4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Prospective changes in quality of life after ductal carcinoma-in-situ: Results from the Nurses' Health Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 18, 页码 2822-2827

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.6219

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01-CA87969] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The incidence of ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS) of the breast has been increasing. However, uncertainties exist about its prognosis, optimal treatment, and effect on women's health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). Our study assessed the prospective changes in HRQoL in women diagnosed with DCIS. Patients and Methods Between 1992 and 2000, HRQoL was assessed at three 4-year intervals among women enrolled in two Nurses' Health Study cohorts using the Medical Outcomes Survey Short-Form 36 health survey. Using mixed effects and logistic regression modeling, we compared the prospective changes in HRQoL scores among women with and without DCIS. Results The study included 114,728 women; 510 were diagnosed with DCIS during the study period. During 4 years, women with DCIS had small, but statistically significantly greater declines in the domains of role limitations due to physical problems (-6.74; SE, 1.69), vitality (-2.06; SE, 0.78), and social functioning (-2.40; SE, 0.93) than women without DCIS. Among those with DCIS, clinically significant declines were more often observed within 6 months of the diagnosis in the domains of social functioning (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.03 to 3.07) and mental health (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.79) than after 6 months after diagnosis. Conclusion Women with DCIS experienced small long-term declines in HRQoL, although these declines did not seem to be clinically important. Short-term clinically significant declines in the psychosocial domains were noted. In counseling women with DCIS, clinicians should provide reassurance but prepare them to deal with the short-term sequelae.

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

4.7
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