3.9 Article

Correlation of Clinical Stage and Performance Status With Quality of Life in Patients Seen in a Pancreas Multidisciplinary Clinic

期刊

JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 E216-E221

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2014.000976

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA006973] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The objectives of this study were to evaluate quality of life (QoL) in patients presenting to the Johns Hopkins Pancreas Multidisciplinary Clinic (PMDC), and to examine associations between disease status, performance status, and QoL in order to identify patient subgroups that are most at risk for reduced QoL. Patients and Methods: Data from 77 patients were evaluated. At initial presentation, disease and performance status were assessed, as well as QoL, which was obtained with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-PAN26 questionnaire. Statistical analyses examined associations between QoL, disease status, and performance status. Results: Digestive symptoms (P < .003) significantly differed by pancreatic disease status (resectable, resected, locally advanced, and metastatic). Patients with a worse performance status, defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group >= 1, were more likely to report symptomatic pancreatic pain (P = .001), digestive symptoms (P = .017), cachexia (P = .004), and ascites (P < .001) compared with patients with a performance status of 0. The majority (92%) of patients reported a significant fear of future health problems, regardless of disease status or performance status. Conclusion: Although several measures of QoL have been observed in all patients, certain measures appear to correlate specifically with worse disease status. Therefore, routine assessment of QoL is suggested in order to guide treatment decisions. Further investigation on optimizing the use of QoL measures and patient-reported outcomes to better tailor management is warranted.

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

3.9
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