Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Article

Breast Cancer EDGE Task Force Outcomes: Clinical Measures of Health Related Quality of Life

Harrington, Shana PT, PhD, SCS, MTC1; Miale, Susan PT, DPT, PCS2; Ebaugh, David PT, PhD3

Author Information
Rehabilitation Oncology: Volume 33 - Issue 1 - p 5-17
  • Free

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women in the United States, with an estimated 232,670 new cases in 2014.1 In 2013, there were more than 2.8 million women with a history of breast cancer in the U.S., including women currently being treated and those who had completed their treatment.2 Although the medical treatment of breast cancer has improved significantly, breast cancer and its treatment continue to be associated with many undesirable symptoms and side effects.3 One such late effect is a decrease in health-related quality of life (HRQOL).4

Quality of life (QOL) is a broad multidimensional concept that includes subjective evaluations of both positive and negative aspects of life.5 The World Health Organization defines QOL as “individuals' perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns. It is a broad ranging concept affected in a complex way by the person's physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, personal beliefs and their relationship to salient features of their environment.”6 What makes HRQOL challenging to measure is that, although the term “quality of life” has meaning for nearly everyone and every academic discipline, individuals and groups can define it differently.7 Additionally, the concept of HRQOL and its elements have evolved since the 1980s to encompass those aspects of overall quality of life that can be clearly shown to affect health—either physical or mental.7-10 On the individual level, this includes physical and mental health perceptions and their correlates—including health risks and conditions, functional status, social support, and socioeconomic status. On the community level, HRQOL includes resources, conditions, policies, and practices that influence a population's health perceptions and functional status. For the purpose of this EDGE Task Force review, we defined HRQOL as perceived physical and mental health and function over time.7

The American Physical Therapy Association's (APTA) Evaluation Database to Guide Effectiveness (EDGE) Task Force was formed within the Section on Research in 2006. The Task Force's goal was to provide physical therapy professionals with a comprehensive list of outcome measures that can be administered to a specific patient population. The psychometric properties and clinical utility within a particular patient population were detailed with the ultimate goal of creating a central location for physical therapy professionals to have access to this valuable information for implementing evidence-based practice.11 The Task Force was expanded to include members from several other Sections of the APTA. After the success of the Neurology Section's StrokEDGE Task Force, where 57 outcome measures were assessed in patients with stroke, the Oncology Section created a Task Force with a focus on Breast Cancer Outcomes. The first assessment of breast cancer outcome tools from the Oncology Section Task Force targeted scapula, shoulder and glenohumeral impairments, and shoulder function and resulted in successful dissemination of the results at the APTA Combined Sections Meeting in Chicago 2012, as well as 4 publications in the 2013 Rehabilitation Oncology Journal.11-14 Succeeding assessments from the Task Force have targeted pain, lymphedema, and fatigue, and resulted in successful dissemination of the results at the APTA Combined Sections Meeting in San Diego 2013, as well as 3 publications in the 2014 Rehabilitation Oncology journal.15-17 More recently, the Breast Cancer EDGE Task Force has continued to assess breast cancer outcome measures with a focus on quality of life, strength, and endurance.

Health related quality of life has been extensively studied in the breast cancer population with a variety of patient-reported outcome measures. Women surviving breast cancer, commonly referred to as breast cancer surivors (BCS), have been found to experience psychosocial distress and physical symptoms that adversely affect their HRQOL.18 Different breast cancer treatments have been found to have varying effects on HRQOL outcomes.19 Additionally, HRQOL has been shown to be a predictor of survival for some BCS.19 Because of the effect breast cancer treatments have on HRQOL, as well as the variety of patientreported outcome measures that have been administered, there is a need to identify and decipher the quality of these measures. The purpose of this review is to identify and evaluate evidence-based measures for assessing HRQOL in BCS using the methodology of the EDGE Task Force and to make recommendations for use of these tools both in research and in the clinic.

METHODS

A primary search was performed in MEDLINE on July 10, 2013 to identify publications in which HRQOL in BCS was assessed. This search resulted in the retrieval of 840 publications. The search strategy used the following search terms: (“Quality of Life”/ OR quality of life.mp. OR Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative Information Project Functional Assessment Chart*. mp. OR COOP Chart.mp. OR Duke Health Profile.mp. OR Short Form 36 Item Health Survey.mp. OR SF-36.mp. or Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living.mp. OR Katz ADL. mp. OR Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale. mp. OR Lawton IADL.mp. OR Karnofsky Performance Status. mp. OR KPS.mp. OR Health Utilities Index.mp. OR HUI.mp. OR QLQ.mp. or QLS.mp. OR W-QLI.mp. OR Q-LES-Q.mp. OR QLI.mp. OR WHOQOL-100.mp. OR WHOQOL-BREF.mp. OR Spitzer QL-Index.mp. OR Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System.mp. OR CARES.mp. OR CARES-SF.mp. OR Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy.mp. or FACT-B.mp. OR FACT-B+4.mp. OR QLQ-BR23.mp. OR QLQ-c30.mp.) and (((breast carcinoma.mp. OR exp Breast Neoplasms/ OR (exp Breast/ and exp Carcinoma/)) and (exp Radiotherapy/ OR exp Radiation Injuries/ OR exp Mastectomy/ OR exp Lymph Node Excision/OR exp Combined Modality Therapy/ OR exp Mammaplasty/ OR exp Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy/)) OR exp Breast Neoplasms/dt, pc, ra, rh, su, th or (exp Breast/ and exp Carcinoma/dt, pc, rt, rh, su, th)) and (exp “Sensitivity and Specificity”/ OR exp Evaluation Studies as Topic/ OR exp “reproducibility of results”/). An English language limit was applied to this search, and there was no restriction on year of publication.

A second systematic search was performed in PsychINFO® on August 10, 2013 and yielded 846 publications. The following search terms were used: (Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative Information Project Functional Assessment Chart* OR COOP Chart* OR Duke Health Profile* OR short Form 36 Item Health Survey OR SF-36 OR Katz.Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living OR Katz AOL OR Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale OR Lawton IADL OR Karnofsky Performance Status OR KPS OR Health Utilities Index OR HUI OR QLQ OR QLS OR W-QLI OR Q-LES-Q OR QLI OR WHOQOL-100 OR WHOQOL-BREF OR Spitzer QL-lndex OR Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System OR CARES-SF OR Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy OR FACT-B OR FACT-B+4 OR QLQ-BR 23 OR QLQ-c30 OR DE “Quality of Life” OR DE “Quality of Work Life” OR quality of life) AND (DE “Test Reliability” OR DE “Test Construction” OR DE “Error of Measurement” OR DE “lnterrater Reliability” OR DE “Test Standardization” OR DE “Test Validity” OR DE “Test Interpretation” OR DE “Evaluation Criteria”) AND (DE “Breast Neoplasms” OR DE “Mastectomy” OR breast carcinoma*). The results from these two searches were combined and 279 duplicate articles were removed. This left 1,407 articles that included use of an outcome measure to assess HRQOL or a component of HRQOL in a breast cancer population for our review (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.:
PRISMA flow diagram.

The list of 1,407 publications was divided amongst the three reviewers (SH, SM, DE). The titles, abstracts, and methods section (when necessary) of each article were reviewed to identify outcome measures that were used to assess HRQOL in BCS. Additionally, reference lists from these publications were appraised to identify any other potential publications that should be included in the review. When indicated, full articles were obtained for review. A total of 48 outcome measures were identified from these publications. After further review of these measures, several (n = 27) were excluded as they were not designed to assess the multidimensional nature of HRQOL as defined above.

Multiple conference calls were held to generate a comprehensive list of HRQOL measures for full review. Based upon the above criteria, the reviewers agreed upon 21 HRQOL measures. These measures were divided amongst the reviewers and each reviewer was responsible for conducting a primary review of the psychometric properties and clinical utility of their assigned measures. The Cancer EDGE Task Force Outcome Measure Rating Form (Appendix A) was used to guide the primary review for each QOL outcome measure. Once each reviewer completed their primary reviews, the list was redistributed and a different reviewer performed a secondary review. Additional conference calls were held to discuss the primary and secondary reviews. In cases of disagreement, additional deliberations were performed until a group consensus was reached whether or not the measure could be recommended for clinical use using Breast Cancer EDGE Rating Scale (Table 1).

Table 1
Table 1:
Breast Cancer EDGE Rating Scale

RESULTS

After a comprehensive review of the breast cancer literature, twenty-one different measures of HRQOL were identified for inclusion in this review. Outcome measures were excluded from this review if the focus was only on a unidimensional aspect (ie, mental health) of HRQOL such as the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. Another example of an outcome measure excluded was the Piper Fatigue Scale. Although aspects of HRQOL are addressed in this scale, the scale is specific to fatigue and does not meet the specific definition of HRQOL as defined by this taskforce. Additionally, measures were excluded if the focus was solely on determining Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY). Although every effort was made to use the most appropriate search terms, because HRQOL has a variety of definitions, several measures such as the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung (FACT-L) and FACT-Taxane were excluded because they were not general in nature and/or related to breast cancer.

Of the 21 measures reviewed (Table 2), 11 were given the highest rating of 4 (highly recommend) and are recommended for clinical use (Table 3). These measures include: European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ) - Breast 23, BREAST-Q, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), FACT-B+4 (for patients with lymphedema), EORTC QLQ - Core Questionnaire (C30), FACT-G (general), Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC), Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index-Cancer Version (QLI-CV), Psychological Adjustment to Illness Scale (PAIS), World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-100), and SF-Health Surveys. We were unable to recommend the following nine measures due to a lack of reported psychometrics: Breast Cancer Questionnaire (BCQ), Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES), European Quality of Life (EQ-5D), Long-term Quality of Life-Breast Cancer (LTQOL-BC), Quality of Well-being Scale (QWB), Quality of Life - Cancer Survivors (QOL-CS) /Quality of Life - Breast Cancer (QOL-BC), Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), and Quality of Life Assessment of Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy (QOL-ACD). We do not recommend the use of the Brief Cancer Impact Assessment (BCIA) because of a lack of reported psychometrics and its limited availability.

Table 2
Table 2:
Outcome Measures Sorted by Task Force Rating
Table 3
Table 3:
Clinical Utility of Highly Recommended Measures

DISCUSSION

Eleven measures received the highest score possible (4) on the rating scale and are therefore favorably recommended by the reviewers. In comparison with the other outcome measures reviewed by the Oncology Section EDGE Task Force on Breast Cancer Outcomes such as pain and shoulder function,12,16 HRQOL has been more extensively studied in the breast cancer population. The rating scale used by the taskforce uses a rating of “4” to represent recommended outcome measures used in breast cancer and a “3” to represent recommended measures that have not been used in this population. All 21 of the measures reviewed were used to assess HRQOL in BCS. Therefore, the measures included in this review could only receive a score of “4,”“2A,” or “1.” Although 11 measures are highly recommended, only 4 of those tools were specifically designed for and validated in the breast cancer population. These measures include the EORTC QLQ-B23, BREAST-Q, FACT-B, and FACT-B+4. The additional 7 measures that are highly recommended also demonstrate excellent psychometric properties and good clinical utility, but they were not specifically designed with BCS in mind.

Breast Cancer Specific HRQOL Measures

The EORTC QLQ-B23 is a 23-item breast cancer specific measure that evaluates body image, sexual functioning, arm symptoms, breast symptoms, and systemic therapy side effects. It is intended to be used with the EORTC core questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in order to comprehensively assess HRQOL in BCS.20 This measure has demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.70 - 0.91),21 validity,22 and sensitivity to change (minimally important difference (MID) = 5-10)22 and has been used in more than 10 studies involving women with breast cancer to evaluate the effects of various cancer treatments,23-27 exercise interventions and alternative medicine28-30 on HRQOL in BCS, and to assess response time to shifts in HRQOL in BCS.31 According to the developers of this tool, the EORTC QLQ-B23 should take patients approximately 10-15 minutes to complete via paper and pencil. Scoring can be complex and requires a user's agreement in order to receive the scoring manual.32

The BREAST-Q was designed to assess the effect of different types of breast surgery, on HRQOL. This tool measures both HRQOL and patient satisfaction before and after surgery. There are 5 modules, but for women undergoing surgery for breast cancer, the developers of the BREAST-Q recommend administering either the breast conserving surgery module or the mastectomy/postmastectomy reconstruction module. The BREAST-Q demonstrates good reliability (α = 0.81 - 0.98, ICC = 0.85 - 0.98) and validity although procedure specific scales require further evaluation.33 The minimal important difference has been reported as 5 points in the reconstruction module.22 According to the authors of the tool, further responsiveness data is under investigation for the other modules. The BREAST-Q has been used in at least 5 studies involving women with breast cancer. This outcome measure takes approximately 8 to 12 minutes to complete and requires the use of a free, web-based software program to finalize the scores.

The FACT-B is one of the most widely used of the Task Force's highly recommended measures to assess HRQOL in BCS.34 It is a self-report measure that encompasses physical, social, emotional, and functional well-being via the 27-item FACT-G, as well as issues related specifically to persons coping with breast cancer via the 9-item Breast Cancer subscale. The FACT-B demonstrates good reliability (ICC = 0.85), validity (convergent validity, r = 0.87 with FLIC; known-groups validity, P < 0.001)34 and sensitivity to change (MID = 7-8 points).35 To date, researchers have used the FACT-B in over 40 studies to perform cross-cultural analysis of quality of life in BCS;36,37 to evaluate various forms of exercise, psychosocial support and alternative medicine on HRQOL in BCS;38-54 to assess the impact of different cancer treatment options on QOL;55-62 to assess HRQOL both during and after treatment in BCS with various backgrounds and prognoses;63-72 and to assess HRQOL in patients with lymphedema.73-75 This outcome measure takes approximately 8 to 13 minutes to complete via paper and pencil. Individual subscale scores and total scores can be calculated by using the simple formulas provided by the tools' creators. Overall, the FACT-B appears to have good clinical utility and excellent psychometric properties.

The FACT-B+4 is comprised of the standard FACT-B plus a 4-item Arm Morbidity subscale to assess the impact of lymphedema on HRQOL in BCS.76 Like the FACT-B, it also demonstrates good reliability (α = 0.88, ICC = 0.97), validity (knowngroups validity, p = 0.018), and sensitivity to change (pre-op to post-op changes in scale scores, p = 0.01) although no values for MID exist for the Arm Morbidity subscale specifically.76 The FACT-B+4 has been used in at least 10 studies to assess HRQOL in postoperative breast cancer patients and in patients undergoing treatment for upper extremity lymphedema.55,66-68,74,77-80

General Cancer HRQOL Measures

Four other highly recommended measures (EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT-G, FLIC, and QLI-CV) were developed to evaluate HRQOL in patients with cancer. Although not developed specifically for persons with breast cancer, they all have acceptable levels of reliability and validity in this population.81-86 The EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-G are both general cancer outcome measures used in several studies that have breast cancer modules that can be added to enhance the value of HRQOL assessment.81 The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a 30-item brief core measure for general use with cancer patients. The EORTC QLQ-C30 has demonstrated good test-retest reliability (r = 0.63 - 0.91),87,88 validity, and sensitivity to change (change in any scale of ≥10 points)89, and takes approximately 11 minutes to complete.90 The reviewers recommend that the EORTC QLQ-B23 always be used with the EORTC QLQ-C30 to assess HRQOL in women diagnosed with breast cancer.The FACT-G is a 27-item self-report measure that takes approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. It is both valid (convergent validity with FLIC, r = 0.79)81 and reliable (ICC = 0.92, α = 0.88)81,85 and demonstrates excellent responsiveness (MID = 3-7 points).91 The FACT-G and the FACT-B can both be useful tools depending on the specific outcomes desired in the clinic or in a particular research study. For example, normative values for both the general population and for cancer patients are available for the FACT-G, which would allow researchers to make interesting comparisons using this tool. Many studies have used the FACT-G alone to assess QOL in BCS; however, use of the FACT-B might be a better option for clinicians as it includes many breast cancer specific items.

The FLIC is a 22-item questionnaire with five subscales: physical functioning, psychological functioning, current wellbeing, gastrointestinal symptoms, and social functioning.92 This measure has been widely used with cancer patients of varying disease types and severity and in people with diverse cultural backgrounds. Validity has been reported in the breast cancer population (convergent correlations exceeding divergent correlations between FLIC subscales and SF-36 subscales, p < 0.05 for physical functioning, mental functioning, and social functioning).86 The tool has also been recently scrutinized for reliability (RT = 0.810, RA = 0.75 after 2 measurements, RA = 0.85 after 4 measurements).83 More than 10 studies have used the FLIC to assess QOL in a variety of breast cancer patients including women 2 to 5 years post adjuvant cytotoxic and/or hormonal therapy,93 women with advanced breast cancer,94 women with a wide range of time (1 - ≥10 years) since breast cancer diagnosis95 and women three weeks after initial breast cancer diagnosis.96

The QLI-CV assesses 4 domains of QOL that have been deemed highly relevant for long-term survivors of breast cancer: health and functioning, social and economic, psychological/spiritual, and family.97-99 The QLI-CV takes approximately 10 minutes to complete as respondents' rate their satisfaction on each of the 33 items. Unique to this measure is the fact that each of those items are then weighted by the respondents' assessment of the importance of each item. The QLI-CV demonstrates good validity (known-groups validity, p = 0.002 for pain, p < 0.0001 for depression and stress)98 and reliability (α = 0.95),97 and it has been used extensively in clinical research, but further examination on responsiveness would greatly enhance the clinical utility of this tool.

General HRQOL Measures

The final 3 measures are highly recommended HRQOL measures designed for the general population. They are the PAIS/PAIS-SR, WHOQOL-100, and the SF Health Surveys (SF-36/SF-36v2, SF-12/SF-12v2, SF-8). All of these tools demonstrate acceptable reliability and validity, and have also been validated in the breast cancer population.100-106 The PAIS (interview format) and PAIS-SR (self-report format) appear to be useful in assessing adjustment to illness in BCS. The PAIS is a 47-item measure of QOL and adjustment to illness across 7 domains: health care orientation, vocational environment, domestic environment, sexual relationships, extended family relationships, social environment, and psychological distress. It has been used extensively in the literature, demonstrates good validity (convergent validity, r = 0.05-0.71)103 and reliability (α = 0.86)104 but has limited responsiveness data.

The WHOQOL-100 was designed for use in patients with different disease types, varying severity of illness, age, cultural subgroups, and diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. It consists of 100 questions for 6 domains of QOL: physical health, psychological, level of independence, social relations, environment, and spirituality/religion/personal beliefs. The WHOQOL-100 has demonstrated reliability (α = 0.82 - 0.91 across domains, ICC = 0.83)106 and adequate construct, convergent, and discriminant validity across different countries for many different patient populations105,106 and it has been used in at least three studies involving women with breast cancer.105,107,108

The SF Health Surveys are widely used assessments of HRQOL.100-102 These surveys are generic measures of QOL across 8 domains: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health problems, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health. The number of items is reflected in the survey title. The SF-36 has been used in more than 20 studies since 2012 to evaluate QOL in breast cancer patients. The SF-12v2 appears to be replacing the SF-36 as the instrument of choice due to decreased respondent burden (2-3 minutes to complete the SF-12v2 versus 8-10 minutes to complete the SF-36) and solid psychometric properties.100 The SF-8 also demonstrates acceptable reliability and validity.101 These measures display good clinical utility with U.S. general adult population normative data available for all measures and normative values for cancer available for the SF-12v2 (Ware 2007, 2001, 2002). Sensitivity to change values have been calculated for each subscale of the SF-36 (MCID = 3-5 points).109 Overall, the SF Health surveys are highly recommended although specific validation in the breast cancer population would further enhance the usefulness of this tool.

The reviewers were unable to recommend 9 of the reviewed outcome measures at this time. Three of these measures, the EQ-5D, QWB, and SIP are generic measures of QOL that have been briefly used with BCS in the literature but have not been validated for use in the breast cancer population. While the EQ-5D and QWB are simple measures of HRQOL, the SIP measures change in behavior as a result of illness. The QWB is also used as the standardized instrument to determine Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY), a unit that adjusts life expectancy for diminished QOL. Because of lack of psychometric properties and validation in breast cancer, the reviewers are unable to recommend the EQ-5D, QWB, and SIP at this time.

The remaining 6 outcome measures have all been developed for use with cancer patients. Both the BCQ and the QOL-ACD were developed for use in cancer patients who are currently receiving chemotherapy. A major limitation of both is that not all patients with breast cancer will receive chemotherapy interventions. Both measures also lack responsiveness data to assist clinicians with individual patient decision-making. The QOL-CS and QOL-BC was developed for use in long-term cancer survivors. Both tools lack responsiveness data. Although the QOL-BC (breast cancer) was developed for use in the breast cancer population, the reviewers were unable to find any studies that assess its psychometric properties. The LTQOL-BC is a relatively new outcome measure designed to assess QOL in long-term survivors of breast cancer. However, the researchers were unable to find studies other than the initial developmental study that used this measure in a clinical research. The CARES is a QOL tool specifically designed for the cancer population, but the respondent burden (139 items taking up to 34 minutes to complete), complexity of scoring, and lack of use in clinical research make it difficult to recommend at this time.110 Finally, the RSCL was also designed specifically for use in cancer patients to measure physical symptom distress, psychological distress, activity level and global QOL. The RSCL has been found to be both reliable (ICC = 0.78 - 0.87, α = 0.80 - 0.88) and valid (convergent validity, r = 0.24 - 0.39 with Nottingham Health Profile) for patients with cancer; however, responsiveness data is lacking. Because of these limitations and the fact that this tool measures symptoms rather than QOL specifically, the reviewers are unable to recommend the RSCL at this time. Finally, the BCIA was only validated on women who were ≥2 years from diagnosis of breast cancer. It lacks responsiveness data and, has not been used in clinical research. The reviewers were also unable to locate a hard copy of the tool. Therefore, the BCIA is not recommended for use at this time.

Assessment of HRQOL is exceedingly important in the management of breast cancer. The EORTC-B23, BREAST-Q, FACT-B, and FACT-B+4 have been developed for use in the breast cancer population and demonstrate good clinical utility and excellent psychometric properties. The EOTRC QLQ-C30, FACT-G, FLIC, and the QLI-CV have been developed for use in cancer patients with acceptable validity in BCS, good clinical utility and excellent psychometric properties. The PAIS/PAIS-SR, WHOQOL-100, and the SF Health Surveys are generic measures of QOL that are valid in the breast cancer population and demonstrate good clinical utility and excellent psychometric properties. All 11 of these measures are highly recommended for use in BCS. Several other measures were developed specifically for breast cancer patients. However, the reviewers were unable to recommend these at this time due to lack of acceptable psychometric properties, especially data related to responsiveness. Further research would enhance the quantity and quality of available and effective assessments of HRQOL in BCS.

There are several factors that should be considered when interpreting the Task Force recommendations. An outcome measure may have been excluded in this review due to a lack of published data; the authors are aware that new studies may have been published after August 2013. For measures that could not be recommended at this time, additional information may become available that might elevate the task force recommendation in the future. The literature search was limited to English-language journals. Therefore journals in other languages were not reviewed which may have limited the number of QOL measures that could have been reviewed. Researchers and clinicians are encouraged to review the Task Force recommendations as well as each specific outcome measure for more extensive information. While the findings from this review can serve as a guide, ultimately, it is up to the clinician and researcher to identify the best available evidence in addition to patient values and expectations in order to appropriately administer the correct QOL outcome measure.111

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to Genevieve Colon, SPT, University of Michigan-Flint; Andrew Scheimann, SPT, University of North Florida; and Gary Childs, MS, Drexel University Health Sciences Libraries for assisting with this project.

REFERENCES

1. American Cancer Society. Estimated New Cancer Cases by Sex and Age (Years), 2014.
2. Breastcancer.org. U.S. Breast Cancer Statistics 2014.
3. Tatrow K, Montgomery GH. Cognitive behavioral therapy techniques for distress and pain in breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis. J Behav Med. 2006;29(1):17-27.
4. Maunsell E, Brisson J, Deschenes L. Arm problems and psychological distress after surgery for breast cancer. Can J Surg. 1993;36(4):315-320.
5. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Social Sci Med. 1998;46(12):1569-1585.
6. World Health Organization. National Cancer Control Programmes: Planning. 2012.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) 2011.
8. Gandek B, Sinclair SJ, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. Psychometric evaluation of the SF-36 health survey in Medicare managed care. Health Care Financ Rev. 2004;25(4):5-25.
9. McHorney CA. Health status assessment methods for adults: past accomplishments and future challenges. Annu Rev Public Health. 1999;20:309-335.
10. Selim AJ, Rogers W, Fleishman JA, et al. Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Quality Life Res. 2009;18(1):43-52.
11. Levangie PK FM. Oncology Section Task Force on Breast Cancer Outcomes: an introduction to the EDGE Task Force and Clinical Measures of Upper Extremity Function. Rehabil Oncol. 2013;31(1):6-10.
12. Miale S, Harrington S, Kendig T. Oncology Section Taskforce on Breast Cancer Outcomes: Clinical Measures of Upper Extremity Function. Rehabil Oncol. 2013;31(1):27-34.
13. Fisher MI LP. Oncology Section Task Force on Breast Cancer Outcomes: Scapular Assessment. Rehabil Oncol. 2013;31(1):11-18.
14. Perdomo M SC, Davies C. Oncology Section Task Force on Breast Cancer Outcomes: Shoulder and Glenohumeral Outcome Measures. Rehabil Oncol. 2013;31(1):19-26.
15. Davies CR, Levenhagen K, Perdomo M. Quality of life and functional outcome measures for secondary lymphedema in breast cancer survivors. Rehabil Oncol. 2014;32(1):7-12.
16. Harrington S, Gilchrist L, Sander A. Breast Cancer EDGE Task Force Outcomes: Clinical Measures of Pain. Rehabil Oncol. 2014;32(1):13-21.
17. Perdomo MD, Davies C, Levenhagen K, Ryans K. Breast Cancer EDGE Task Force Outcomes: Assessment of Measures of Secondary Lymphedema in Breast Cancer Survivors. Rehabil Oncol. 2014;32(1):22-35.
18. Perry S, Kowalski TL, Chang CH. Quality of life assessment in women with breast cancer: benefits, acceptability and utilization. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:24.
19. Montazeri A. Quality of life data as prognostic indicators of survival in cancer patients: an overview of the literature from 1982 to 2008. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:102.
20. Fayers P, Bottomley A, Group EQoL, Quality of Life U. Quality of life research within the EORTC-the EORTC QLQ-C30. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38 Suppl 4:S125-133.
21. 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(10):2756-2768.
22. Campbell KL, Pusic AL, Zucker DS, et al. A prospective model of care for breast cancer rehabilitation: function. Cancer. 2012;118(8 Suppl):2300-2311.
23. Cortés-Flores AO, Morgan-Villela G, del Valle CJZ-F, et al. Quality of Life Among Women Treated for Breast Cancer: A Survey of Three Procedures in Mexico. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2014;38(5):887-895.
24. Donovan E, Bleakley N, Denholm E, et al. Randomised trial of standard 2D radiotherapy (RT) versus intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients prescribed breast radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2007;82(3):254-264.
25. Heneghan H, Prichard R, Lyons R, et al. Quality of life after immediate breast reconstruction and skin-sparing mastectomy-A comparison with patients undergoing breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(11):937-943.
26. Pignol J-P, Olivotto I, Rakovitch E, et al. A multicenter randomized trial of breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy to reduce acute radiation dermatitis. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(13):2085-2092.
27. Watanabe T, Sano M, Takashima S, et al. Oral uracil and tegafur compared with classic cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil as postoperative chemotherapy in patients with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Study for Breast Cancer 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(9):1368-1374.
28. Law KS, Azman N, Omar EA, et al. The effects of virgin coconut oil (VCO) as supplementation on quality of life (QOL) among breast cancer patients. Lipids Health Dis. 2014;13(1):139.
29. Puetzler J, Feldmann Jr RE, Brascher A-K, Gerhardt A, Benrath J. Improvements in health-related quality of life by comprehensive cancer pain therapy: a pilot study with breast cancer outpatients under palliative chemotherapy. Oncol Res Treat. 2014;37(9):4-4.
30. Siedentopf F, Utz-Billing I, Gairing S, Schoenegg W, Kentenich H, Kollak I. Yoga for Patients with early breast cancer and its impact on quality of life-a randomized controlled trial. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013;73(4):311.
31. Hamidou Z, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Guillemin F, et al. Impact of response shift on time to deterioration in quality of life scores in breast cancer patients. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96848.
32. Fayers PA, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A; on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual, 3rd ed. Brussels: European Organisation for Research & Treatment of Cancer; 2001.
33. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):345-353.
34. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):974-986.
35. Eton DT, Cella D, Yost KJ, et al. A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(9):898-910.
36. Graves KD, Jensen RE, Canar J, et al. Through the lens of culture: quality of life among Latina breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136(2):603-613.
37. Hahn EA, Holzner B, Kemmler G, Sperner-Unterweger B, Hudgens SA, Cella D. Cross-cultural evaluation of health status using item response theory: FACT-B comparisons between Austrian and U.S. patients with breast cancer. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28(2):233-259.
38. Abernethy AP, Herndon JE, 2nd, Coan A, et al. Phase 2 pilot study of Pathfinders: a psychosocial intervention for cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18(7):893-898.
39. Abu Kassim NL, Mohd Hanafiah K, Samad-Cheung H, Rahman MT. Influence of Support Group Intervention on Quality of Life of Malaysian Breast Cancer Survivors. Asia Pac J Public Health. Feb 4 2013.
40. Anderson RT, Kimmick GG, McCoy TP, et al. A randomized trial of exercise on well-being and function following breast cancer surgery: the RESTORE trial. J Cancer Surviv. 2012;6(2):172-181.
41. Fong SS, Ng SS, Luk WS, et al. Shoulder Mobility, Muscular Strength, and Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors with and without Tai Chi Qigong Training. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:787169.
42. Galantino ML, Desai K, Greene L, Demichele A, Stricker CT, Mao JJ. Impact of yoga on functional outcomes in breast cancer survivors with aromatase inhibitor-associated arthralgias. Integr Cancer Ther. 2012;11(4):313-320.
43. Galantino ML, Greene L, Daniels L, Dooley B, Muscatello L, O'Donnell L. Longitudinal impact of yoga on chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment and quality of life in women with early stage breast cancer: a case series. Explore (NY). 2012;8(2):127-135.
44. Garlick M, Wall K, Corwin D, Koopman C. Psycho-spiritual integrative therapy for women with primary breast cancer. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2011;18(1):78-90.
45. Henderson VP, Clemow L, Massion AO, Hurley TG, Druker S, Hebert JR. The effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on psychosocial outcomes and quality of life in early-stage breast cancer patients: a randomized trial.
46. Kyle RG, Culbard B, Evans J, Gray NM, Ayansina D, Hubbard G. Vocational rehabilitation services for patients with cancer: design of a feasibility study incorporating a pilot randomised controlled trial among women with breast cancer following surgery. Trials. 2011;12:89.
47. Lev EL, Daley KM, Conner NE, Reith M, Fernandez C, Owen SV. An intervention to increase quality of life and self-care self-efficacy and decrease symptoms in breast cancer patients. Sch Inq Nurs Pract. 2001;15(3):277-294.
48. Levine AS, Balk JL. Pilot study of yoga for breast cancer survivors with poor quality of life. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2012;18(4):241-245.
49. Pinto e Silva MP, Sarian LO, Morais SS, Pace do Amaral MT, Freire de Oliveira MM, Derchain S. Implications of a postoperative rehabilitation program on quality of life in women with primary breast cancer treated with sentinel lymph node biopsy or complete axillary lymph node dissection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(12):3342-3349.
50. Richardson MA, Post-White J, Grimm EA, Moye LA, Singletary SE, Justice B. Coping, life attitudes, and immune responses to imagery and group support after breast cancer treatment. Altern Ther Health Med. 1997;3(5):62-70.
51. Sandel SL, Judge JO, Landry N, Faria L, Ouellette R, Majczak M. Dance and movement program improves quality-of-life measures in breast cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs. 2005;28(4):301-309.
52. Scott E, Daley AJ, Doll H, et al. Effects of an exercise and hypocaloric healthy eating program on biomarkers associated with long-term prognosis after early-stage breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Causes Control. 2013;24(1):181-191.
53. Sharp DM, Walker MB, Chaturvedi A, et al. A randomised, controlled trial of the psychological effects of reflexology in early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(2):312-322.
54. Turner J, Hayes S, Reul-Hirche H. Improving the physical status and quality of life of women treated for breast cancer: a pilot study of a structured exercise intervention. J Surg Oncol. 2004;86(3):141-146.
55. Fleissig A, Fallowfield LJ, Langridge CI, et al. Postoperative arm morbidity and quality of life. Results of the ALMANAC randomised trial comparing sentinel node biopsy with standard axillary treatment in the management of patients with early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;95(3):279-293.
56. Land SR, Kopec JA, Yothers G, et al. Health-related quality of life in axillary node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer patients undergoing AC versus CMF chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;86(2):153-164.
57. Ohsumi S, Shimozuma K, Morita S, et al. Factors associated with health-related quality-of-life in breast cancer survivors: influence of the type of surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2009;39(8):491-496.
58. Ohsumi S, Shimozuma K, Ohashi Y, et al. Health-related quality of life and psychological distress of breast cancer patients after surgery during a phase III randomized trial comparing continuation of tamoxifen with switching to anastrozole after adjuvant tamoxifen for 1-4 years: N-SAS BC 03. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127(1):143-152.
59. Pandey M, Thomas BC, Ramdas K, Ratheesan K. Early effect of surgery on quality of life in women with operable breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2006;36(7):468-472.
60. Pandey M, Thomas BC, SreeRekha P, et al. Quality of life determinants in women with breast cancer undergoing treatment with curative intent. World J Surg Oncol. 2005;3:63.
61. Park HY, Lee BJ, Kim JH, Bae JN, Hahm BJ. Rapid improvement of depression and quality of life with escitalopram treatment in outpatients with breast cancer: a 12-week, open-label prospective trial. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2012;36(2):318-323.
62. Thomas BC, Pandey M, Ramdas K, Sebastian P, Nair MK. FACT-G: reliability and validity of the Malayalam translation. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(1):263-269.
63. Akin S, Can G, Durna Z, Aydiner A. The quality of life and self-efficacy of Turkish breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008;12(5):449-456.
64. Burckhardt CS, Jones KD. Effects of chronic widespread pain on the health status and quality of life of women after breast cancer surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:30.
65. Deshields T, Tibbs T, Fan MY, Bayer L, Taylor M, Fisher E. Ending treatment: the course of emotional adjustment and quality of life among breast cancer survivors immediately following radiation therapy. Support Care Cancer. 2005;13(12):1018-1026.
66. DiSipio T, Hayes S, Battistutta D, Newman B, Janda M. Patterns, correlates, and prognostic significance of quality of life following breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2011;20(10):1084-1091.
67. DiSipio T, Hayes S, Newman B, Janda M. What determines the health-related quality of life among regional and rural breast cancer survivors? Aust N Z J Public Health. 2009;33(6):534-539.
68. Kaya T, Karatepe AG, Gunaydn R, Yetis H, Uslu A. Disability and health-related quality of life after breast cancer surgery: relation to impairments. South Med J. 2010;103(1):37-41.
69. Kwan ML, Ergas IJ, Somkin CP, et al. Quality of life among women recently diagnosed with invasive breast cancer: the Pathways Study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;123(2):507-524.
70. Milne HM, Gordon S, Guilfoyle A, Wallman KE, Courneya KS. Association between physical activity and quality of life among Western Australian breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2007;16(12):1059-1068.
71. Park BW, Lee S, Lee AR, Lee KH, Hwang SY. Quality of Life Differences between Younger and Older Breast Cancer Patients. J Breast Cancer. 2011;14(2):112-118.
72. Taira N, Shimozuma K, Shiroiwa T, et al. Associations among baseline variables, treatment-related factors and health-related quality of life 2 years after breast cancer surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;128(3):735-747.
73. Beaulac SM, McNair LA, Scott TE, LaMorte WW, Kavanah MT. Lymphedema and quality of life in survivors of earlystage breast cancer. Arch Surg. 2002;137(11):1253-1257.
74. Belmonte R, Garin O, Segura M, Pont A, Escalada F, Ferrer M. Quality-of-life impact of sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients. Value Health. 2012;15(6):907-915.
75. Bulley C, Gaal S, Coutts F, et al. Comparison of breast cancer-related lymphedema (upper limb swelling) prevalence estimated using objective and subjective criteria and relationship with quality of life. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:807569.
76. Coster S, Poole K, Fallowfield LJ. The validation of a quality of life scale to assess the impact of arm morbidity in breast cancer patients post-operatively. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;68(3):273-282.
77. Belmonte R, Tejero M, Ferrer M, et al. Efficacy of lowfrequency low-intensity electrotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphoedema: a cross-over randomized trial. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(7):607-618.
78. Gordon LG, Scuffham P, Battistutta D, Graves N, Tweeddale M, Newman B. A cost-effectiveness analysis of two rehabilitation support services for women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;94(2):123-133.
79. Mak SS, Mo KF, Suen JJ, Chan SL, Ma WL, Yeo W. Lymphedema and quality of life in Chinese women after treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2009;13(2):110-115.
80. Potter S, Thomson HJ, Greenwood RJ, Hopwood P, Winters ZE. Health-related quality of life assessment after breast reconstruction. Br J Surg. 2009;96(6):613-620.
81. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(3):570-579.
82. Ferrans CE, Powers M. Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index. http://www.uic.edu/orgs/qli/index.htm. Accessed October 2013.
83. Laenen A, Alonso A. The Functional Living Index-Cancer: estimating its reliability based on clinical trial data. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(1):103-109.
84. Luckett T, King MT, Butow PN, et al. Choosing between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G for measuring health-related quality of life in cancer clinical research: issues, evidence and recommendations. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(10):2179-2190.
85. Victorson D, Barocas J, Song J, Cella D. Reliability across studies from the functional assessment of cancer therapygeneral (FACT-G) and its subscales: a reliability generalization. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(9):1137-1146.
86. Wilson RW, Hutson LM, Vanstry D. Comparison of 2 quality-of-life questionnaires in women treated for breast cancer: the RAND 36-Item Health Survey and the Functional Living Index-Cancer. Phys Ther. 2005;85(9):851-860.
87. Hjermstad MJ, Fossa SD, Bjordal K, Kaasa S. Test/retest study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(5):1249-1254.
88. Kuenstner S, Langelotz C, Budach V, Possinger K, Krause B, Sezer O. The comparability of quality of life scores. a multitrait multimethod analysis of the EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36 and FLIC questionnaires. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(3):339-348.
89. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):139-144.
90. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365-376.
91. Yost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28(2):172-191.
92. Schipper H, Clinch J, McMurray A, Levitt M. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: the Functional Living Index-Cancer: development and validation. J Clin Oncol. 1984;2(5):472-483.
93. Lindley C, Vasa S, Sawyer WT, Winer EP. Quality of life and preferences for treatment following systemic adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(4):1380-1387.
94. Coates A, Gebski V, Signorini D, et al. Prognostic value of quality-of-life scores during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. Australian New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10(12):1833-1838.
95. Colby DA, Shifren K. Optimism, mental health, and quality of life: a study among breast cancer patients. Psychol Health Med. 2013;18(1):10-20.
96. Mallinckrodt B, Armer JM, Heppner PP. A threshold model of social support, adjustment, and distress after breast cancer treatment. J Couns Psychol. 2012;59(1):150.
97. Ferrans CE, Powers MJ. Quality of life index: development and psychometric properties. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1985;8(1):15-24.
98. Ferrans CE, Powers MJ. Psychometric assessment of the Quality of Life Index. Res Nurs Health. 1992;15(1):29-38.
99. Ferrell BR, Grant M, Funk B, Garcia N, Otis-Green S, Schaffner ML. Quality of life in breast cancer. Cancer Pract. 1996;4(6):331-340.
100. Ware JE, Jr, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B. User's Manual fo rthe SF-12v2 Health Survey (With a Supplement Documenting SF-12 Health Survey). Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2002.
101. Ware JE, Jr, Kosinski M, Dewey JE, Gandek B. A Manual for Users of the SF-8 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2001.
102. Ware J, Kosinski M, Bjomer B, Turner-Bowker D, Gandek M, Maurish M. User's Guide for the SF-36v2 Health Survey. Quality Metric Incorporated; 2007.
103. Rodrique JR, Kanasky JR WF, Jackson SI, Perri MG. The Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale—Self-Report: factor structure and item stability for Persons with Cancer. Psychol Assess. 2000;12(4):409-413.
104. Derogatis LR. The psychosocial adjustment to illness scale (PAIS). J Psychosom Res. 1986;30(1):77-91.
105. Den Oudsten BL, Van Heck GL, Van der Steeg AF, Roukema JA, De Vries J. The WHOQOL-100 has good psychometric properties in breast cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(2):195-205.
106. Bonomi AE, Patrick DL, Bushnell DM, Martin M. Validation of the United States' version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrument. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(1):1-12.
107. van der Steeg AF, De Vries J, Roukema JA. Anxious personality and breast cancer: possible negative impact on quality of life after breast-conserving therapy. World J Surg. 2010;34(7):1453-1460.
108. van der Steeg AF, De Vries J, Roukema JA. The value of quality of life and health status measurements in the evaluation of the well-being of breast cancer survivors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34(11):1225-1230.
109. Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, Williams GR, Lipscomb J, Matchar D. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15(2):141-155.
110. UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES) 2011.
111. Sackett DL SS, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
112. Campbell KL, Pusic AL, Zucker DS, et al. A prospective model of care for breast cancer rehabilitation: function. Cancer. 2012;118(S8):2300-2311.
    113. Eton DT, Cella D, Yost KJ, et al. A combination of distribution-and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(9):898-910.
      114. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):139-144.
        115. Yost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution-and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences the FACIT Experience. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28(2):172-191.
          116. Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, Williams GR, Lipscomb J, Matchar D. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15(2):141-155.
            Appendix 1
            Appendix 1:
            Cancer EDGE Taskforce Outcome Measure Rating Form
            Appendix 1
            Appendix 1:
            Cancer EDGE Taskforce Outcome Measure Rating Form
            Keywords:

            quality of life; outcome measure; breast cancer; FACT-B; EORTC QLQ-B23; BREAST-Q

            ©2015 (C) Academy of Oncologic Physical Therapy, APTA