Assessing quality of life in childhood cancer survivors at risk for hearing loss: a comparison of HEAR-QL and PROMIS measures.

BACKGROUND

Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) exposed to platinum chemotherapy are at an increased risk of developing hearing loss and reporting decreased quality of life (QOL). This study compared two QOL measures; one developed for children with hearing loss, The Hearing Environments and Refection on Quality of Life (HEAR-QL), and one validated in CCS, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), to assess their ability to evaluate QOL deficits in this population.

METHODS

Subject eligibility were restricted to CCS exposed to platinum-based chemotherapy but who were free of known risk factors for cognitive impairment, (non-central nervous system tumor, no cranial radiation, or intrathecal chemotherapy). Participants had to be between 8-17 years, have completed anti-cancer therapy for at least 6 months, and have an audiogram within 1 year, Participants completed the HEAR-QL-26 (7-12 years) or the HEAR-QL-28 (13-18 years) and the PROMIS. Independent samples and/or one sample T-tests were utilized to compare participants with normal hearing and hearing loss, and to compare outcome measures to normative HEAR-QL and PROMIS data. Non-parametric correlations were utilized to evaluate the relationship between QOL and demographic and medical variables, and QOL and severity of hearing loss.

RESULTS

Fifty-four CCS were evaluable. The mean age was 12.0 years. Twenty-eight participants (51.9%) received cisplatin, 30 (55.6%) carboplatin, and 4 (7.4%) received both. Twenty participants (37%) demonstrated hearing loss. Participants with hearing loss scored significantly lower on the HEAR-QL than those with normal hearing (mean: 70.3, SD: 21.7, vs mean: 88.0, SD: 9.3, p =.004 for the HEAR-QL-26; mean: 84.7, SD: 10.2 vs mean: 94.8, SD: 3.4, p =.040 for the HEAR-QL-28). Participants with normal hearing scored significantly lower on the HEAR-QL-26 than the normative mean (mean: 88, SD: 9.3, normative mean: 98, SD: 5, p =.000). The PROMIS failed to identify any differences in QOL between participants based on hearing status, or when compared to the normative mean.

CONCLUSION

The HEAR-QL was more sensitive than the PROMIS in identifying QOL deficits in CCS at risk for hearing loss. The HEAR-QL should be considered in studies seeking to improve the QOL of CCS with hearing loss.