference-based scores and within-trial methods: exploring the dynamics of the quality-adjusted life-year using the EQ-5D 5-level version and recovering quality of life utility index. Value Health 2022; 25 (6): 1018–1029. doi: 10.1016/J.JVAL.2021.11.1358.

15. World Health Organization. WHOQOL – 100. [online]. Available from: https: //www.who.int/tools/whoqol/whoqol-100.

16. World Health Organization. WHOQOL – files. [online]. Available from: https: //www.who.int/tools/whoqol/whoqol-bref.

17. RAND Health Care. 36-item short form survey (SF-36). [online]. Available from: https: //www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/mos/36-item-short-form.html.

18. Kovacs B, Mayinger M, Ehrbar S et al. Dose escalation for stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation of recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmia – a phase II clinical trial. Radiat Oncol 2023; 18 (1): 185. doi: 10.1186/s13014-023-02361-x.

19. San A, Rahman RK, Sanmugananthan P et al. Health-related quality of life outcomes in meningioma patients based upon tumor location and treatment modality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15 (19): 4680. doi: 10.3390/cancers15194680.

20. Pilz MJ, Rothmund M, Lidington E et al. Content comparison of the EORTC CAT core, SF-36, FACT-G, and PROMIS role and social functioning measures based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Psychooncology 2023; 32 (9): 1372–1384. doi: 10.1002/pon.6188.

21. Lee TJ, Thomas AA, Grandhi NR et al. Cost-effectiveness applications of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg 2020; 33 (4): 140–145. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000982.

22. World Health Organization. WHOQOL-BREF : introduction, administration, scoring and generic version of the assessment: field trial version, December 1996. [online]. Available from: https: //www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHOQOL-BREF

23. World Healt Organisation. Programme on mental health: WHOQOL user manual, 2012 revision. [online]. Available from: https: //www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HIS-HSI-Rev.2012-3.

24. Harper A, Power M, Orley J et al. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychol Med 1998; 28 (3): 551–558. doi: 10.1017/S0033291798006667.

25. The development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (the WHOQOL). In: Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Springer: Berlin Heidelberg.

26. Klinika adiktologie. Dotazník SF 36. [online]. Dostupné z: https: //www.adiktologie.cz/dotaznik-sf-36.

27. Lins L, Carvalho FM. SF-36 total score as a single measure of health-related quality of life: scoping review. SAGE Open Med 2016; 4: 2050312116671725. doi: 10.1177/2050312116671725.

28. Ústav zdravotnických informací a statistiky ČR. Ostatní oborové klasifikace a škály. [online]. Dostupné z: https: //www.uzis.cz/index.php?pg=registry-sber-dat-klasifikace-ostatni-oborove-klasifikace-a-skaly#sf-36.

29. Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 79. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-79.

30. FACIT.org. Measures & language availability. [online]. Available from: https: //www.facit.org/measures-language-availability.

31. EORTC – quality of life. Questionnaires. [online]. Available from: https: //qol.eortc.org/questionnaires.

32. Nolte S, Liegl G, Petersen MA et al. General population normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire based on 15,386 persons across 13 European countries, Canada and the Unites States. Eur J Cancer 2019; 107: 153–163. Doi: 10.1016/J.EJCA.2018.11.024.

33. Fayers P, Bottomley A. Quality of life research within the EORTC – the EORTC QLQ-C30. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38 (Suppl 4): 125–133. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049 (01) 00448-8.

34. Kaasa S, Bjordal K, Aaronson N et al. The EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30): validity and reliability when analysed with patients treated with palliative radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A (13–14): 2260–2263. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049 (95) 00296-0.

35. EORTC. Scoring of the QLQ-C30 summary score. [online]. Available from: https: //www.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/02/SCmanual.pdf.

36. EORTC. Manuals. [online]. Available from: https: //qol.eortc.org/manuals/.

37. Burkon P, Slavik M, Kazda T et al. Heel spur radiotherapy: prospective randomized clinical trial. Radiother Oncol 2024; 194: 1855–1857. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8140 (24) 01055-7.

38. Prokein B, Holtmann H, Hautmann MG et al. Radiotherapy of painful heel spur with two fractionation regimens: results of a randomized multicenter trial after 48 weeks’ follow-up. Strahlenther Onkol 2017; 193 (6): 483–490. doi: 10.1007/S00066-017-1116-Y.