4.6 Article

Validation of FACT/GOG-AD subscale for ovarian cancer-related abdominal discomfort: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 110, Issue 1, Pages 60-64

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.02.011

Keywords

measurement tool; abdominal discomfort; self-assessment

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 37517, P30 CA062203, U10 CA037517, CA 27469, U10 CA037517-24, U10 CA027469] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To evaluate the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Abdominal Discomfort (FACT/GOG-AD) subscale for assessing abdominal discomfort in patients undergoing treatment for ovarian cancer. Methods. A four-item questionnaire was developed for use in Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocol 172. It was administered to patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated on this protocol with intravenous (IV) cisplatin/paclitaxel or a combination of intravenous and intraperitoneal (IP) cisplatin/paclitaxel (IV/IP) prior to randomization, before cycle 4, 3-6 weeks after cycle 6, and 12 months after cycle 6. The subscale was evaluated in patients receiving IV/IP therapy for internal consistency, concurrent validity, sensitivity to treatment differences, and responsiveness to abdominal discomfort grading. Results. Internal consistency coefficients were 0.83 and 0.87 at baseline and pre-cycle 4 assessments, respectively; the average inter-item correlation was 0.61 at the pre-cycle 4 assessment. Item correlation with other scales ranged from 0.00-0.44. This subscale was able to distinguish those graded to have physician-rated abdominal pain compared to those without clinician-reported discomfort. Conclusion. The four-item AD subscale reliably and validly assesses ovarian cancer-specific abdominal discomfort, and captures abdominal symptom responses to IV and IVAP cisplatin/paclitaxel treatments. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available