Patient-reported outcome measures for physical function in cancer patients: content comparison of the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36, FACT-G, and PROMIS measures using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

BackgroundPatient-reported physical function (PF) is a key endpoint in cancer clinical trials. Using complex statistical methods, common metrics have been developed to compare scores from different patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, but such methods do not account for possible differences in questionnaire content. Therefore, the aim of our study was a content comparison of frequently used PRO measures for PF in cancer patients.MethodsRelying on the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) we categorized the item content of the physical domains of the following measures: EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36, PROMIS Cancer Item Bank for Physical Function, PROMIS Short Form for Physical Function 20a, and the FACT-G. Item content was linked to ICF categories by two independent reviewers.ResultsThe 118 items investigated were assigned to 3 components ('d - Activities and Participation', 'b - Body Functions', and 'e - Environmental Factors') and 11 first-level ICF categories. All PF items of the EORTC measures but one were assigned to the first-level ICF categories 'd4 - Mobility' and 'd5 - Self-care', all within the component 'd - Activities and Participation'. The SF-36 additionally included item content related to 'd9 - Community, social and civic life' and the PROMIS Short Form for Physical Function 20a also included content related to 'd6 - domestic life'. The PROMIS Cancer Item Bank (v1.1) covered, in addition, two first-level categories within the component 'b - Body Functions'. The FACT-G Physical Well-being scale was found to be the most diverse scale with item content partly not covered by the ICF framework.DiscussionOur results provide information about conceptual differences between common PRO measures for the assessment of PF in cancer patients. Our results complement quantitative information on psychometric characteristics of these measures and provide a better understanding of the possibilities of establishing common metrics.