Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of Life in Women with Cervical Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Uterine Cervical Cancer

Abstract

Cervical cancer and its treatments can affect quality of life in many ways, both positively and negatively, from diagnosis through to the acute treatment and survivorship phases. In research settings, the collective term used for all these impacts is health-related quality of life (HRQOL). These include psychological distress related to impairment of functioning, body image, sexual function, and fertility. Additional distress often follows surgical, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments as these can cause urinary, gastrointestinal, and neurologic side effects, physical changes, and sexual dysfunction. Some side effects and changes are chronic, such as psychosexual problems after treatment. It is therefore important to assess symptoms, side effects, and various aspects of functioning, all of which impact HRQOL, during and after cervical cancer treatment. HRQOL information collected in clinical trials can complement clinical data to guide improvements in clinical practice and to counsel individual patients about the impact of treatment and assist them to make treatment decisions. Assessment of HRQOL in clinic can facilitate communication about HRQOL-related issues arising from cervical cancer treatment, alerting multidisciplinary health teams to issues requiring management. In this chapter, we introduce terminology and discuss how cervical cancer and its various treatments affect patients’ HRQOL including side effects of treatment, psychosexual problems, and fertility issues. Methods for assessing HRQOL in cervical cancer are discussed, and current ongoing clinical trials are summarised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Osoba D. Lessons learned from measuring health-related quality of life in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12(3):608–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Revicki DA, Osoba D, Fairclough D, et al. Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(8):887–900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Food and Drug Administration. Patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims. US Department of Health & Human Support Food & Drug Administration; MD, USA 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Deshields TL, Potter P, Olsen S, et al. The persistence of symptom burden: symptom experience and quality of life of cancer patients across one year. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(4):1089–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cancer Council Australia. Understanding cervical cancer: Cancer Council NSW; 2015. https://www.cancer.org.au/content/about_cancer/ebooks/Understanding_Cervical_Cancer_booklet_September_2017.pdf

  6. Thomas SG, Sato HR, Glantz JC, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders among gynecologic oncology patients. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):976–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Xie Y, Zhao FH, Lu SH, et al. Assessment of quality of life for the patients with cervical cancer at different clinical stages. Chin J Cancer. 2013;32(5):275–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Costa D, Mercieca-Bebber R, Rutherford C, et al. The impact of cancer on psychological and social outcomes. Aust Psychol. 2016;51:89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Au H-J, Ringash J, Brundage M, et al. Added value of health-related quality of life measurement in cancer clinical trials: the experience of the NCIC CTG. Expert Rev Pharm Out. 2010;10(2):119–28.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Legro MW. The proximal-distal continuum of multiple health outcome measures: the case of cataract surgery. Med Care. 1995;33(4):As236–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Basch E, Jia X, Heller G, et al. Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(23):1624–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Agarwal S, Bodurka DC. Symptom research in gynecologic oncology: a review of available measurement tools. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119(2):384–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sigaard L, Larsen H, Mikkelsen T, et al. Living experiences with late effects after treatment for cervical cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(1):S311.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Marth C, Landoni F, Mahner S, et al. Cervical cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(4):iv72–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cibula D, Velechovska P, Slama J, et al. Late morbidity following nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116(3):506–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bogani G, Serati M, Nappi R, et al. Nerve-sparing approach reduces sexual dysfunction in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. J Sex Med. 2014;11(12):3012–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Arimoto T, Kawana K, Adachi K, et al. Minimization of curative surgery for treatment of early cervical cancer: a review. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45(7):611–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Karimi-Zarchi M, Mousavi A, Gilani MM, et al. Conservative treatment in early cervical cancer. Int J Biomed Sci. 2013;9(3):123–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C, et al. Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008;337:a1284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Schwarz TM, Kolben T, Gallwas J, et al. Comparison of two surgical methods for the treatment of CIN: classical LLETZ (large-loop excision of the transformation zone) versus isolated resection of the colposcopic apparent lesion – study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:225.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim HS, Kim K, Ryoo SB, et al. Conventional versus nerve-sparing radical surgery for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. J Gynecol Oncol. 2015;26(2):100–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Surgical menopause Victoria, Australia: Australasian Menopause Society Limited; 2013 [cited 2017 August 20]. https://www.menopause.org.au/hp/information-sheets/756-surgical-menopause

  23. UK CR. A trial looking at surgery for cervical cancer (SHAPE). Trial number CRUK/13/015. London: Cancer Research UK; 2017 [cited 2017 August 30]. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/a-trial-looking-at-surgery-for-cervical-cancer-shape

  24. Maas CP, Trimbos JB, DeRuiter MC, et al. Nerve sparing radical hysterectomy: latest developments and historical perspective. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003;48(3):271–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. van Gent MD, Romijn LM, van Santen KE, et al. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy versus conventional radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and quality of life. Maturitas. 2016;94:30–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Xue Z, Zhu X, Teng Y. Comparison of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2016;38(5):1841–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sinclair AJ, Ramsay IN. The psychosocial impact of urinary incontinence in women. Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;13(3):143–8.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hakvoort RA, Thijs SD, Bouwmeester FW, et al. Comparing clean intermittent catheterisation and transurethral indwelling catheterisation for incomplete voiding after vaginal prolapse surgery: a multicentre randomised trial. BJOG. 2011;118(9):1055–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Aoun F, van Velthoven R. Lower urinary tract dysfunction after nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(7):947–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Katepratoom C, Manchana T, Amornwichet N. Lower urinary tract dysfunction and quality of life in cervical cancer survivors after concurrent chemoradiation versus radical hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):91–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ferrandina G. Long term evaluation of quality of life and emotional distress in patients with cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2012;119:S188–S9.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Chan JL, Letourneau J, Salem W, et al. Sexual satisfaction and quality of life in survivors of localized cervical and ovarian cancers following fertility-sparing surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;139(1):141–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Korfage IJ, Essink-Bot ML, Mols F, et al. Health-related quality of life in cervical cancer survivors: a population-based survey. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73(5):1501–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Klee M, Thranov I, Machin PD. The patients’ perspective on physical symptoms after radiotherapy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;76(1):14–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Laurentius T, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Camara O, et al. Impact of age on morbidity and outcome of concurrent radiochemotherapy in high-risk FIGO stage I to IVA carcinoma of the uterine cervix following laparoscopic surgery. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2011;137(3):481–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pfaendler KS, Wenzel L, Mechanic MB, et al. Cervical cancer survivorship: long-term quality of life and social support. Clin Ther. 2015;37(1):39–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim SI, Lim MC, Lee JS, et al. Comparison of lower extremity edema in locally advanced cervical cancer: pretreatment laparoscopic surgical staging with tailored radiotherapy versus primary radiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(1):203–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Vistad I, Cvancarova M, Kristensen GB, et al. A study of chronic pelvic pain after radiotherapy in survivors of locally advanced cervical cancer. J Cancer Surviv. 2011;5(2):208–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Kirchheiner K, Potter R, Tanderup K, et al. Health-related quality of life in locally advanced cervical cancer patients after definitive chemoradiation therapy including image guided adaptive brachytherapy: an analysis from the EMBRACE study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;94(5):1088–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Maduro JH, Pras E, Willemse PH, et al. Acute and long-term toxicity following radiotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2003;29(6):471–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sekse RJ, Hufthammer KO, Vika ME. Fatigue and quality of life in women treated for various types of gynaecological cancers: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Nurs. 2015;24(3–4):546–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wo JY, Viswanathan AN. The impact of radiotherapy on fertility, pregnancy, and neonatal outcomes of female cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73(5):1304–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Gubbala K, Laios A, Gallos I, et al. Outcomes of ovarian transposition in gynaecological cancers; a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Ovarian Res. 2014;7(1):69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Siahpush M, Singh GK. Sociodemographic predictors of pap test receipt, currency and knowledge among Australian women. Prev Med. 2002;35(4):362–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Greenwald HP, McCorkle R, Baumgartner K, et al. Quality of life and disparities among long-term cervical cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8(3):419–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. McGarvey EL, Baum LD, Pinkerton RC, et al. Psychological sequelae and alopecia among women with cancer. Cancer Pract. 2001;9(6):283–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hesketh PJ, Batchelor D, Golant M, et al. Chemotherapy-induced alopecia: psychosocial impact and therapeutic approaches. Support Care Cancer. 2004;12(8):543–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tageja N, Groninger H. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an overview and comparison of three consensus guidelines. Postgrad Med J. 2016;92(1083):34–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lohr L. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Cancer J. 2008;14(2):85–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Jean-Pierre P, McDonald BC. Neuroepidemiology of cancer and treatment-related neurocognitive dysfunction in adult-onset cancer patients and survivors. Handb Clin Neurol. 2016;138:297–309.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tewari KS, Sill MW, Penson RT, et al. Bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer: final overall survival and adverse event analysis of a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial (Gynecologic Oncology Group 240). Lancet. 2017;390(10103):1654–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Penson RT, Huang HQ, Wenzel LB, et al. Bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer: patient-reported outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology-Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol 240). Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(3):301–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Datta NR, Samiei M, Bodis S. Radiation therapy infrastructure and human resources in low- and middle-income countries: present status and projections for 2020. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89(3):448–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. De Vuyst H, Alemany L, Lacey C, et al. The burden of human papillomavirus infections and related diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. Vaccine. 2013;31(5):F32–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Keller M, Sommerfeldt S, Fischer C, et al. Recognition of distress and psychiatric morbidity in cancer patients: a multi-method approach. Ann Oncol. 2004;15(8):1243–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Simard S, Thewes B, Humphris G, et al. Fear of cancer recurrence in adult cancer survivors: a systematic review of quantitative studies. J Cancer Surviv. 2013;7(3):300–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Conic I, Miljkovic S, Tosic-Golubovic S, et al. Anxiety levels related to the type of therapy for cervical cancer. Cent Eur J Med. 2012;7(4):490–6.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hazewinkel MH, Sprangers MAG, Van Der Velden J, et al. Severe pelvic floor symptoms after cervical cancer treatment are predominantly associated with mental and physical well-being and body image: a cross-sectional study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(1):154–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Carter J, Rowland K, Chi D, et al. Gynecologic cancer treatment and the impact of cancer-related infertility. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97(1):90–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Angarita AM, Johnson CA, Fader AN, et al. Fertility preservation: a key survivorship issue for young women with cancer. Front Oncol. 2016;6:102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Chan JL, Letourneau J, Salem W, et al. Regret around fertility choices is decreased with pre-treatment counseling in gynecologic cancer patients. J Cancer Surviv. 2017;11(1):58–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bakker RM, Kenter GG, Creutzberg CL, et al. Sexual distress and associated factors among cervical cancer survivors: a cross-sectional multicenter observational study. Psycho-Oncology. 2016;26(10):1470–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Lonnée-Hoffmann R, Pinas I. Effects of hysterectomy on sexual function. Curr Sexual Health Rep. 2014;6(4):244–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Vermeer WM, Bakker RM, Kenter GG, et al. Cervical cancer survivors’ and partners’ experiences with sexual dysfunction and psychosexual support. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:1679–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ghafoori F, Noughabi ZS, Sarafraz N, et al. Sexual outcomes in women with cervical cancer: a review article. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infert. 2016;19(28):22–7.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Solbrække KN, Bondevik H. Absent organs—present selves: exploring embodiment and gender identity in young Norwegian women’s accounts of hysterectomy. Int J Qual Stud Health, 2015;10. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v10.26720.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Syse A, Kravdal Ø. Does cancer affect the divorce rate? Demogr Res. 2007;16(15):469–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. De Groot JM, Mah K, Fyles A, et al. The psychosocial impact of cervical cancer among affected women and their partners. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15(5):918–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Maguire R, Kotronoulas G, Simpson M, et al. A systematic review of the supportive care needs of women living with and beyond cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;136(3):478–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Ye S, Yang J, Cao D, et al. A systematic review of quality of life and sexual function of patients with cervical cancer after treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24(7):1146–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Alcala HE, Mitchell E, Keim-Malpass J. Adverse childhood experiences and cervical Cancer screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017;26(1):58–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Jayasinghe YL, Sasongko V, Lim RW, et al. The association between unwanted sexual experiences and early-onset cervical cancer and precancer by age 25: a case-control study. J Womens Health (Larchmt), 2016, 17. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.5742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Szender JB, Cannioto R, Gulati NR, et al. Impact of physical inactivity on risk of developing cancer of the uterine cervix: a case-control study. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2016;20(3):230–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Gerritsen JK, Vincent AJ. Exercise improves quality of life in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(13):796–803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Sawyer A. Complementary exercise and quality of life in patients with breast cancer. Br J Nurs. 2014;23(16):S18–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organisation 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):365–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Flechtner H, Bottomley A. Quality of life assessment and research in the EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer). Oncologie. 2006;8(5):443–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol. 2015;26(8):1547–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2563–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Gilbert A, Sebag-Montefiore D, Davidson S, et al. Use of patient-reported outcomes to measure symptoms and health related quality of life in the clinic. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;136(3):429–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, et al. Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(8):1305–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(2):179–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. PROQOLID Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database [Internet]. Mapi Research Trust. 2016 [cited 2016 November 28]. http://www.proqolid.org/instruments

  85. King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):171–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Cella D, Tulsky DS, Gray R, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(3):570–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Greimel ER, Kuljanic Vlasic K, Waldenstrom AC, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire cervical cancer module: EORTC QLQ-CX24. Cancer. 2006;107(8):1812–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Ding Y, Hu Y, Hallberg IR. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervix (FACT-Cx) measuring health-related quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10(1):124.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Calhoun EA, Welshman EE, Chang CH, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (Fact/GOG-Ntx) questionnaire for patients receiving systemic chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13(6):741–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Cella D, Peterman A, Hudgens S, et al. Measuring the side effects of taxane therapy in oncology: the functional assessment of cancer therapy-taxane (FACT-taxane). Cancer. 2003;98(4):822–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Levine M, Guyatt G, Gent M, et al. Quality of life in stage II breast cancer: an instrument for clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6(12):1798–810.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Coates A, Glasziou P, McNeil D. On the receiving end – III. Measurement of quality of life during cancer chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 1990;1:213–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Luckett T, King MT. Choosing patient-reported outcome measures for cancer clinical research – practical principles and an algorithm to assist non-specialist researchers. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(18):3149–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Snyder CF, Watson ME, Jackson JD, et al. Patient-reported outcome instrument selection: designing a measurement strategy. Value Health. 2007;10:S76–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. 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):2179–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Mercieca-Bebber R, Palmer MJ, Brundage M, et al. Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(6):e010938.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Aaronson NK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, et al. User’s guide to implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice, Version 2: January: International Society for Quality of Life Research; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    C. Rutherford, R. Mercieca-Bebber, M. Tait & M. T. King

  2. Faculty of Medicine, Sydney Medical School, Central Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    R. Mercieca-Bebber & M. T. King

  3. Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Linda Mileshkin

Authors
  1. C. Rutherford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Mercieca-Bebber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Tait
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Linda Mileshkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. T. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Rutherford .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College/Graduate School of Medical Sciences, The New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center, and Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA

    Samir A. Farghaly

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rutherford, C., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Tait, M., Mileshkin, L., King, M.T. (2019). Quality of Life in Women with Cervical Cancer. In: Farghaly, S. (eds) Uterine Cervical Cancer. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02701-8_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02701-8_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02700-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02701-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation