4.7 Article

Quality of life scores predict survival among patients with head and neck cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 16, Pages 2754-2760

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.9510

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P50 CA97248] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine whether quality of life (QOL) scores predict survival among patients with head and neck cancer, controlling for demographic, health behavior, and clinical variables. Patients and Methods A self-administered questionnaire was given to 495 patients being treated for head and neck cancer while they were waiting to be seen for a clinic appointment. Data collected from the survey included demographics, health behaviors, and QOL as measured by Short Form-36 ( SF-36) physical and mental component scores and the Head and Neck QOL scores. Clinical measures were collected by chart abstraction. Kaplan-Meier plots and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the association between QOL scores and survival time. Results After controlling for age, time since diagnosis, marital status, education, tumor site and stage, comorbidities, and smoking, the SF-36 physical component score and three of the four Head and Neck QOL scales ( pain, eating, and speech domains) were associated with survival. Controlling for the same variables, the SF-36 mental component score and the emotional domain of the Head and Neck QOL were not associated with survival. Conclusion QOL instruments may be valuable screening tools to identify patients who are at high risk for poor survival. Those with low QOL scores could be followed more closely, with the potential to identify recurrence earlier and perform salvage treatments, thereby possibly improving survival for this group of patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available