4.6 Article

Association between quality of life scores and short-term outcome after surgery for cancer of the oesophagus or gastric cardia

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 92, 期 12, 页码 1502-1507

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.5175

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Evidence suggests that baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are independently prognostic for survival in patients with cancer, but the role of QOL data in predicting short-term outcome after surgery is uncertain. This study assessed the association between QOL scores and short-term outcomes after surgery for oesophageal and gastric cancer. Methods: Consecutive patients selected for oesophagectomy or total gastrectomy between November 2000 and May 2003 completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's quality of life questionnaire, QLQ-C30. Multivariable regression models, adjusting for known clinical risk factors, were used to investigate relationships between QOL scores, major morbidity, hospital stay and survival status at 6 months. Results: Of 130 patients, 121 completed the questionnaire (response rate 93.1 per cent). There were 29 major complications (24.0 per cent) and 22 patients (18.2 per cent) died within 6 months of operation. QOL scores were not associated with major morbidity but were significantly related to survival status at 6 months after adjusting for known clinical risk factors. A worse fatigue score of 10 points (scale 0-100) corresponded to an increase in the odds of death within 6 months of surgery of 37.4 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 12.4 to 67.8) per cent (P = 0.002). Pretreatment social function scores were moderately associated with hospital stay (P = 0.021); a reduction in social function by 10 points corresponded to an increase in hospital stay of 0.93 (95 per cent c.i. 0.12 to 1.74) days. Conclusion: QOL scores supplement standard staging procedures for oesophageal and gastric cancer by providing prognostic information, but they do not contribute to perioperative risk assessment.

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