4.5 Article

The functional capacity and quality of life of women with advanced breast cancer

期刊

BREAST CANCER
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 128-136

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s12282-016-0687-2

关键词

Breast cancer; Disability; Metastatic; Quality of life; Rehabilitation

资金

  1. Helsinki University Central Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rehabilitation needs of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are poorly studied. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the functional capacity of women with MBC and quality of life (QoL). The present study is an open, non-randomized, prospective cross-sectional observation study. The functional capacity of 128 MBC patients with ongoing cancer treatments, were studied in Helsinki University Hospital (HUS): Peak expiratory flow (PEF), dynamic and static balance, 6 minute walking distance (6MWD), 10 meter walking, sit-to-stand test, repeated squat, grip strength, shoulder movement, pain, and QoL by Beck's depression scale (BDI), health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), RAND SF-36 and EORTC QLQ-30 items. The walking capacity was compromised in half and the strength of the lower extremities in one-third of the patients. PEF was below the normal reference in 55 %, static balance in 62 % and dynamic balance in 73 % (<= 60 year olds) and 81 % (>= 61 year olds). The grip power was lowered in 44/30 % of the patients (right/left) and the shoulder movement was restricted in 30 %. Some disability in physical functioning experienced 55 % (HAQ) and 37 % felt depressive (BDI). The QoL (RAND SF-36) was poor especially in the field of physical, role and social functioning and bodily pain (< 0.001). Pain, depression, and a poor 6MWD results independently determined the physical component of QoL (p < 0.001). The functional capacity of patients with MBC was significantly lowered. This, in association with distressing symptoms like pain and depression causes a vicious circle further leading to functional disabilities and impaired QoL.

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

4.5
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