Elsevier

Oral Oncology

Volume 48, Issue 10, October 2012, Pages 923-937
Oral Oncology

Review
A systematic review of head and neck cancer quality of life assessment instruments

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2012.03.025Get rights and content

Summary

Although quality of life (QOL) is an important treatment outcome in head and neck cancer (HNC), cross-study comparisons have been hampered by the heterogeneity of measures used and the fact that reviews of HNC QOL instruments have not been comprehensive to date. We performed a systematic review of the published literature on HNC QOL instruments from 1990 to 2010, categorized, and reviewed the properties of the instruments using international guidelines as reference. Of the 2766 articles retrieved, 710 met the inclusion criteria and used 57 different head and neck-specific instruments to assess QOL. A review of the properties of these utilized measures and identification of areas in need of further research is presented. Given the volume and heterogeneity of QOL measures, there is no gold standard questionnaire. Therefore, when selecting instruments, researchers should consider not only psychometric properties but also research objectives, study design, and the pitfalls and benefits of combining different measures. Although great strides have been made in the assessment of QOL in HNC and researchers now have a plethora of quality instruments to choose from, more work is needed to improve the clinical utility of these measures in order to link QOL research to clinical practice. This review provides a platform for head and neck-specific instrument comparisons, with suggestions of important factors to consider in the systematic selection of QOL instruments, and is a first step towards translation of QOL assessment into the clinical scene.

Introduction

Head and neck cancers (HNCs) account for only 4% of all cancer cases in the US1; however, the disease and its treatment have a disproportionate impact on all aspects of patient quality of life (QOL). QOL is a multi-dimensional construct of an individual’s subjective assessment of the impact of an illness or treatment on his or her physical, psychological, social, and somatic functioning and general well-being.2, 3 Patients with HNC report significant and persistent physical (i.e., radionecrosis, mucositis, loss of taste, and dysphagia),4, 5, 6, 7 functional (i.e., pain, difficulty swallowing, voice impairment, and poor dental status),8, 9, 10, 11 and psychosocial problems (i.e., depression, disfigurement, social isolation, and delays returning to work).12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Given that QOL domains have been shown to predict survival among HNC patients,19, 20, 21 it is not surprising that QOL has become an important treatment outcome in HNC.22, 23, 24

QOL assessment in HNC is critical not only to the evaluation of treatment options, but also to the development of rehabilitative services and patient education materials. Despite this fact, there is a lack of understanding of the true clinical significance of QOL in HNC and how to best interpret and implement the results of research studies into clinical practice. This problem has been fueled by the lack of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in HNC that prospectively assess QOL, the use of sometimes inappropriate measures, and the lack of a gold-standard measure to facilitate cross-study comparisons. Adding to the problem, researchers often combine QOL measures in their studies without fully understanding how they complement or conflict with each other. For example, many generic, cancer-specific, and HNC disease-specific measures have overlapping content (e.g., they assess mental and physical quality of life),3 but are often used together by investigators in the same study.

Developing a clearer understanding of the plethora of available instruments and their properties is a necessary first step towards addressing the above problems and bridging the gap between research and clinical practice. However, existing reviews of QOL instruments in the HNC literature have not been comprehensive2, 25, 26, 27 in their scope. Moreover, existing QOL instrument databases, like the PROQOLID,28 are nonspecific and lack information on some instruments commonly used in HNC and subscription fees for key information (e.g., psychometric properties) in such databases, hamper their utilization among researchers with limited budgets. Furthermore, these databases, like previous reviews, often lack information on the QOL issues or domains addressed by the instruments, a key component of the instrument selection process.

According to the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust (SAC-MOT) for the development and validation of health outcomes questionnaires29 and other international guidelines,29, 30, 31, 32, 33 high-quality measures of QOL should be reliable, valid, and demonstrate responsiveness (the ability to detect change over time).29, 32, 33 Other characteristics to consider when evaluating measures include the conceptual and empirical basis for content generation, whether there is reasonable respondent and administrative burden, and whether the measure has been translated and validated for use in cross-cultural populations.29

We conducted a comprehensive and systematic review of QOL instruments that have been used to assess HNC patients over the past two decades and synthesized the published information on these measures using the SAC-MOT guidelines. Unlike other reviews, this review makes recommendations that take into consideration the frequency of utilization of each QOL instrument in the literature. For the purpose of this review, administrative and respondent burden were not assessed because it would require consideration of several subjective variables (disease burden, questionnaire format, response system, mode of delivery, and individual variability). Although, a number of generic measures of QOL and psychosocial functioning exist that have been used with HNC patients, our review focuses exclusively on HNC-specific instruments. By reviewing existing measures and discussing the selection of appropriate QOL instruments, with a view to making recommendations for future studies, we hope this review serves as a platform to improve QOL assessment in HNC, facilitate cross-study comparisons, and ultimately bridge the gap between research and clinical practice.

Section snippets

Literature search

Using the following key terms – “head and neck cancer”, “quality of life”, “speech”, “voice”, “swallowing”, “appearance”, “questionnaire”, “scale”, “score”, “instrument”, and “inventory” – we conducted an electronic bibliographic search of studies from January 1990 to November 17, 2010. We searched the following databases: PubMed, Health and Psychosocial instruments, Science Citation Index/Social Sciences Citation Index, and PsycINFO (Psychological Abstracts). Non-English citations were

Results

Most of the studies described in the 710 articles included in this review were cross-sectional (353) or longitudinal descriptive studies (235). Few RCTs (35) met the article selection criteria. Instruments from the articles (Fig. 1) were excluded if they were generic (n = 8), broadly cancer-specific i.e. not specific to the head and neck (n = 6), non-specific for symptoms, fatigue, or pain (n = 9), psychosocial (n = 24), functional (e.g., performance status) or toxicity (n = 6) instruments, screening

Discussion

Although there has been a remarkable growth in the assessment of QOL in HNC studies over the past two decades, the inconsistencies in design elements and the lack of unified reporting standards for studies testing QOL instruments, make it difficult to pool data in order to make general statements on QOL that will aid clinical decision making.

One consistently different factor among studies is the choice of QOL instrument as evidenced by the differences in frequency of use of each available

Role of the funding source

This work was supported in part by a career development grant [K07CA124668] from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health awarded to [H.B.]. This funding organization did not play any role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or publication.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

References (112)

  • G. Van der Heijden et al.

    Shoulder disability questionnaire design and responsiveness of a functional status measure

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2000)
  • S.J. Cano et al.

    The Patient Outcomes of Surgery-Head/Neck (POS-head/neck): a new patient-based outcome measure

    J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg

    (2006)
  • A. Eisbruch et al.

    Xerostomia and its predictors following parotid-sparing irradiation of head-and-neck cancer

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2001)
  • W. Thomson et al.

    Further testing of the xerostomia inventory

    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod

    (2000)
  • K. Wallace et al.

    Development and validation of a self-report symptom inventory to assess the severity of oral–pharyngeal dysphagia

    Gastroenterology

    (2000)
  • P. Garcia-Peris et al.

    Long-term prevalence of oropharyngeal dysphagia in head and neck cancer patients: impact on quality of life

    Clin Nutr

    (2007)
  • R.C. Dwivedi et al.

    Validation of the Sydney Swallow Questionnaire (SSQ) in a cohort of head and neck cancer patients

    Oral Oncol

    (2010)
  • A. Pace-Balzan et al.

    The further development and validation of the Liverpool Oral Rehabilitation Questionnaire: a cross-sectional survey of patients attending for oral rehabilitation and general dental practice

    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg

    (2006)
  • B.S. Henson et al.

    Preserved salivary output and xerostomia-related quality of life in head and neck cancer patients receiving parotid-sparing radiotherapy

    Oral Oncol

    (2001)
  • R. Gliklich et al.

    Validation of a voice outcome survey for unilateral vocal cord paralysis

    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

    (1999)
  • N. Hogikyan et al.

    Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL)

    J Voice

    (1999)
  • C.D. van Gogh et al.

    A screening questionnaire for voice problems after treatment of early glottic cancer

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2005)
  • S. Moolenburgh et al.

    Validation of a questionnaire assessing patient’s aesthetic and functional outcome after nasal reconstruction: the patient NAFEQ-score

    J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg

    (2009)
  • N.K. Aaronson

    Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: methodologic issues

    Control Clin Trials

    (1989)
  • Cancer facts and figures

    (2005)
  • W. Breitbart et al.

    Psychosocial aspects of head and neck cancer

    Semin Oncol

    (1988)
  • E.R. Gritz et al.

    First year after head and neck cancer: quality of life

    J Clin Oncol

    (1999)
  • F.J. Keefe et al.

    Depression, pain, and pain behavior

    J Consult Clin Psychol

    (1986)
  • M.A. List et al.

    A performance status scale for head and neck cancer patients

    Cancer

    (1990)
  • M.A. List et al.

    Evaluation of quality of life in patients definitively treated for squamous carcinoma of the head and neck

    Curr Opin Oncol

    (2000)
  • R.L. Duke et al.

    Dental status and quality of life in long-term head and neck cancer survivors

    Laryngoscope

    (2005)
  • R. Morton et al.

    Quality of life in treated head and neck cancer patients: a preliminary report

    Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci

    (1984)
  • J. Zabora et al.

    The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site

    Psycho Oncology

    (2001)
  • N. Chiu et al.

    Clinical characteristics of outpatients at a psycho-oncology clinic in a radiation oncology department

    Chang Gung Med J

    (2001)
  • S. Misono et al.

    Incidence of suicide in persons with cancer

    J Clin Oncol

    (2008)
  • J.H. Krouse et al.

    Adaptation to surgery for head and neck cancer

    Laryngoscope

    (1989)
  • M.B. Howren et al.

    Health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors: impact of pretreatment depressive symptoms

    Health Psychol

    (2010)
  • F. Meyer et al.

    Health-related quality of life as a survival predictor for patients with localized head and neck cancer treated with radiation therapy

    J Clin Oncol

    (2009)
  • C.A. Karvonen-Gutierrez et al.

    Quality of life scores predict survival among patients with head and neck cancer

    J Clin Oncol

    (2008)
  • J. Scharpf et al.

    The role of pain in head and neck cancer recurrence and survivorship

    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

    (2009)
  • Induction chemotherapy plus radiation compared with surgery plus radiation in patients with advanced laryngeal cancer....
  • J.E. Terrell et al.

    Long-term quality of life after treatment of laryngeal cancer. The Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group

    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

    (1998)
  • P. Trask et al.

    Other paradigms: health-related quality of life as a measure in cancer treatment: its importance and relevance

    Cancer J

    (2009)
  • C.C. Gotay et al.

    Assessing quality of life in head and neck cancer

    Qual Life Res

    (1992)
  • J. Ringash et al.

    A structured review of quality of life instruments for head and neck cancer patients

    Head Neck

    (2001)
  • Patient-reported outcome and quality of life instruments database. MAPI Research Trust. <http://www.proqolid.org/>;...
  • K.N. Lohr

    Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria

    Qual Life Res

    (2002)
  • F. Efficace et al.

    Beyond the development of health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) Measures: A checklist for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials – does HRQOL evaluation in prostate cancer research inform clinical decision making?

    J Clin Oncol

    (2003)
  • C.L. Kimberlin et al.

    Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research

    Am J Health Syst Pharm

    (2008)
  • D. Moher et al.

    Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

    Ann Intern Med

    (2009)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text