Skip to main content
Download PDF

Translation and validation of chinese version of MDASI immunotherapy for early-phase trials module: a cross-sectional study

BMC Nursing volume 22, Article number: 176 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

During immunotherapy treatment and survival, identifying symptoms requires a standardized and validated assessment tool. The aim of this study was to translate, validate and use the Chinese version of the Immunotherapy of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory for Early-Phase Trials module (MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT) to assess the symptom burden of cancer patients receiving immunotherapy in China.

Methods

The MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT was translated into Chinese using Brislin’s translation model and the back-translation method. In total, 312 Chinese-speaking colorectal cancer patients receiving immunotherapy were enrolled in the trial from August 2021 to July 2022 after receiving definitive diagnoses in our cancer center. The reliability and validity of the translated version was evaluated.

Results

Cronbach’s α values were 0.964 and 0.935 for the symptom severity and interference scales, respectively. Significant correlations were found between the MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT-C and FACT-G scores (-0.617–0.732, P < 0.001). Known-group validity was supported by significant differences in the scores of the four scales grouped by ECOG PS (all P < 0.01). The overall mean subscale scores for the core and interference subscales were 1.92 ± 1.75 and 1.46 ± 1.87, respectively. Fatigue, numbness/tingling, and disturbed sleep had the highest scores for the most serious symptoms.

Conclusion

The MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT-C showed adequate reliability and validity for measuring symptoms among Chinese-speaking colorectal cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. The tool could be used in clinical practice and clinical trials to gather patients’ health and quality of life data and manage their symptoms in a timely manner in the future.

Peer Review reports

Background

Patients with cancer often suffer from many physical and psychological symptoms, including pain, fatigue, and depression. The severity of symptoms profoundly affects their quality of life and functional status [1, 2]. With rapid advances in new therapeutic strategies, such as immunotherapy, the survival of cancer patients has greatly improved [3]. However, multiple immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have emerged due to disruption of immune balance [4], and the incidence of irAEs attributed to single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy can reach as high as 90% [5]. Therefore, patients’ symptoms are further aggravated, indicating the need for effective symptom management [6]. Active management of the symptom burden can reduce or even prevent immunotherapy complications and improve patients’ quality of life while minimizing treatment delays or early discontinuation of treatment plans [7]. The symptoms influence the patient’s activities of daily living (ADL) and may cause life-threatening disorders [8]. An important factor in accurately identifying and assessing symptoms is using a standardized and validated assessment tool. Currently, there is no available tool to assess the symptom burden of immunotherapy treatment adapted for Chinese patients.

In recent years, many scholars have been working on tools for assessing symptoms in cancer patients, which are both universal and specific. Assessment tools play an important role in determining the treatment of cancer patients. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring common cancer-related symptoms and manifestations [9]. Recently, specific modules for different types of cancer have been developed and psychometrically validated, which can measure the severity and impact of multiple symptoms associated with cancer and its treatment. It can be further developed to assess different cancer types by adding specific items [10,11,12,13]. A review evaluating the psychometric properties of 57 symptom instruments found that the MDASI appeared to be the best among all tools for clinical use [14]. A module of the MDASI for measuring immunotherapy symptom burden for early-phase trials in cancer patients (MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT) was recently developed for cancer patients receiving immunotherapy and was found to be a valid, reliable, and concise tool [15]. In this study, we aim to examine and validate the structure of the Chinese version of the MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT (MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT-C) and culturally adapt it in the context of contemporary Chinese.

Methods

Study design

This was a cross-sectional study of patients with colorectal cancer. The Ethics Committee of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center approved the study (approval no. B2021-361-01). All participants provided written informed consent.

Participants.

The MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT-C was administered to a cross-sectional sample of 312 colorectal cancer patients treated at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from August 2021 to July 2022. Patients were eligible if they (1) had a pathological diagnosis of cancer; (2) were undergoing immunotherapy; (3) were older than 18 years old; (4) were able to communicate orally and in written Chinese; and (5) were willing to sign a written informed consent document. Patients were excluded if they had mental illness or cognitive impairment.

Measurements

Sociodemographic and disease characteristics were collected by a self-administered questionnaire: age, sex, education, marital status, cancer site, cancer stage, and prior treatment. The patient’s functional ability was assessed using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) [16]. The scores range from 0 to 4 and were measured by physicians.

The MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT was developed by Mendoza et al. in 2020 15. It contains 26 items grouped into two subscales, which require patients to rate the severity of their symptoms and degree of interference over the past 24 h. The degree of all symptom and interference scores in the MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT-C is expressed as numbers from 0 (“not present” or “does not interfere”) to 10 (“as bad as you can imagine” or “interfered completely”). The original version has an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) of 0.89–0.95.

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G, version 4) is a cross-culturally acceptable cancer-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaire that comprises four subscales: Physical Well-being (PWB), Social & Family Well-being (SFWB), Emotional Well-being (EWB), and Functional Well-being (FWB) [17]. These are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Scores from the Physical and Emotional Well-being scales (with the exception of one item) are reversed. A total score is derived by summing the scale scores from all four subscales (range 0-108). Higher subscale scores represent better health, functioning, or well-being. The Chinese version has been validated by Yu et al. and has an internal consistency reliability of 0.85 [18].

Scale translation and linguistic validation

The MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT comprises 19 MDASI items (13 core symptom items plus 6 interference items) and seven immunotherapy-specific items [15]. This instrument showed good reliability and validity. The MDASI-C translated by Wang XS in 2004 was validated in 249 cancer patients and used directly [19].

The MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT was translated using Brislin’s model of forward and backward translation [20]. After obtaining permission from the MDACC Symptom Research Group, two Chinese researchers fluent in English separately translated the seven immunotherapy symptom items into Chinese characters. Then, two other bilingual translators who had not seen the original English items back-translated the Chinese translation into English. This translation/back-translation procedure was repeated until the Chinese version adequately matched the original version. Subsequently the original version, Chinese version and retranslation into the original language were evaluated by an expert panel consisting of eight academic and clinical experts. These experts rated the cultural relevance and consistency of each item by a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (inappropriate) to 4 (very appropriate). The Chinese version would be revised if the expert panel give suggestions.

The Chinese version of the immunotherapy symptom items was tested on 20 randomly selected patients to determine whether the instructions, items, and options were clear and easily understandable and whether they felt confused or offended by the items.

Statistical analysis

Reliability was assessed based on internal consistency. The internal consistency was evaluated by calculating Cronbach’s α coefficient, which ranges from 0 to 1. A Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.70 or higher indicates good internal consistency [21]. Validity was assessed by content validity, construct validity, known-group validity and criterion validity. Content validity was calculated for each item and subscale by evaluating the items using the content validity index (CVI). The significance of the content validity index above 0.80 indicates an acceptable validity. Construct validity was established using principal axis factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation. The Kaiser‒Meyer‒Olkin (KMO) test confirmed sample adequacy, and a KMO value > 0.5 indicates an acceptable structural validity. Criterion validity was tested by the correlation coefficient, and FACT-G was used as an external criterion. In addition, known-group validity comparisons were examined by comparing the scores between patients’ physical status. All statistical analyses were performed by SPSS (V.26; IBM, Armonk, New York, USA), and statistical significance was set at 0.05.

Results

Patient characteristics

The mean ± standard deviation age was 47.03 ± 13.05 years. The majority of patients were male (65.7%). Patients with an education level more than a college degree accounted for 43.3%. The proportions of patients with stage III and IV cancer were 50.3% and 26.0%, respectively (Table 1).

Table 1 Patient demographic and clinical characteristics (N = 312)
Full size table

Content validity and cognitive debriefing

The Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI/Ave) was 0.98 for the overall scale, while the Item-Content Validity Index (I-CVI) ranged between 0.88 and 1.00. It confirmed good content validity of the scale. The Chinese version of the instrument was administered to 20 patients and was evaluated according to ease or difficulty in understanding and answering, using a scale of 1–5, from very difficult to very easy. All of the participants found the scale easy to understand and answer.

Internal consistency

The MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT subscales showed good internal consistency and reliability. The data showed Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for all symptoms, with the core cancer items (13) measuring 0.952, the immunotherapy symptoms items (13) at 0.920, and the interference items (6) at 0.935 (Table 2). These values are well above the usual minimum criterion for reliability of 0.70.

Table 2 Internal Consistency Reliability of MDAIS-Immunotherapy EPT-Chinese
Full size table

Construct validity

Construct validity was assessed by principal axis factor analysis. The KMO score was 0.947, and Bartlett’s test for sphericity was significant (P < 0.001), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT-C symptom items (26) generated three possible factors, and the total variance explained by all factors was 68.87%. The factor loadings ranged from 0.521 to 0.845 (Table 3). Factor 1 contained all constitutional symptoms; Factor 2 represented gastrointestinal symptoms; and Factor 3 was related to other immunotherapy-specific symptoms.

Table 3 Construct Validity of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory: Baseline Factor Loadings of the Symptom Items (N = 312)
Full size table

Known-group validity

Known-group validity comparisons were made for the MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT Chinese subscales relative to ECOG PS functional classification. The MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT Chinese differentiated between patients with good versus poor functional status. Patients with an ECOG PS of 0 had lower scores on all items than did patients with an ECOG PS of at least 1 (Table 4).

Table 4 Known-Group Validity of MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT by ECOG PS
Full size table

Correlation coefficients

The correlation coefficient was shown by the aggregation validity test between the MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT and the FACT-G. Since age was set as a controlled variable in partial correlation analysis, significant correlations were found for the symptom severity scale vs. the FACT-G physical well-being scale (r = -0.729, P < 0.001), the MDASI-core scale vs. the FACT-G physical well-being scale (r = -0.732, P < 0.001), the immunotherapy-specific scale vs. the FACT-G physical well-being scale (r = -0.617, P < 0.001), and the interference scale vs. the FACT-G physical well-being scale (r = − 0.647, P < 0.001).

Symptoms severity and inter-item distances

All symptoms on the MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT-C scale with 0–10 classification were classified into mild (1–4), moderate (5–6), and severe (7–10) based on the score. The overall mean scores for all symptom items (26) and interference items (6) were 1.92 ± 1.75 and 1.46 ± 1.87, respectively. The three most severe symptoms reported were “fatigue” (2.74 ± 2.67), “numbness/tingling” (2.66 ± 2.95), and “disturbed sleep” (2.54 ± 2.80). The mildest symptoms reported were pain in the chest (1.05 ± 1.89) and swelling of the hands, legs, or feet (1.10 ± 1.87). Among the three most serious symptoms, the proportion of patients with severe scores (7–10) accounted for 9.6% for fatigue, 17.0% for numbness/tingling, and 12.8% for disturbed sleep. The three most severe interference items were “work” (1.80 ± 2.36), “mood” (1.70 ± 2.22), and “enjoyment” (1.63 ± 2.22), among which the severe scores (7–10) were 4.5% for work, 4.2% for mood, and 2.9% for enjoyment (Table 5). The correlation between symptoms was explored using cluster analysis, and the relative distance between symptom groups is shown in Fig. 1. Symptoms that were formerly related (left side of the figure) were more relevant than the symptoms that were connected later (right side of the figure).

Table 5 Descriptive statistics for the severity of the symptom items of the MDAIS-Immunotherapy EPT, 0–10 scale, in rank order (N = 312)
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Hierarchical clustering analysis of core and Immunotherapy module items

Full size image

Discussion

In this study, the MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT-C was translated and validated. The results endorsed good internal consistency reliability and validity in assessing the symptom burden of receiving immunotherapy.

The items for both symptoms and interference indicated high internal consistency reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient exceeding 0.90. In the principal axis factor analysis, we obtained three underlying constructs: constitutional (ten items), gastrointestinal (five items), and immunotherapy-specific (five items). These components typified clinically meaningful entities that supplemented each other. The KMO value in this study was 0.947, which was much higher than 0.5, indicating that the scale had good construct validity. Our study showed that the scale was greatly correlated with the FACT-G and supported the measurement of its associated specific symptoms. The FACT-G is the most widely used HRQL assessment in cancer patients [22]. Previous studies have shown that the symptom measurement was more informative in measuring and monitoring specific symptoms [23, 24].

The average score obtained from the core symptoms was different from the distribution reported by Tito Mendoza et al. [15]. Mendoza et al. described pain, fatigue, and disturbed sleep as the three most severe symptoms in general, while in our group, fatigue was the most serious core symptom, followed by numbness/tingling and disturbed sleep. This result may be related to the proportion of cancer types. In their initial study, the most common cancer diagnosis was colorectal cancer (9%), while there were other cancer types. Our study mainly focused on colorectal cancer patients. To assess known-group validity, we applied the same assumption as in the validation study of MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT. The severity of symptom burden and interference of daily activities was correlated with ECOG PS, indicating the sensitivity of MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT-C to predict patient physical condition. The results showed that immunotherapy had little effect on the patients’ activities, relations, and mobility. However, the impact on work and mood was more persistent. These immunotherapy-specific symptoms might continue to affect the daily lives of patients and their families. Thus, health professionals should pay close attention and offer support to these individuals [25].

The validation of this instrument has several clinical and research uses. First, it offers an objective method to evaluate symptoms in Chinese-speaking patients receiving immunotherapy. In clinical trials, an increasing number of clinicians and patients found that understanding patients’ experiences with the effects of new therapies added critical information needed to evaluate these therapies [26]. While patient-reported outcomes were seen as an opportunity for patients to describe their feelings and experiences, proper measurement is needed [27]. Currently, there is a lack of special instruments to measure symptomatic adverse events experienced by patients receiving immunotherapy. The MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT-C could fill this gap. Second, it provides a more reliable tool and can be used to monitor the deterioration of patients’ status during treatment to adjust or redesign therapeutic strategies to mitigate their symptoms, and prevent subjective assessments between physicians.

Limitations

There were a few limitations to the present study. First, the participants were recruited by convenience sampling. Second, this study was conducted at a single cancer center. These two limitations results may jeopardize the generalizability of our results. However, our study had the strength of a fairly large sample of patients receiving immunotherapy alone or in combination with other cancer therapies. Second, this study only included patients with colorectal tumors. Thus, the MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT-C should be validated in patients with other cancers in the future. Finally, some patients reported that they were experiencing symptoms such as cough and palpitations, while there were no corresponding items. Researchers could consider modifying the scale based on exploratory qualitative research.

Conclusion

Fatigue, numbness/tingling, and disturbed sleep were the most important symptoms among colorectal cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. The MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT-C demonstrated strong psychometric evidence in Chinese-speaking cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. This instrument could be used in clinical practice to assess patients’ conditions, adjust treatments and manage symptoms in the future.

Data Availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the author based on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

MDASI:

MD Anderson Symptom Inventory

ECOG PS:

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status

ICI:

Immune checkpoint inhibitor

FACT-G:

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General

References

  1. Cleeland CS. Symptom burden: multiple symptoms and their impact as patient-reported outcomes.J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr2007;(37):16–21.

  2. Kalter J, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Sweegers MG, et al. Effects and moderators of psychosocial interventions on quality of life, and emotional and social function in patients with cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis of 22 RCTs. Psychooncology. 2018;27(4):1150–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Fan Y, Geng Y, Shen L, Zhang Z. Advances on immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Front Med. 2021;15(1):33–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brahmer JR, Lacchetti C, Schneider BJ et al. Management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. JCO 2018;36(17):1714–1768.

  5. Kennedy LB, Salama AKS. A review of cancer immunotherapy toxicity. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(2):86–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang XS, Srour SA, Whisenant M et al. Patient-reported symptom and functioning status during the first 12 months after chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy for hematological malignancies. Transplant Cell Ther 2021;27(11):930.e1-930.e10.

  7. Dine J, Gordon R, Shames Y, Kasler MK, Barton-Burke M. Immune checkpoint inhibitors: an innovation in immunotherapy for the treatment and management of patients with cancer. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2017;4(2):127–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang L, Zhang X, Shen L, Zhu D, Ma S, Cong L. Efficiency of electronic health record assessment of patient-reported outcomes after cancer immunotherapy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e224427.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Cleeland CS, Mendoza TR, Wang XS, et al. Assessing symptom distress in cancer patients: the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Cancer. 2000;89(7):1634–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen R, Yang S, li, Xu Z, et al. Validation and application of the chinese version of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory Gastrointestinal Cancer Module (MDASI-GI-C). J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019;57(4):820–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Li Z, Shi Q, Liu M et al. Validation and application of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for Traditional Chinese Medicine (MDASI-TCM).J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr2017;2017(52).

  12. Wang XS, Shi Q, Williams LA, et al. Development of a patient-reported outcome tool for assessing symptom burden during perioperative care in liver surgery: the MDASI-PeriOp-Hep. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2021;52:101959.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang T, Zheng YY, Yang ZR, et al. Translation and validation of the chinese version of the MD Anderson symptom inventory for measuring perioperative symptom burden in patients with gynecologic cancer. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):276.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Aktas A, Walsh D, Kirkova J. The psychometric properties of cancer multisymptom assessment instruments: a clinical review. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(7):2189–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mendoza T, Sheshadri A, Altan M, et al. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Immunotherapy module of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(2):e000931.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5(6):649–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(3):570–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yu CL, Fielding R, Chan CL, et al. Measuring quality of life of chinese cancer patients: a validation of the chinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale. Cancer. 2000;88(7):1715–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang XS, Wang Y, Guo H, Mendoza TR, Hao XS, Cleeland CS. Chinese version of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory: validation and application of symptom measurement in cancer patients. Cancer. 2004;101(8):1890–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jones PS, Lee JW, Phillips LR, Zhang XE, Jaceldo KB. An adaptation of Brislin’s translation model for cross-cultural research. Nurs Res. 2001;50(5):300–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Luckett T, King MT, Butow PN, et al. Choosing between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G for measuring health-related quality of life in cancer clinical research: issues, evidence and recommendations. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(10):2179–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lin CC, Chang AP, Cleeland CS, Mendoza TR, Wang XS. Taiwanese version of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory: symptom assessment in cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2007;33(2):180–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Xu N, Li Z, Wei F, et al. A cross-sectional study on the symptom burden of patients with spinal tumor: validation of the chinese version of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory-Spine Tumor Module. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;53(3):605–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fujii T, Colen RR, Bilen MA, et al. Incidence of immune-related adverse events and its association with treatment outcomes: the MD Anderson Cancer Center experience. Invest New Drugs. 2018;36(4):638–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. King-Kallimanis BL, Howie LJ, Roydhouse JK, et al. Patient reported outcomes in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy registration trials: FDA analysis of data submitted and future directions. Clin Trials. 2019;16(3):322–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mendoza TR. New developments in the use of patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients undergoing immunotherapies. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2020;1244:335–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the full support of faculty members, and all the patients who participated in this study.

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China

      Xiaodan Wu, Xiumei Lin, Limei Hua, Peirong Ding, Shuyue Liu & Simei Shi

    2. Unit of Psychiatry, Institute of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Macau, Macao, SAR, China

      Xiaodan Wu

    3. School of Nursing, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China

      Jingyue Xie

    Author notes

    1. Xiaodan Wu and Jingyue Xie contributed equally to this work

      Authors
      1. Xiaodan Wu
        View author publications

        You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

      2. Jingyue Xie
        View author publications

        You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

      3. Xiumei Lin
        View author publications

        You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

      4. Limei Hua
        View author publications

        You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

      5. Peirong Ding
        View author publications

        You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

      6. Shuyue Liu
        View author publications

        You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

      7. Simei Shi
        View author publications

        You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

      Contributions

      XDW and JYX designed this study, performed analysis, and wrote the manuscript. XML and LMH collected data and performed analysis. PRD, SYL and SMS contributed the translation process, critically revised the manuscript and supervised the study.

      Corresponding authors

      Correspondence to Peirong Ding, Shuyue Liu or Simei Shi.

      Ethics declarations

      Ethics approval and consent to participate

      The study received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (approval no. B2021-361-01). All patients provided informed consent to participate. This study followed relevant guidelines and regulations.

      Consent for publication

      Not applicable.

      Competing interests

      The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

      Additional information

      Publisher’s Note

      Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

      Rights and permissions

      Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

      Reprints and permissions

      About this article

      Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

      Cite this article

      Wu, X., Xie, J., Lin, X. et al. Translation and validation of chinese version of MDASI immunotherapy for early-phase trials module: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs 22, 176 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01217-9

      Download citation

      • Received:

      • Accepted:

      • Published:

      • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01217-9

      Keywords

      BMC Nursing

      ISSN: 1472-6955

      Contact us