Use of the Skin Cancer Quality of Life Impact Tool (SCQOLIT) - a feasibility study in non-melanoma skin cancer

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures for advanced skin cancer patients

Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used to study quality of life (QOL) in the skin cancer population. Advanced melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) may be associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and treatment side effects; however, it is unclear which PROM is valid and appropriate to use in these populations for both clinical and research purposes. We aimed to identify the PROMs that have been used to measure QOL in advanced skin cancer patients and determine which of these PROMs have been validated to assess QOL outcomes in this population. A PubMed and EMBASE search was conducted from its inception to March 2021 according to PRISMA guidelines with a comprehensive list of search terms under three main topics: (1) PROM; (2) advanced skin cancer; and (3) staging and interventions. We included articles utilizing a PROM measuring QOL and having a patient population with advanced skin cancer defined as melanoma stage > T1a or non-melanoma AJCC stage T3 or greater. Advanced skin cancer patients were also defined as those with metastasis or requiring adjuvant therapy (systemic chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy). Studies were excluded according to the following criteria: mix of low-risk and advanced skin cancer patients in the study population without stratification into low-risk and advanced groups, stage T1a melanoma or mix of stages without stratification, low-risk NMSC, no PROM (i.e., study specific questionnaires), non-English publication, review article or protocol paper, conference abstract, or populations including non-skin cancers. A total of 1,998 articles were identified. 82 met our inclusion criteria resulting in 22 PROMs: five generic health-related (QWB-SA, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D, SF-36, and PRISM), six general cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-C36, LASA, IOC, Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, and FACT-G), nine disease-focused or specialized (EORTC QLQ-H&N35, EORTC QLQ-MEL38, EORTC QLQ-BR23, Facial Disability Index, FACT-H&N, FACT-BRM, FACT-B, FACT-M, and scqolit), and two general dermatology (Skindex-16 and DLQI) PROMs. All PROMs have been generally validated except for EORTC QLQ-MEL38. Only two PROMs have been validated in the advanced melanoma population: FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C36. No PROMS have been validated in the advanced NMSC population. The PROMs that were validated in the advanced melanoma population do not include QOL issues unique to advanced skin tumors such as odor, bleeding, itching, wound care burden, and public embarrassment. Breast cancer and head and neck cancer instruments were adapted but not validated for use in the advanced skin cancer population due to the lack of an adequate instrument for this population. This study highlights the need for PROM instrument validation or creation specifically geared toward the advanced skin cancer population. Future studies should aim to develop and validate a PROM to assess QOL in this population.

Validation of the Turkish Version of the Skin Cancer Quality of Life Impact Tool (SCQOLIT): A Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire for Non-metastatic Melanoma and Non-melanoma Skin Cancer

Introduction: Skin cancer is the third most common type of cancer worldwide that has increased in incidence. Quality of life (QoL) instruments have been developed to measure the efficacy of treatments of  cancers. Objectives: The only validated tool that can be used in both nonmetastatic skin cancer types is the SCQOLIT. This study aimed to validate the Turkish version of the Skin Cancer Quality of Life Impact Tool (SCQOLIT).   Methods: A total of 141 patients diagnosed and treated for skin cancer within the previous 3 months were included.  The tool was translated into Turkish in accordance with International Translation Guidelines. The Dermatology Quality of Life Index that was used for external validation. Patient demographics were recorded. Results: Question 3 had a factor load of 0.372, indicating the inadequacy of this question in predicting QoL, a point that the original study did not mention. The SCQOLIT had external validity, convergent validity and internal consistency (Cronbach alpha=0.863), and test-repeat-test correlation coefficient was 0.824 (95% confidence interval; 0.644 – 0.918). Patients diagnosed with melanoma had poorer QoL scores. High-risk tumor characteristics in nonmelanoma skin cancer and stage of melanoma had no impact on QoL (p=0.235 for basal cell carcinoma, p=1.00 for squamous cell carcinoma, p=0.635 for melanoma).  Conclusions: The Turkish version of the SCQOLIT is validated. Age was shown to have a statistically significant negative correlation with QoL, while Fitzpatrick skin type, gender, risk classification, stage, history of skin cancer, family history of skin cancer and treatment modality had no effect on QoL. 

Health utilities for non-melanoma skin cancers and pre-cancerous lesions: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) are common and consume many healthcare resources. A health utility is a single preference-based value for assessing health-related quality of life, which can be used in economic evaluations. There are scarce data on health utilities for NMSCs.

OBJECTIVES

Using a systematic review approach, we synthesized the current data on NMSC-related health utilities.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies of NMSC-related health utilities was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Data were extracted based on the protocol and a quality assessment was performed for each study.

RESULTS

The protocol resulted in 16 studies, involving 121 621 participants. Mean utility values across the studies ranged from 0.56 to 1 for undifferentiated NMSC, 0.84 to 1 for actinic keratosis, 0.45 to 1 for squamous cell carcinoma, and 0.67 to 1 for basal cell carcinoma. There was considerable variability in utilities by type of cancer, stage of diagnosis, time to treatment, treatment modality, and quality of life instrument or method. Utility values were predominantly based on the EuroQol 5-dimension instrument and ranged from 0.45 to 0.96, while other measurement methods produced values ranging from 0.67 to 1. Lower utility values were observed for advanced cancers and for the time period during and immediately after treatment, after which values gradually returned to pre-treatment levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Most utility values clustered around relatively high values of 0.8 to 1, suggesting small decrements in quality of life associated with most NMSCs and their precursors. Variability in utilities indicates that careful characterization is required for measures to be used in economic evaluations.

Comparison of the Skin Cancer Quality of Life Impact Tool and the Skin Cancer Index Questionnaire in Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life and the Effect of Patient Education Brochures in Patients with Actinic Keratosis, Non-melanoma Skin Cancer, and Cutaneous Melanoma

Introduction

Few studies have evaluated patient-reported outcome measures and the effect of patient educational materials in German patients with skin cancer. We conducted a prospective study to measure the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life in German patients with skin cancer, identify variables that may contribute to changes in health-related quality of life, and evaluate the effect of providing additional information through a patient education brochure.

Methods

A total of 461 patients diagnosed with actinic keratosis, nonmetastatic nonmelanoma skin cancer, melanoma in situ, or nonmetastatic cutaneous melanoma treated between August 2018 and July 2020 were included. Ninety-seven patients were randomly selected to receive an additional patient education brochure (“Hautkrebs”). The patients completed a Skin Cancer Quality of Life Index Tool (n = 324) or a Skin Cancer Index Questionnaire (n = 137) 1 week after surgical treatment.

Results

Ninety-seven patients were provided an additional patient education brochure. We found statistical correlation between sociodemographic factors (young age and female gender) and the location of the skin cancer (head and face) and impairment of health-related quality of life in patients with skin cancer (p < 0.05). Moreover, we found that patients who were presented a brochure showed significantly higher awareness concerning direct sun exposure (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Impaired health-related quality of life is correlated with a patient with skin cancer’s age, gender, and the location of the lesion. Physicians should consider these factors in clinical practice and advocate the use of patient education brochures as effective assets in preventing the reoccurrence of skin cancer.