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
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 7/2012

01-07-2012 | Original Article

Development and validation of the simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-H&N35 for patients with head and neck cancer

Authors: Zheng Yang, Qiong Meng, Jiahong Luo, Qian Lu, Xiaojiang Li, Gaofeng Li, Chonghua Wan

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 7/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Goals

A simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-H&N35 was developed using strict translation procedures according to EORTC translation guidelines. Psychometric properties were evaluated.

Patients and methods

Three instruments (QLQ-H&N35, QLICP-HN, and FACT-H&N) were used in a sample of 133 patients with head and neck cancer at the time of their admission to the hospital. Each patient was assessed for the second time 1–2 days after hospitalization so that the test–retest reliability could be calculated. A sub-sample of patients was sampled and measured for the third time at discharge in order to evaluate the responsiveness.

Results

Correlation analysis among domains and items of the three instruments showed good construct validity and criterion-related validity. Comparisons of QLQ-H&N35 between treatment groups and age groups supported clinical validity. The internal consistency reliability measured by Cronbach’s coefficient α was greater than 0.70 for all multi-item domains, and test–retest reliability coefficients for all domains were greater than 0.80, ranging from 0.88 to 0.95. Score changes between pre- and post-treatment were observed in 6 out of 18 domains, with effect size SRM ranging from 0.27 to 0.87.

Conclusions

The simplified Chinese version of QLQ-H&N35 demonstrates good validity, reliability, and responsiveness and can be used to measure QOL for Chinese patients with head and neck cancer.
Literature
1.
Weiss MH (1993) Head and neck cancer and the quality of life. Otolaryngol—Head Neck Surg 108(4):311–312PubMed
2.
Chie WC, Hong RL, Lai CC, Ting LL, Hsu MM (2003) Quality of life in patients of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQH&N35. Qual Life Res 12:93–98PubMedCrossRef
3.
Morris J (1994) Widening perspectives: quality of life as a measure of outcome in the treatment of patients with cancers of the head and neck. Oral Oncol 30B:29–31
4.
Osoba D (1992) The quality of life committee of the clinical trials group of the National Cancer Institute of Canada: organization and functions. Qual Life Res 1:203–211CrossRef
5.
Ganz PA, Bernhard J, Hurny C (1991) Quality of life and psychosocial oncology research in Europe: state of the art. J Psychosoc Oncol 9:1–22CrossRef
6.
Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ 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 85:365–376PubMedCrossRef
7.
Hjermsted MJ, Fossa SD, Bjordal K, Kaasa S (1995) Test–retest study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-life Questionnaire. J Clin Oncol 13:1249–1254
8.
Groenvold M, Klee MC, Sprangers MAG, Aaronson NK (1997) Validation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire through combined qualitative and quantitative assessment of patient–observer agreement. J Clin Epidemiol 50:441–450PubMedCrossRef
9.
Wan CH, Meng Q, Yang Z, Tu X, Feng CY, Tang XL et al (2008) Validation of the simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-C30 from the measurements of five types of in patients with cancer. Annals Oncol 19(12):2053–2060CrossRef
10.
Bjordal K, Kaasa S (1992) Psychometric validation of the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire, 30-item version and a diagnosis-specific module for head and neck cancer patients. Acta Oncol 31:311–321PubMedCrossRef
11.
Chaukar DA, Das AK, Deshpande MS, Pai PS, Pathak KA, Chaturvedi P et al (2005) Quality of life in head and neck cancer patient: validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-H&N35 in Indian patients. Indian J Cancer 42(4):178–184PubMed
12.
Bjordal K, de Graeff A, Fayers PM, Hammerlid E, van Pottelsberghe C, Curran D et al (2000) A 12 country field study of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) and the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) in head and neck patients. Eur J Cancer 36:1796–1807PubMedCrossRef
13.
Sherman AC, Simonton S, Adams DS, Vural E, Owens B, Hanna E (2000) Assessing quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer, cross-validation of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Head and Neck Module (QLQ-H&N35). Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 126:459–467PubMed
14.
Ringash J, Bezjak A, O’Sullivan B, Redelmeier DA (2004) Interpreting differences in quality of life: the FACT-H&N in laryngeal cancer patients. Qual Life Res 13:725–733PubMedCrossRef
15.
Ringash J, Bezjak A (2001) A structured review of quality of life instruments for head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck 23:201–213PubMedCrossRef
16.
Cull A, Sprangers M, Bjordal K (2002) EORTC quality of life study group translation procedure. Second edition, EORTC QL unit
17.
Luo JH, Tang XL, Li XJ, Yang Z, Xu Y, Gao LM (2007) Multiple factors analysis for the reliability and validity of Chinese version of FACT-H&N in patients with head and neck cancer. Chin J Hosp Stat 14(2):105–107, in Chinese
18.
Chang JT, Chang CH, Juang YY, Hsiao JC, Lin CY, Huang SF et al (2008) Internal consistency of the traditional Chinese character version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck (FACT-H&N). Chang Gung Med J 31(4):384–394PubMed
19.
Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A et al (1993) The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11(3):570–579PubMed
20.
Wan CH, Yang Z, Meng Q, Feng CY, Wang HY, Tang XL et al (2008) Development and validation of the General Module of the System of Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients (QLICP-GM). Int J Cancer 122(1):190–196PubMedCrossRef
21.
Wan CH, Yang Z, Tang XL et al (2009) Development and validation of the System of Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients: Breast Cancer (QLICP-BR). Support Care Canc 17(4):359–366CrossRef
22.
Wan CH, Lu YB, Tang W et al (2008) Development and validation of the System of Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients: Lung Cancer (QLICP-LU). Lung Cancer 60(1):105–112PubMedCrossRef
23.
Luo JH, Wan CH, Meng Q, Tang XL, Yang Z, Li XJ et al (2007) Development and evaluation of the Chinese Quality of Life Instrument for Cancer Patients—Head and Neck Cancer QLICP-HN (in Chinese). Modem Prevent Med 34(21):4023–4025
24.
Hays RD, Hayashi T (1990) Beyond internal consistency reliability: rationale and user’s guide for multi-trait analysis program on the microcomputer. Behav Res Methods Instrum Compu 22:167–175CrossRef
25.
McGraw KO, Wong SP (1996) Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1(1):30–46CrossRef
26.
Schuck P (2004) Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: which coefficient should be used? Qual Life Res 13:571–586PubMedCrossRef
27.
Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM (2003) On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 12(4):349–363PubMedCrossRef
28.
Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD (2000) Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 53(5):459–468PubMedCrossRef
29.
Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G (1997) Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 50:869–879PubMedCrossRef
30.
Anderson JJ, Chernoff MC (1993) Sensitivity to change of rheumatoid arthritis clinical trial outcome measures. J Rheumatol 20:535–537PubMed
31.
Van der Steeg AFW, De Vries J, Roukema JA (2004) Quality of life and health status in breast carcinoma. EJSO 30:1051–1057PubMed
Metadata
Title
Development and validation of the simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-H&N35 for patients with head and neck cancer
Authors
Zheng Yang
Qiong Meng
Jiahong Luo
Qian Lu
Xiaojiang Li
Gaofeng Li
Chonghua Wan
Publication date
01-07-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 7/2012
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1247-0

Other articles of this Issue 7/2012

Supportive Care in Cancer 7/2012 Go to the issue

Short Communication

Lenalidomide cutaneous adverse event: a case of Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS) in a primary plasma cell leukaemia patient treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone

Original Article

Incidence of febrile neutropenia among early-stage breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy

Original Article

Decrease in the vinorelbine-induced venous irritation by pharmaceutical intervention

Original Article

Caregivers’ morbidity in palliative care unit: predicting by gender, age, burden and self-esteem

Review Article

Management of cutaneous adverse events induced by anti-EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor): a French interdisciplinary therapeutic algorithm

Original Article

Examining the role of physical activity in reducing postcancer fatigue
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