Systematic review compares patient-reported outcome measures for quality of life in endometrial cancer, suggesting implications for clinical use.
Purpose of review Endometrial cancer is a prevalent gynecological malignancy with a rising incidence and substantial symptom burden. As treatments evolve, understanding patient-reported quality of life (QoL) has become critical. This review examines the characteristics, psychometric properties, and domain coverage of three key endometrial-cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures to guide clinical and research applications. Recent findings The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Endometrial Cancer 24 (EORTC QLQ-EN24), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endometrial (FACT-En), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Endometrial Symptom Index (FEnSI-23) present varying structures, scopes, and focuses. The EORTC QLQ-EN24 provides detailed symptom assessment, particularly for treatment-induced effects, and has been validated in multinational settings. FACT-En offers a broader evaluation of physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being, supporting longitudinal and survivorship research. FEnSI-23, developed through patient-centered approaches, emphasizes disease-related symptoms and treatment side effects, taking the perspectives of underrepresented patient groups into account. Summary This review highlights significant differences in the scope, strengths, and psychometric properties of the EORTC QLQ-EN24, FACT-En, and FEnSI-23. While they demonstrate clinical research utility, gaps remain in cross-cultural validation and responsiveness. Prospective research should prioritize validation across diverse populations to further ascertain the measures’ reliability. Instrument selection should correlate with clinical requirements, with the EORTC QLQ-EN24 suited for detailed symptom assessment, the FACT-En for broader QoL evaluation, and the FEnSI-23 for patient-centered measurement of disease symptoms and treatment side effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: