Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cancer Causes & Control
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 2/2024

Open Access 25-09-2023 | Colonoscopy | Original Paper

Health utility assessments in individuals undergoing diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopy: improved discrimination with a cancer-specific scale

Authors: Norma B. Bulamu, Gang Chen, Ellen McGrane, Charles Cock, Graeme P. Young, Erin L. Symonds

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 2/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the sensitivity and discriminant validity of generic and cancer-specific measures for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for individuals undergoing diagnostic or surveillance colonoscopy for colorectal cancer.

Methods

HRQoL was assessed using EQ-5D-5L (generic), and EORTC QLQ-C30 (cancer-specific) scales, 14 days after (baseline) and one-year following colonoscopy (follow-up). Utility scores were calculated by mapping EORTC-QLQ-C30 onto QLU-C10D. Differences between participants with different indications for colonoscopy (positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT), surveillance, or symptoms) and colonoscopy findings (no polyps, polyps, or cancer) were tested using Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis H tests. Sensitivity was assessed by calculating the ceiling effects (proportion reporting the best possible level).

Results

246 adults completed the survey, including those undergoing colonoscopy for symptoms (n = 87), positive FOBT (n = 92) or surveillance (n = 67). Those with symptoms had the lowest HRQoL at both baseline and follow-up, with differences observed within the HRQoL domains/areas of role function, appetite loss and bowel function on the QLU-C10D. No differences were found in HRQoL when stratified by findings at colonoscopy with both measures or when comparing baseline and follow-up responses. Participants reporting full health with EQ-5D-5L (21% at baseline and 16% at follow-up) still had problems on the QLU-C10D, with fatigue and sleep at baseline and with role function and fatigue at follow-up.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing colonoscopy for symptoms had lower HRQoL compared to surveillance or positive FOBT. The cancer-specific QLU-C10D was more sensitive and had greater discriminant ability between patients undergoing colonoscopy for different indications.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Rawla P, Sunkara T, Barsouk A (2019) Epidemiology of colorectal cancer: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors. Prz Gastroenterol 14(2):89–103PubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Safiri S, Sepanlou SG, Ikuta KS, Bisignano C, Salimzadeh H, Delavari A, Ansari R, Roshandel G, Merat S, Fitzmaurice C et al (2019) The global, regional, and national burden of colorectal cancer and its attributable risk factors in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of disease study 2017. The Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatology 4(12):913–933CrossRef
4.
Brenner H, Jansen L, Ulrich A, Chang-Claude J, Hoffmeister M (2016) Survival of patients with symptom- and screening-detected colorectal cancer. Oncotarget 7(28):44695–44704PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Kubisch CH, Crispin A, Mansmann U, Göke B, Kolligs FT (2016) Screening for Colorectal Cancer Is Associated With Lower Disease Stage: A Population-Based Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 14(11):1612-1618.e1613PubMedCrossRef
6.
Kerr J, Day P, Broadstock M, Weir R, Bidwell S (2007) Systematic review of the effectiveness of population screening for colorectal cancer. N Z Med J 120(1258):U2629PubMed
7.
Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, Cabana M, Caughey AB, Davis EM, Donahue KE, Doubeni CA, Krist AH, Kubik M et al (2021) Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 325(19):1965–1977PubMedCrossRef
8.
Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, Towler B, Irwig L (2008) Cochrane Systematic Review of Colorectal Cancer Screening Using the Fecal Occult Blood Test (Hemoccult): An Update. Official journal of the American College of Gastroenterology | ACG 103 (6) 1541
9.
Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, O'Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS, Waye JD, Schapiro M, Bond JH, Panish JF et al (1993) Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 329 (27) 1977–1981.
10.
Jenkins MA, Ait Ouakrim D, Boussioutas A, Hopper JL, Ee HC, Emery JD, Macrae FA, Chetcuti A, Wuellner L, St John DJB (2018) Revised Australian national guidelines for colorectal cancer screening: family history. Med J Aust 209(10):455–460PubMedCrossRef
11.
Cancer Council Australia Surveillance Colonoscopy Guidelines Working Party: Clinical Practice Guidelines for Surveillance Colonoscopy. In. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia; September 2018.
12.
Cole SR, Tucker GR, Osborne JM, Byrne SE, Bampton PA, Fraser RJ, Young GP (2013) Shift to earlier stage at diagnosis as a consequence of the national bowel cancer screening program. Med J Aust 198(6):327–330PubMedCrossRef
13.
Chiu HM, Jen GH, Wang YW, Fann JC, Hsu CY, Jeng YC, Yen AM, Chiu SY, Chen SL, Hsu WF et al (2021) Long-term effectiveness of faecal immunochemical test screening for proximal and distal colorectal cancers. Gut 70(12):2321–2329PubMedCrossRef
14.
Chiu HM, Chen SL, Yen AM, Chiu SY, Fann JC, Lee YC, Pan SL, Wu MS, Liao CS, Chen HH et al (2015) Effectiveness of fecal immunochemical testing in reducing colorectal cancer mortality from the one million Taiwanese screening program. Cancer 121(18):3221–3229PubMedCrossRef
15.
Nelson DB, McQuaid KR, Bond JH, Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Johnston TK (2002) Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 55(3):307–314PubMedCrossRef
16.
Pizzo E, Pezzoli A, Stockbrugger R, Bracci E, Vagnoni E, Gullini S (2011) Screenee perception and health-related quality of life in colorectal cancer screening: A review. Value in Health 14(1):152–159PubMedCrossRef
17.
Kirkøen B, Berstad P, Botteri E, Åvitsland TL, Ossum AM, de Lange T, Hoff G, Bernklev T (2016) Do no harm: no psychological harm from colorectal cancer screening. Br J Cancer 114(5):497–504PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Taupin D, Chambers SL, Corbett M, Shadbolt B (2006) Colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer improves quality of life measures: a population-based screening study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:82–82PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Lorgelly PK, Doble B, Rowen D, Brazier J (2017) Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? a comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L. Qual Life Res 26(5):1163–1176PubMedCrossRef
20.
Teckle P, Peacock S, McTaggart-Cowan H, van der Hoek K, Chia S, Melosky B, Gelmon K (2011) The ability of cancer-specific and generic preference-based instruments to discriminate across clinical and self-reported measures of cancer severities. Health Qual Life Outcomes 9:106–106PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Bulamu NB, Vissapragada R, Chen G, Ratcliffe J, Mudge LA, Smithers BM, Isenring EA, Smith L, Jamieson GG, Watson DI et al (2021) Responsiveness and convergent validity of QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L in assessing short-term quality of life following esophagectomy. Health Qual Life Outcomes 19(1):233PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
van Roij J, Fransen H, van de Poll-Franse L, Zijlstra M, Raijmakers N (2018) Measuring health-related quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review of self-administered measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 27(8):1937–1955PubMedCrossRef
23.
Moschopoulou E, Deane J, Duncan M, Ismail SA, Moriarty S, Sarker S-J, White P, Korszun A, Bhui K, Bourke L et al (2021) Measuring quality of life in people living with and beyond cancer in the UK. Support Care Cancer 29(10):6031–6038PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Calderwood AH, Carter C, Durand MA, O’Connor S, Boardman M (2021) Impact of knowledge and risk perceptions on older Adults’ intention for surveillance colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol 55(6):528–533PubMedCrossRef
25.
Elias PS, Romagnuolo J, Hoffman B (2012) Poor patient knowledge regarding family history of colon polyps: implications for the feasibility of stratified screening recommendations. Gastrointest Endosc 75(3):598–603PubMedCrossRef
26.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X (2011) Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 20(10):1727–1736PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, de Haes JC et al (1993) The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):365–376PubMedCrossRef
28.
Bobridge A, Bampton P, Cole S, Lewis H, Young G (2014) The psychological impact of participating in colorectal cancer screening by faecal immuno-chemical testing–the Australian experience. Br J Cancer 111(5):970–975PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Laing SS, Bogart A, Chubak J, Fuller S, Green BB (2014) Psychological distress after a positive fecal occult blood test result among members of an integrated healthcare delivery system. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 23(1):154–159PubMedCrossRef
30.
Llovet D, Serenity M, Conn LG, Bravo CA, McCurdy BR, Dubé C, Baxter NN, Paszat L, Rabeneck L, Peters A et al (2018) Reasons for lack of follow-up colonoscopy among persons with a positive fecal occult blood test result: a qualitative study. Am J Gastroenterol 113(12):1872–1880PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard AS (2012) Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 15(5):708–715PubMedCrossRef
32.
King MT, Costa DS, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, Cella DF, Fayers PM, Grimison P, Janda M, Kemmler G, Norman R et al (2016) QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 25(3):625–636PubMedCrossRef
33.
King MT, Viney R, Simon Pickard A, Rowen D, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, Cella D, Costa DSJ, Fayers PM, Kemmler G et al (2018) Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. Pharmacoeconomics 36(2):225–238PubMedCrossRef
34.
Taylor TH: Ceiling Effect In: Encyclopedia of Research Design. edn. Edited by Salkind NJ. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2010: 133–134.
35.
De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL: Validity. In: Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2011: 170.
36.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2010) The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63(7):737–745PubMedCrossRef
37.
Pourhoseingholi MA, Baghestani AR, Vahedi M (2012) How to control confounding effects by statistical analysis. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench 5(2):79–83PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Keramat SA, Ahammed B, Mohammed A, Seidu AA, Farjana F, Hashmi R, Ahmad K, Haque R, Ahmed S, Ali MA et al (2022) Disability, physical activity, and health-related quality of life in Australian adults: An investigation using 19 waves of a longitudinal cohort. PLoS ONE 17(5):e0268304PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Gudina AT, Cheruvu VK, Gilmore NJ, Kleckner AS, Arana-Chicas E, Kehoe LA, Belcher EK, Cupertino AP (2021) Health related quality of life in adult cancer survivors: importance of social and emotional support. Cancer Epidemiol 74:101996PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Manne S, Devine K, Hudson S, Kashy D, O’Malley D, Paddock LE, Bandera EV, Llanos AAM, Fong A, Singh N et al (2023) Factors associated with health-related quality of life in a cohort of cancer survivors in New Jersey. BMC Cancer 23(1):664PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Kim K, Yoon H (2021) Health-related quality of life among cancer survivors depending on the occupational status. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(7):11CrossRef
42.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42PubMedCrossRef
43.
Niv Y, Bogolavski I, Ilani S, Avni I, Gal E, Vilkin A, Levi Z (2012) Impact of colonoscopy on quality of life. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 24(7):781–786PubMedCrossRef
44.
Vermeer NCA, van der Valk MJM, Snijders HS, Vasen HFA, Gerritsen van der Hoop A, Guicherit OR, Liefers G-J, van de Velde CJH, Stiggelbout AM, Peeters KCMJ (2020) Psychological distress and quality of life following positive fecal occult blood testing in colorectal cancer screening. Psycho-Oncology 29(6):1084–1091PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
Bulamu NB, Chen G, Ratcliffe J, Schloite A, Bright T, Watson DI (2019) Health-related quality of life associated with barrett’s Esophagus and cancer. World J Surg 43(6):1554–1562PubMedCrossRef
46.
Niedzwiedz CL, Knifton L, Robb KA, Katikireddi SV, Smith DJ (2019) Depression and anxiety among people living with and beyond cancer: a growing clinical and research priority. BMC Cancer 19(1):943PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Kirkøen B, Berstad P, Botteri E, Bernklev L, El-Safadi B, Hoff G, de Lange T, Bernklev T (2016) Psychological effects of colorectal cancer screening: Participants vs individuals not invited. World J Gastroenterol 22(43):9631–9641PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Adelstein B-A, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Katelaris PH, Irwig L (2011) Most bowel cancer symptoms do not indicate colorectal cancer and polyps: a systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol 11(1):65PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
Majumdar SR, Fletcher RH, Evans AT (1999) How does colorectal cancer present? Symptoms, duration, and clues to location. Am J Gastroenterol 94(10):3039–3045PubMedCrossRef
50.
Herdman M, Kerr C, Pavesi M, Garside J, Lloyd A, Cubi-Molla P, Devlin N (2020) Testing the validity and responsiveness of a new cancer-specific health utility measure (FACT-8D) in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma, and comparison to EQ-5D-5L. J Patient Rep Outcomes 4(1):22PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Chen G, Olsen JA (2020) Filling the psycho-social gap in the EQ-5D: the empirical support for four bolt-on dimensions. Qual Life Res 29(11):3119–3129PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Spronk I, Polinder S, Bonsel GJ, Janssen MF, Haagsma JA (2021) The relation between EQ-5D and fatigue in a Dutch general population sample: an explorative study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 19(1):135PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence: Position statement on use of the EQ-5D-5L value set for England (updated October 2019). In.: National Institute of Health and Care Excellence; 2019.
54.
Medical Services Advisory Committee: Technical Guidelines for preparing assessment reports for the Medical Services Advisory Committee – Service Type: Investigative (Version 3.0). In., vol. Version 3.0. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Department of Health; 2017.
55.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Guidelines for preparing a submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. In., vol. Version 5.0. Adelaide, South Australia: Australian Government Department of Health; 2016.
56.
Neve OM, van Benthem PPG, Stiggelbout AM, Hensen EF (2021) Response rate of patient reported outcomes: the delivery method matters. BMC Med Res Methodol 21(1):220PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
Yin-Bun C, Lea-Choung W, Miah-Hiang T, Chee-Keong T, Wen-Hsin K, Epstein R, Cynthia G (2004) Order effects in the assessment of quality of life in cancer patients. Qual Life Res 13(7):1217–1223CrossRef
58.
Rat AC, Baumann C, Klein S, Loeuille D, Guillemin F (2008) Effect of order of presentation of a generic and a specific health-related quality of life instrument in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a randomized study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 16(4):429–435PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Health utility assessments in individuals undergoing diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopy: improved discrimination with a cancer-specific scale
Authors
Norma B. Bulamu
Gang Chen
Ellen McGrane
Charles Cock
Graeme P. Young
Erin L. Symonds
Publication date
25-09-2023
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 2/2024
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-023-01789-6

Other articles of this Issue 2/2024

Cancer Causes & Control 2/2024 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Health equity in action: using community-engaged research to update an intervention promoting a healthy home food environment to Black/African American families

Original Paper

Nativity differences in socioeconomic barriers and healthcare delays among cancer survivors in the All of Us cohort

Original Paper

Factors associated with adherence to medications for lowering breast cancer risk between female Medicare beneficiaries in Alabama and nationwide

Original Paper

Socioeconomic and geographic disparities of breast cancer incidence according to stage at diagnosis in France

Original Paper

Prevalence and predictors of colorectal cancer screening in the United States: evidence from the HINTS database 2018 to 2020

Review

Persistent cervical cancer disparities among American Indian/Alaska Native women: a systematic scoping review exploring the state of the science in this population
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits