4.0 Article

Fecundity and Quality of Life of Women Treated for Solid Childhood Tumors Between 1948 and 1992 in France

期刊

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jayao.2017.0126

关键词

female survivors; fecundity; long-term follow-up; quality of life

类别

资金

  1. Wyeth Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To describe fecundity in female survivors of childhood cancer and consider the correlation with quality of life (QOL). Materials and Methods: Of 1744 women treated for childhood cancer before the age of 15 years at one of eight French cancer treatment centers between 1948 and 1992, 1187 who were alive in 2005 were sent a self-administered questionnaire, including questions about health status, QOL (MOS SF-36), and fecundity. A standardized fecundity ratio (SFR) was calculated (SFR: observed/expected number of children) for each individual based on a national reference. Results: Of the 972 individuals (82%) who responded, 53% had at least 1 child. The overall SFR, 0.65, was dependent upon the initial diagnosis, more decreased in Central Nervous System tumors (0.24; p<10(-3)) than in Germ cell (0.46; p=0.03) or Sympathetic Nervous System tumors (0.79; p=0.02). The average QOL motor score was 72.519.5, and the average mental score was 61.4 +/- 16.7. After adjusting for age, pathology, and self-reported sequelae in the questionnaires, it was determined that SF-36 mental (p=0.002) and motor (p<0.0002) scores correlated positively with fecundity, and SF-36 scores correlated negatively with locomotor late effects (p<0.0001), growth insufficiency (p=0.002), and psychological disorders (p<0.001). Gonadal insufficiency was correlated with neither motor nor mental scores. Conclusion: Women treated for childhood cancer demonstrated impaired fecundity that correlated with poor QOL, as registered by the SF-36. Patients should be warned of the risk of impaired fecundity early during the follow-up. If possible, preservation of fertility should be prioritized at initiation of therapy.

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

4.0
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