Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Health-related quality of life metrics as endpoints in surgical trials: hype or hope?
  1. Robert Armbrust1,
  2. Jennifer Davies-Oliveira2 and
  3. Jalid Sehouli1
  1. 1 Gynecology with Center of Oncological Surgery, Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  2. 2 Division of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Robert Armbrust, Dept. of Gynecology, Charite University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, 13353, Germany; robert.armbrust{at}


The management of gynecological cancer has evolved considerably over the past decades in almost every field of treatment. Surgery plays a major role in the treatment algorithm. However, these invasive interventions can have profound implications for the quality of life (QoL) of affected individuals. The routine implementation of QoL measurements in clinical trials has become common, reflecting a new research ‘standard’, despite the fact that all available QoL instruments were not designed nor validated prospectively for surgical trials. This review seeks to address whether patient reported outcomes and QoL measurements rightfully take center stage in current surgical trials, leading to direct implementation for the benefit of patient care, or are they simply more of a researcher’s hope. We will also provide an ‘action plan’ to better implement QoL measurements in future surgical trials.

  • Quality of Life (PRO)/Palliative Care
  • Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
  • Ovarian Cancer
  • Endometrium
  • Cervical Cancer

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Twitter @JenOG

  • Contributors RA: conceptualization, writing and editing. JOD: writing and editing. JS: conceptualization and editing.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.