PURPOSE: To synthesize and evaluate current evidence on the responsiveness, interpretability (MID/MIC), and clinical utility of validated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used in adults with head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library (Central) identified studies published from January 2015 to July 2025. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251128978) and followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Observational and interventional studies assessing HRQoL using validated HNC instruments (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-H&N35/H&N43, UW-QOL, FACT-H&N or MDADI) were included. Eligible studies reported responsiveness (ability to detect meaningful change) or clinical applicability. Methodological quality was evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and results were narratively synthesized due to methodological heterogeneity. RESULTS: Thirteen studies involving 8,075 patients met the inclusion criteria. The EORTC QLQ-C30 and H&N35/43, UW-QOL, FACT-H&N, and MDADI exhibited consistent responsiveness, capturing expected HRQoL deterioration during treatment and partial recovery within 6-12 months. Reported minimal important difference (MID) and minimal important change (MIC) values typically ranged from 4 to 15 points for improvement and 10-20 points for deterioration, supporting the interpretability of change scores. Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) also demonstrated prognostic relevance, with early HRQoL changes associated with survival or recurrence. CONCLUSION: Validated HRQoL questionnaires in HNC demonstrate robust responsiveness and meaningful clinical applicability, supporting their integration into routine oncology practice. Their use may enhance early detection of complications, guide rehabilitative interventions, and facilitate more individualized, patient-centered care.
Hernández-Torres et al. (Sun,) studied this question.