4.6 Article

Predictors of Postoperative Quality of Life after Surgery for Lung Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 406-411

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182398e82

Keywords

Quality of life; Surgery; Lung cancer

Funding

  1. Karolinska Institutet
  2. Signe and Olof Wallenius Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The aim was to analyze the association between selected patient variables and health-related quality of life 6 months after surgery for lung cancer. Methods: In a prospective population-based cohort study, Short Form 36 (SF-36) was used to assess quality of life before and 6 months after surgery for lung cancer. The change in SF-36 summary and subscale scores were used to categorize quality of life in two groups (worse or stable/improved) at 6 months compared with baseline. Logistic regression models adjusting for potential confounding factors were used to analyze the association between patient variables and quality of life 6 months after surgery. Results: A baseline SF-36 questionnaire was completed by 249 patients. Nonresponders at 6 months (n = 36) were excluded, and 14 patients who died before 6 months follow-up remained in the study, leaving 213 patients available for analysis. Gender, comorbidity, occurrence of postoperative complications, and tumor stage were not associated with the physical aspect of quality of life 6 months after surgery. The extent of resection, age, and adjuvant therapy was significantly associated with a clinically relevant decline in the SF-36 physical component summary score 6 months postoperatively. No patient variables were predictive of a decline in the mental component summary score. Conclusions: The extent of resection, age, and adjuvant therapy was associated with a clinically relevant decline in the physical aspect of health-related quality of life 6 months after surgery. Further studies are needed to explore possible mechanisms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available