Dear Editor:

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines palliative care as an approach to improving the quality of life of the patient and their family as they face the complications associated with a potentially fatal disease in advanced stages. This includes prophylaxis and mitigation of suffering through the identification, estimation, and treatment of physical, psychosocial, and emotional spheres¹.

Similarly, the WHO biopsychosocial model considers that pathologies affect not only an organ or system but also the set of dimensions that make up an individual². From this, the term “quality of life” has gained relevance when inquiring into the relationship of an individual, the pathology, and the treatment.

Preserving a sense of well-being in cancer patients in palliative care is a predominant objective in cancer control, therefore various instruments are available for measuring quality of life. However, it remains a challenge to quantify it and compare it between individuals, so it is essential to be diligent when selecting an instrument.

Certainly, “The Short Form-36 Health Survey” or SF-36 questionnaire is a tool translated into several languages, including Spanish, and validated in Peru since 2012, thus contributing to countless influential national studies. However, in order to expand the availability of tools that quantify and compare quality of life among cancer patients in the Pain Therapy Unit, other options could be chosen to implement.

One of the quality of life measurement instruments also validated in Spanish is the EORTC QLQ-C30^3,4. It is a questionnaire with a length of 30 items immersed in 3 dimensions (functional, symptomatic, and global quality of life status) that demonstrate the multidimensionality of quality of life in cancer patients. The functional dimension includes 15 items that develop physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social functioning; Here the daily activities that could be affected as a result of the pathology are reflected. The symptomatic dimension includes 13 items describing symptoms such as fatigue, pain, nausea/vomiting, dyspnea, insomnia, loss of appetite, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties. Finally, the global quality of life dimension is made up of 2 items that subjectively assess how the cancer patient discerns his or her quality of life from an affective perspective⁵.

Kyranou et al. (2021) used the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-SWB32 (spiritual well-being) in patients receiving oncological palliative care in Cyprus. The participating patients found the items understandable and consistent with the clinical utility proposed by the tool⁶.

Furthermore, Sommer et al. (2020) investigated the measurement invariance assumption of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in patients with hematological malignancies from multicenter studies conducted in Italy. This study provides support for measurement invariance across age, comorbidity, and time; also, support for partial scalar invariance for the dimension of cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning with respect to sex and illness. This shows that the QLQ-C30 is a specific and valid tool⁷.

Likewise, Cocks et al. (2023) provided the QLQ-C30 to evaluate the concepts of functional health, symptoms, side effects, and quality of life in oncology patients of various types of cancer in the US and Europe. The proposed items were widely understood in all language versions and provided relevant information for the study, showing good evidence of validity⁸.

In Latin America, Sánchez-Pedraza et al. (2020) evaluated the clinimetric properties of the EORTC QLQ C-30 when applied to patients from the Colombian population diagnosed with cancer, thus testing cross-cultural adaptation. They found that the instrument's reliability is adequate when measured with estimates of internal consistency and by comparison of repeated measures⁹.

In Peru, Vidaurre T et al. (2019) assessed the quality of life and the socio-economic implications after the implementation of the National Plan against Cancer of Peru (Plan Esperanza) and the implementation of the telechemotherapy module (TELECHEMO) in a Lamas category II-E hospital (second level of care) in the department of San Martin. The proposed tool made it possible to prospectively evaluate the quality of life of the patients included in the research, highlighting the results corresponding to the family and social environment¹⁰.

It is essential to have a range of judiciously translated and validated tools that quantify quality of life in cancer patients, given that it is a national priority in terms of health research. In this context, the EORTC QLQ-30 tool is a valid alternative to the SF-36, so its application could contribute to the existing knowledge base, in addition to serving as a relevant background for future studies in oncology.