4.7 Article

The prognostic impact of quality of life assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 in inoperable non-small cell lung carcinoma treated with radiotherapy

Journal

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages 19-25

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00158-4

Keywords

non-small cell lung carcinoma; radiotherapy; prognostic factors; quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the prognostic significance of pretreatment quality of life (QoL) scores and symptom scores in a group of patients treated with high dose radiotherapy. Material and methods: A total of 198 patients treated with external irradiation ( greater than or equal to 60 Gy) were included. In all these patients, baseline QoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30. The prognostic significance of a number of non-QoL and QoL parameters with regard to survival was estimated in both univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: In a multivariate model including the non-QoL parameters, performance status, weight loss and N-classification were independent prognostic factors for survival. After entering the QoL parameters in the model, global QoL was the strongest prognostic factor, while performance status lost its significance. Subsequently, a significant interaction term was found between N-classification and global QoL, indicating that global QoL was an independent prognostic factor but that the effect varied as a function of N-status. In N+ patients, the median survival in the group with low scores for global QoL was 4.5 months, which was significantly worse (P < 0.0001) compared with the high score group in which the median survival was 12.9 months. Conclusion: Global QoL is a strong prognostic factor for survival in patients with NSCLC who have pathological lymph nodes at presentation and who are treated with radical or curative radiotherapy. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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