4.3 Article

The Correlation Between the Comprehensive Nutrition Index and Quality of Life of Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Treated by Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01635581.2014.853815

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fujian Clinical Key Specialty Construction Project
  2. Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Fujian [2013J01285]
  3. Fujian Ministry of Health Science Foundation for Youths [2010-1-22]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to compare the changing tendency of nutrition with 54 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and to investigate the correlation between comprehensive nutritional status and quality of life (QoL), which was assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The nutritional index, including body mass index, ideal body weight percentage, usual body weight percentage, albumin, hemoglobin, and total lymphocyte count (TLC), was evaluated at 2 time points: within 48h after admission (T-1) and at the end of treatment with IMRT (T-2). A statistically significant downgrade of every index was observed during IMRT. A comprehensive nutritional model was established by principal components analysis at T-2. QoL scores of functional (P = 0.002) and the global QoL scales (P = 0.001) existed a positive correlation with comprehensive nutritional status. QoL scores of symptom scales (P = 0.002) and 6 single items (P = 0.005) had a negative correlation with it. The scores of global QoL scales in comprehensive nutrition of normal (20.4%), moderate (55.6%), and severe malnutrition (24.1%) were 69.70 +/- 17.98, 48.33 +/- 19.25, and 37.18 +/- 24.67, respectively. Patients with different nutritional status had different QoL (B = 10.405, SE = 2.828, t = 3.680, P = 0.001). Multiaspect nutritional supports should be enhanced to improve patients' comprehensive nutritional status during treatment.

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

4.3
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