Meme Kanseri Tedavi Sonuçları Ölçeği Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlik ve güvenirliği

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 187 - 197, 10.09.2021

Damlagül Aydin Özcan , Serab Uyar Güçlü Sezai Kılıçoğlu Bektaş Kaya , Yavuz Yakut

https://doi.org/10.15437/jetr.794218

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı koruyucu meme cerrahisi geçiren hastalarda Meme Kanseri Tedavi Sonuçları Ölçeği (MKTSÖ)
Türkçe versiyonunun, geçerlik ve güvenirliğini araştırmaktı.

Yöntem: Çalışmaya, tek taraflı koruyucu meme cerrahisi geçirmiş 50 meme kanseri hastası dahil edildi. Anketin Türkçeye
çevrilmesinin ardından güvenirliği ve iç tutarlılığı test edildi. Test-tekrar test güvenirliğini değerlendirmek ve sınıf içi korelasyon
katsayısını (ICC) hesaplamak amacıyla anket tüm hastalara iki kez uygulandı. Cronbach alfa değeri anketin iç tutarlılığını
belirlemek için hesaplandı. Ölçeğin kriter geçerliğinin belirlenebilmesi için MKTSÖ alt ölçekleri ile Avrupa Kanser Tedavisi ve
Araştırmaları Örgütü-Hayat Kalitesi Ölçeği (EORTC-QLQ C30-BR23) alt ölçekleri korelasyonuna bakıldı.

Bulgular: Anketin iç tutarlılığının analizinde, alt ölçekler için Cronbach alfa katsayıları 0,604-0,882 arasında bulundu. Test
tekrar test güvenirliği mükemmel (ICC 0,941-1,000 arasında (%95 güven aralığında)) olarak bulundu. MKTSÖ ile EORTC-QLQ
C30-BR23 alt ölçekleri arasında orta seviyeden yüksek seviyeye (r=-0,324-r=0,812 aralığında) korelasyon bulundu. En yüksek
korelasyon kol semptomları ve MKTSÖ fonksiyonel seviye alt ölçekleri arasında bulundu (r: 0,812). C30 Emosyonel durum ve
BR23 seksüel fonskiyon alt ölçekleri ile MKTSÖ’nin hiçbir alt ölçeği arasında korelasyon bulunmadı.

Sonuç: Çalışmanın sonuçları MKTSÖ Türkçe versiyonunun, koruyucu meme cerrahisi geçirmiş hastalarda tedavi sonuçlarını
fonksiyonel ve kozmetik açıdan değerlendirmede geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

Meme kanseri, Koruyucu meme cerrahisi, Sonuç ölçümü, Geçerlik ve güvenirlik, Yaşam kalitesi

Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale

Abstract

Purpose: Aim of this study was to evaluate validity and reliability of Turkish version of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome
Scale (BCTOS) in patients with conservative breast cancer surgery.

Methods: 50 breast cancer patient who had undergone unilateral conservative breast surgery were included in the study. After
the questionnaire was translated into Turkish, the reliability and internal consistency of BCTOS was computed. The
questionnaire was applied twice to all patients to evaluate the test-retest reliability and to calculate the “Intraclass Correlation
Coefficient” (ICC) value. Cronbach alpha value was calculated to determine the internal consistency of the questionnaire. To
determine the criterion validity of the scale; BCTOS subscales and EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ C30-BR23)
subscales correlation was calculated.

Results: In the analysis of the internal consistency of BCTOS, Cronbach's alpha coefficients was ranged between 0.604-0.882
for the subscales. Test-retest reliability was found to be excellent (ICC between 0.941 to 1,000 (%95 confidence interval)). A
moderate to high level (ranges from -0.324 to 0.812) correlation was found between BCTOS and EORTC-QLQ C30-BR23
subscales. The strongest correlation was found between BR23 arm symptoms and BCTOS functional status subscales
(r=0.812). No correlations was found between emotional status, sexual function subscales and any subscales of BCTOS.

Conclusion: The results of the study showed that the Turkish version of BCTOS is a valid and reliable measurement tool for
evaluating functional and cosmetic treatment outcomes in patients who have undergone conservative breast cancer surgery.

Keywords

Breast cancer, Breast conserving surgery, Outcome assessment, Reliability and validity, Quality of life.

References

• 1. Schmitz KH, Speck RM, Rye SA, et al. Prevalence of breast cancer treatment sequelae over 6 years of follow-up: the Pulling Through Study. Cancer. 2012;118:2217-2225.
• 2. Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, et al. Correlates of patient satisfaction and provider trust after breast-conserving surgery. Cancer. 2008;112:1679-1687.
• 3. Aiello Bowles EJ, Feigelson HS, Barney T, et al. Improving quality of breast cancer surgery through development of a national breast cancer surgical outcomes (BRCASO) research database. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:136.
• 4. Jagsi R, Li Y, Morrow M, et al. Patient-reported Quality of Life and Satisfaction With Cosmetic Outcomes After Breast Conservation and Mastectomy With and Without Reconstruction: Results of a Survey of Breast Cancer Survivors. Ann Surg. 2015;261:1198-1206.
• 5. Wojcinski S, Nuengsri S, Hillemanns P, et al. Axillary dissection in primary breast cancer: variations of the surgical technique and influence on morbidity. Cancer Manag Res. 2012;4:121-127.
• 6. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233-1241.
• 7. Brandini da Silva FC, Jose da Silva J, Sarri AJ, et al. Comprehensive Validation Study of Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Using Objective Clinical Measures: Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS), Brazilian Portuguese Version. Clin Breast Cancer. 2019;19:85-100.
• 8. Ribeiro Pereira ACP, Koifman RJ, Bergmann A. Incidence and risk factors of lymphedema after breast cancer treatment: 10 years of follow-up. Breast. 2017;36:67-73.
• 9. Kootstra JJ, Dijkstra PU, Rietman H, et al. A longitudinal study of shoulder and arm morbidity in breast cancer survivors 7 years after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139:125-134.
• 10. Stanton AL, Krishnan L, Collins CA. Form or function? Part 1. Subjective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer. 2001;91:2273-2281.
• 11. Heil J, Holl S, Golatta M, et al. Aesthetic and functional results after breast conserving surgery as correlates of quality of life measured by a German version of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS). Breast. 2010;19:470-474.
• 12. Vieira R, Silva F, Silva MES, et al. Translation and cultural adaptation of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) into Brazilian Portuguese. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2018;64:627-634.
• 13. Sprangers MA, Groenvold M, Arraras JI, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: first results from a three-country field study. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2756-2768.
• 14. Demirci S, Eser E, Ozsaran Z, et al. Validation of the Turkish versions of EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 modules in breast cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12:1283-1287.
• 15. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186-3191.
• 16. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297-334.
• 17. Feise RJ, Michael Menke J. Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:78-86; discussion 87.
• 18. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34-42.
• 19. Gungen C, Ertan T, Eker E, et al. [Reliability and validity of the standardized Mini Mental State Examination in the diagnosis of mild dementia in Turkish population]. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2002;13:273-281.