Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Finnish version of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 for patients with localised prostate cancer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.44371Keywords:
Prostate cancer, health-related quality of life, patient-reported outcome measures, PROMs, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, EPIC-26Abstract
Objective: The study aimed to culturally adapt the Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite-26 (EPIC-26) questionnaire to Finnish and evaluate its usability in routine clinical practice in Finland.
Material and methods: We translated the EPIC-26 questionnaire into Finnish, reviewed it, back-translated it into English, and reviewed it again. We evaluated the questionnaire in four high-volume university hospitals in Finland. The study included 220 Finnish-speaking patients with untreated, newly diagnosed non-metastatic prostate cancer. Patients completed the EPIC-26 twice before treatment and twice 6 months after treatment. We assessed internal consistency, test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change, and unanswered questions.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 68 years, with 69% diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer according to the D’Amico classification. The most common treatment was radical prostatectomy (36%), followed by radiation therapy (31%) and active surveillance (25%). The minimum score, i.e. the worst assessment, was observed most frequently in the sexual domain (8%), while the maximum score was in the bowel domain (47%). Irritation/obstruction and hormonal domains showed low internal consistency due to the questions regarding haematuria and breast problems. Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy had statistically significant changes between pre- and post-treatment scores. Most men (72%) completed the questionnaire. Older patients were more prone to leave questions unanswered, particularly questions with multiple items (odds ratio 0.39; 95% confidence interval 0.20–0.80).
Conclusions: The Finnish version of the EPIC-26 questionnaire can be used in clinical practice. Completing the questionnaire may be more difficult for older patients.
Downloads
References
Di Maio M, Basch E, Denis F, et al. The role of patient-reported outcome measures in the continuum of cancer clinical care: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Oncol. 2022;33(9):878–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2022.04.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2022.04.007
Stattin P. How to improve cancer care by use of guidelines and quality registers. Scand J Urol. 2024;59:190–2. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.42272 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.42272
Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Shouery M, et al. Validation study of a web-based assessment of functional recovery after radical prostatectomy. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:82. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-82 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-82
Szymanski KM, Wei JT, Dunn RL, et al. Development and validation of an abbreviated version of the expanded prostate cancer index composite instrument for measuring health-related quality of life among prostate cancer survivors. Urology. 2010;76(5):1245–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.027
Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, et al. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;56(6):899–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00858-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00858-X
Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, et al. The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: development, reliability, and validity of a health-related quality of life measure. Med Care. 1998;36(7):1002–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199807000-00007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199807000-00007
Esper P, Mo F, Chodak G, et al. Measuring quality of life in men with prostate cancer using the functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate instrument. Urology. 1997;50(6):920–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00459-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00459-7
van Andel G, Bottomley A, Fosså SD, et al. An international field study of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: a questionnaire for assessing the health-related quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(16):2418–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.07.030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.07.030
Giesler RB, Miles BJ, Cowen ME, et al. Assessing quality of life in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: development of a new instrument for use in multiple settings. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(6):645–65. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008931703884 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008931703884
Rnic K, Linden W, Tudor I, et al. Measuring symptoms in localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of assessment instruments. Pros-tate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2013;16(2):111–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2013.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2013.1
Axcrona K, Nilsson R, Brennhovd B, et al. Psychometric properties of the expanded prostate cancer index composite – 26 instrument in a cohort of radical prostatectomy patients: theoretical and practical examinations. BMC Urol. 2017;17(1):111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0302-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0302-7
Crump RT, Peterson A, Charbonneau C, et al. Evaluating the measurement properties of the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Com-posite (EPIC-26) with a multicenter cohort. Can Urol Assoc J. 2020;14(4):111–117. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5997 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5997
Martin NE, Massey L, Stowell C, et al. Defining a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;67(3):460–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.075 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.016
Morgans AK, van Bommel AC, Stowell C, et al. Development of a standardized set of patient-centered outcomes for advanced prostate cancer: an international effort for a unified approach. Eur Urol. 2015;68(5):891–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.007
Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Wallis CJD, Penson DF, et al. Functional outcomes after localized prostate cancer treatment. JAMA. 2024;331(4):302–17. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.26491 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.26491
Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.969 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.969
Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Risk assessment for prostate cancer metastasis and mortality at the time of diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(12):878–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp122
Protopapa E, van der Meulen J, Moore CM, et al. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires for men who have radical surgery for prostate cancer: a conceptual review of existing instruments. BJU Int. 2017;120(4):468–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13896 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13896
Vigneault É, Savard J, Savard MH, et al. Validation of the French-Canadian version of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) in a French-Canadian population. Can Urol Assoc J. 2017;11(12):404–10. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4428 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4428
Forgione M, Sara S, Vincent AD, et al. Satisfaction with care in men with prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer Care. 2019;28(4):e13028. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13028
Sibert NT, Dieng S, Oesterle A, et al. Psychometric validation of the German version of the EPIC-26 questionnaire for patients with local-ized and locally advanced prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2021;39(1):11–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02949-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02949-7
Zamora V, Garin O, Suárez JF, et al. Psychometric validation of the Spanish version of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26. World J Urol. 2023;41(12):3511–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04691-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04691-7
Jula A, Andreasson A, Logadottir Y, et al. Patients experience with the use of a penile clamp in post-prostatectomy incontinence – a pro-spective pilot study. Scand J Urol. 2024;59:58–62. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.9586 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.9586
Wedde TB, Smaastuen MC, Vatne K, et al. External beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer with or without high dose-rate brachytherapy: the Norwegian experience with long-term urinary and bowel adverse effects. Scand J Urol. 2023;58:68–75. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v58.9571 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v58.9571
Sletten R, Berger Christiansen O, Oldervoll LM, et al. The association between age and long-term quality of life after curative treatment for prostate cancer: a cross-sectional study. Scand J Urol. 2024;59:31–8. https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.18616 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.18616
Talvitie AM, Ojala H, Tammela T, et al. The expanded prostate cancer index composite short form (EPIC-26) for measuring health-related quality of life: content analysis of patients’ spontaneous comments written in survey margins. Qual Life Res. 2022;31(3):855–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02940-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02940-z
Talvitie AM, Helminen M, Ojala H, et al. Missingness in the expanded prostate cancer index short form (EPIC-26) – prevalence, patterns, and explanatory factors. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023;21(1):89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02175-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02175-1
Haapiainen H, Valli J, Murtola T, et al. Visual analogue scale (VAS) in the evaluation of functional outcomes after three-dimensional lapa-roscopic prostatectomy. Urology. 2023;172:121–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.12.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.12.003
Anttinen M, Mäkelä P, Viitala A, et al. Salvage magnetic resonance imaging-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation for localized radiorecurrent prostate cancer: 12-month functional and oncological results. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2020;22:79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2020.10.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2020.10.007
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Otto Ettala, Robin Bergroth, Jarno Riikonen, Peter Boström, Juha Koskimäki, Jani Kuisma, Antti Rannikko, Markku Vaarala, Martin G Sanda, Henrikki Santti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY license, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
