4.6 Article

Association between quality of life scores and short-term outcome after surgery for cancer of the oesophagus or gastric cardia

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 92, Issue 12, Pages 1502-1507

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.5175

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Evidence suggests that baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are independently prognostic for survival in patients with cancer, but the role of QOL data in predicting short-term outcome after surgery is uncertain. This study assessed the association between QOL scores and short-term outcomes after surgery for oesophageal and gastric cancer. Methods: Consecutive patients selected for oesophagectomy or total gastrectomy between November 2000 and May 2003 completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's quality of life questionnaire, QLQ-C30. Multivariable regression models, adjusting for known clinical risk factors, were used to investigate relationships between QOL scores, major morbidity, hospital stay and survival status at 6 months. Results: Of 130 patients, 121 completed the questionnaire (response rate 93.1 per cent). There were 29 major complications (24.0 per cent) and 22 patients (18.2 per cent) died within 6 months of operation. QOL scores were not associated with major morbidity but were significantly related to survival status at 6 months after adjusting for known clinical risk factors. A worse fatigue score of 10 points (scale 0-100) corresponded to an increase in the odds of death within 6 months of surgery of 37.4 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 12.4 to 67.8) per cent (P = 0.002). Pretreatment social function scores were moderately associated with hospital stay (P = 0.021); a reduction in social function by 10 points corresponded to an increase in hospital stay of 0.93 (95 per cent c.i. 0.12 to 1.74) days. Conclusion: QOL scores supplement standard staging procedures for oesophageal and gastric cancer by providing prognostic information, but they do not contribute to perioperative risk assessment.

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