4.6 Review

Unravelling the heterogeneity of soft tissue and bone sarcoma patients' health-related quality of life: a systematic literature review with focus on tumour location

期刊

ESMO OPEN
卷 5, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000914

关键词

soft tissue sarcoma; bone sarcoma; health-related quality of life; patient-reported outcomes

类别

资金

  1. EORTC Quality of Life Group grant [003-2018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with sarcoma experience many physical and psychological symptoms, adversely affecting their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). HRQoL assessment is challenging due to the diversity of the disease. This review aims to unravel the heterogeneity of HRQoL of patients with sarcoma with regard to tumour location and to summarise the used measures in research. English-language literature from four databases published between January 2000 and April 2019 was reviewed. Studies that described adult sarcoma HRQoL outcomes were included and classified according to primary sarcoma location. Eighty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria covering sarcoma of the extremities (n=35), pelvis and axial skeleton (n=9), pelvis and extremities (n=5), head and neck (n=4), retroperitoneum (n=2) and multiple sarcoma locations (n=33), respectively. Urogenital and thoracic sarcoma were lacking. Fifty-four different questionnaires were used, most often cancer-generic or generic HRQoL questionnaires. Patients with sarcoma reported lower HRQoL than the general population. Distinctive patterns of HRQoL outcomes according to tumour location regarding symptoms, physical functioning, disability and psychosocial well-being were identified. In metastatic sarcoma, mostly constitutional symptoms were present. To comprehensively assess HRQoL, a sarcoma-specific measurement strategy should be developed and used covering the heterogeneity of sarcoma including location-specific issues to improve personalised HRQoL assessment in future research and clinical practice.

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

4.6
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