4.6 Article

Early quality of life outcomes after surgery in head and neck cancer survivors with EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-HN35 in an Asian tertiary centre

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 4537-4546

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-06871-4

关键词

Head and neck cancer; SCC; Quality of life; QOL; QLQ-C30; QLQ-HN35; Multimodal therapies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the quality of life of head and neck cancer survivors after surgical treatment, specifically focusing on eating-related concerns. Factors such as advanced tumor stage, extent of surgery, and adjuvant treatment were found to be associated with lower overall health scores. Improvement in quality of life was observed in previous studies after one year.
Background The objective of the study was to evaluate the quality of life (QOL) of head and neck cancer survivors after surgical treatment and to identify patients' main concerns. The study also aims to establish pre-treatment reference values particularly for the Asian patient. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and Head and Neck module (EORTC QLQ-HN35) were used for objective evaluation. Methods Patients planned for elective surgery for head and neck cancers were enrolled in the study. The questionnaires were completed at pre-treatment and at 6 months after surgery. Results were compared with previously published reference values. Results One hundred forty patients completed both questionnaires. Locally advanced tumour and extent of surgery (tracheostomy (p<0.01), surgical flap (p<0.01)) were associated with lower global health scores. Adjuvant treatment was also a contributory factor (p<0.01). Dysphagia and social eating was a primary concern within our population. Conclusion Surgical treatment of head and neck cancers is safe, but there is poor QOL in the early post-treatment period especially with eating. Previously published data suggested improvement after a year.

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