» Articles » PMID: 38466031

Psychometric Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endometrial Among Endometrial Cancer Patients

Overview
Journal Cancer Med
Specialty Oncology
Date 2024 Mar 11
PMID 38466031
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To evaluate a psychometric validation of the endometrial cancer subscales (EnCS) in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endometrial (FACT-EN) among patients with endometrial cancer.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary university-based hospital in South Korea between April and October 2022. Participants completed a survey questionnaire that included the FACT-EN. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA, CFA) and the reliability were measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) under a two-way mixed model. Pearson's correlations were used to evaluate the validity. We also tested known-group validity.

Results: In total, 240 patients with endometrial cancer participated in the survey. In EFA, we found EnCS included four domains. In CFA, four-factor solution model was good: CFI = 0.659; SRMR = 0.066, and RMSEA = 0.073. The mean (SD) of total score of FACT-EN was 122.84 (23.58). The floor and ceiling effects were 0.4% and 0.4%, respectively. Cronbach's α coefficients for the five scales of the EnCS ranged from 0.78 to 0.91. The ICC of EnCS was 0.76. The convergent and discriminant validity of EnCS was acceptable. In the group analysis, older age and lower ECOG performance scores were associated with higher EnCS scores. The stomach and vaginal domains in EnCS were higher in patients who had completed treatment for more than 1 year compared to those who were still undergoing treatment.

Conclusions: FACT-EN has demonstrated its validity as an assessment tool with significant implications for capturing various symptoms in patients with endometrial cancer.

Citing Articles

Psychometric validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endometrial among endometrial cancer patients.

Kim S, Noh J, Kim Y, Cho J, Kang D, Lee Y Cancer Med. 2024; 13(5):e7096.

PMID: 38466031 PMC: 10926879. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.7096.

References
1.
Chan Y, Ngan H, Li B, Yip A, Ng T, Lee P . A longitudinal study on quality of life after gynecologic cancer treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 83(1):10-9. DOI: 10.1006/gyno.2001.6345. View

2.
Joly F, McAlpine J, Nout R, Avall-Lundqvist E, Shash E, Friedlander M . Quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in endometrial cancer clinical trials: a call for action!. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014; 24(9):1693-9. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000299. View

3.
Clarke M, Devesa S, Harvey S, Wentzensen N . Hysterectomy-Corrected Uterine Corpus Cancer Incidence Trends and Differences in Relative Survival Reveal Racial Disparities and Rising Rates of Nonendometrioid Cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2019; 37(22):1895-1908. PMC: 6675596. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.00151. View

4.
Glasspool R, Wheelwright S, Bolton V, Calman L, Cummings A, Elledge B . Modifiable pre-treatment factors are associated with quality of life in women with gynaecological cancers at diagnosis and one year later: Results from the HORIZONS UK national cohort study. Gynecol Oncol. 2022; 165(3):610-618. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.03.012. View

5.
Yun Y, Park Y, Lee E, Bang S, Heo D, Park S . Validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2004; 13(4):863-8. DOI: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000021692.81214.70. View