4.7 Article

Relationship Between Deficits in Overall Quality of Life and Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Survival

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 30, 期 13, 页码 1498-1504

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.4631

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [CA77118, CA80127, CA84354]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Evidence has suggested a clinically meaningful relationship between self-reported quality of life (QOL) of a patient with cancer at the time of receiving a cancer diagnosis and overall survival (OS). This study evaluated the prognostic value of QOL assessments with regard to OS in a large cohort of patients with lung cancer. Patients and Methods A total of 2,442 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer were observed between 1997 and 2007 and completed a single-item measure of overall QOL within the first 6 months of receiving a lung cancer diagnosis; these were dichotomized using an a priori definition of a clinically deficient score (CDS; <= 50 v > 50). Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox models were used to evaluate the prognostic importance of QOL on OS alone and in the presence of covariates. Logistic regression modeling was used to identify which clinical and patient characteristics were related to a clinically meaningful deficit in QOL. Results QOL deficits at time of lung cancer diagnosis were significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.55; P < .001), as were performance status, older age, smoking history, male sex, treatment factors, and stage of disease. The median survival for patients with CDS QOL was 1.6 years versus 5.6 years for patients with non-CDS QOL. After controlling for all these covariates, the indication of a clinically deficient baseline QOL still contributed significantly to the prediction of patient survival (HR, 0.67; P < .001). Conclusion Overall QOL measured by a simple single item at the time of lung cancer diagnosis is a significant and independent prognostic factor for survival in patients with lung cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据