The Assessment of Burden of ColoRectal Cancer (ABCRC)-tool; a validity and reliability study

Introduction: Follow-up care after treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasingly focused on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and functional outcomes. The Assessment of Burden of ColoRectal Cancer (ABCRC)-tool is developed to measure these outcomes and support patient-oriented care. The tool comprises items assessing burden of disease and lifestyle parameters. It consists of a generic module combined with one of the three CRC specific modules. The objective of this study is to assess the construct validity and reliability of the items of the ABCRC-tool. Methods: Patients who were receiving follow-up care after surgical CRC treatment were invited to complete the ABCRC-tool together with other validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Construct validity was assessed by testing expected correlations between items of the ABCRC-tool and domains of other PROMs and by examining predefined hypotheses regarding differences in subgroups of patients. Patients completed the ABCRC-tool twice, with 8 days apart, to evaluate its reliability. Results: In total, 177 patients participated (64% male) with a mean age of 67 years (range 33–88). The colon, rectum and stoma module were completed by subsequently 89, 53 and 35 patients. Most items correlated as expected with anticipated domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30 or EORTC QLQ-CR29 (all p-values 0.70) for most items, indicating good reliability. Conclusion: The ABCRC-tool is a valid and reliable instrument that is ready for use in a clinical setting to support personalized follow-up care after CRC treatment

Cognitive performance in relation to metabolic disturbances in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Cognitive impairment (CI) and metabolic abnormalities, including the metabolic syndrome (MetS) and sarcopenia, are more prevalent in COPD patients compared to controls without diagnosed lung disease. Because earlier studies have shown these metabolic abnormalities may affect cognitive performance, this study investigated whether cognitive performance is more impaired in subgroups of COPD patients with MetS or sarcopenia. METHODS: Cognitive performance patterns of 170 COPD patients referred for pulmonary rehabilitation (53.5% male, 63.4 ± 9.4 years, FEV1 54.5 ± 22.7% predicted) were compared between COPD subgroups stratified by presence of MetS and sarcopenia. Cognitive performance was assessed using a detailed neuropsychological test battery, which measured psychomotor speed (Stroop Color-Word Test, Concept Shifting Test, Letter-Digit Substitution Test), planning (Behavioral Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome), working memory (Visual-Verbal Learning Test, Digit Span), verbal memory (Visual-Verbal Learning Test) and cognitive flexibility (Stroop Color-Word Test, Concept Shifting Test). MetS was determined according to the NCEP ATP-III criteria. Sarcopenia was determined based on decreased appendicular lean mass by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and impaired physical performance by 6-min walking distance. RESULTS: MetS was observed in 54.7% and sarcopenia in 30.0% of COPD patients. The prevalence of general CI was not different between patients with and without MetS (30.4% and 39.0%, respectively) or those with and without sarcopenia (34.0% and 34.5%, respectively, both p > 0.05). Domain-specific cognitive performance was not different between metabolic subgroups, but those with sarcopenia displayed a lower prevalence of CI on verbal memory than those without (21.7% and 29.7%, respectively, p = 0.011). Only the digit span (working memory) subtest was significantly different between metabolic subgroups, in favor of those without MetS (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Cognitive performance was not affected more in COPD patients with sarcopenia or MetS