GOALS OF WORK: Testicular cancer (TC) affects young men in the prime of life. The excellent prognosis and an increasing incidence have led to a growing number of testicular cancer survivors (TCSs). The aim of this review was to summarize and discuss research findings on the quality of life (QOL) of TCSs in terms of physical, psychological, and social well-being. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Literature databases were used to identify studies published between 1980 and 2003. A quality assessment using methodological and treatment-related criteria was performed to distinguish stronger- from poorer-quality studies. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment showed that seven studies were qualitatively stronger. The majority of TCSs in both stronger and poorer quality studies reported a good QOL. Prospective and retrospective studies showed that QOL after completion of treatment increased and negative consequences of TC on life decreased compared to the situation directly after diagnosis. The stronger-quality studies reported mainly on physical and psychological well-being but did not examine social well-being and the impact of treatment-related characteristics comprehensively. CONCLUSIONS: Both stronger- and poorer-quality studies indicate that the majority of TCSs experience a good QOL, but the shortcomings on both the methodological and content level prevent us from drawing such a conclusion. Additional research with strong designs is needed to gain clearer insight into the QOL of TCSs as a group and of individuals at risk for physical, psychological, and social problems.
GOALS OF WORK: Testicular cancer (TC) affects young men in the prime of life. The excellent prognosis and an increasing incidence have led to a growing number of testicular cancer survivors (TCSs). The aim of this review was to summarize and discuss research findings on the quality of life (QOL) of TCSs in terms of physical, psychological, and social well-being. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Literature databases were used to identify studies published between 1980 and 2003. A quality assessment using methodological and treatment-related criteria was performed to distinguish stronger- from poorer-quality studies. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment showed that seven studies were qualitatively stronger. The majority of TCSs in both stronger and poorer quality studies reported a good QOL. Prospective and retrospective studies showed that QOL after completion of treatment increased and negative consequences of TC on life decreased compared to the situation directly after diagnosis. The stronger-quality studies reported mainly on physical and psychological well-being but did not examine social well-being and the impact of treatment-related characteristics comprehensively. CONCLUSIONS: Both stronger- and poorer-quality studies indicate that the majority of TCSs experience a good QOL, but the shortcomings on both the methodological and content level prevent us from drawing such a conclusion. Additional research with strong designs is needed to gain clearer insight into the QOL of TCSs as a group and of individuals at risk for physical, psychological, and social problems.
Authors: J de Haes; D Curran; T Young; A Bottomley; H Flechtner; N Aaronson; J Blazeby; K Bjordal; Y Brandberg; E Greimel; J Maher; M Sprangers; A Cull Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Sophie D Fosså; Ronald de Wit; J Trevor Roberts; Peter M Wilkinson; Pieter H M de Mulder; Graham M Mead; Pat Cook; Linda de Prijck; Sally Stenning; Neil K Aaronson; Andrew Bottomley; Laurence Collette Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher Kim; Katherine A McGlynn; Ruth McCorkle; Ralph L Erickson; David W Niebuhr; Shuangge Ma; Barry Graubard; Briseis Aschebrook-Kilfoy; Kathryn Hughes Barry; Yawei Zhang Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-04-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Gabriella Morasso; Silvia Di Leo; Anita Caruso; Andrea Decensi; Monica Beccaro; Laura Berretta; Laura Bongiorno; Maurizio Cosimelli; Stefania Finelli; Gabriella Rondanina; Wissya Santoni; Vittoria Stigliano; Massimo Costantini Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jacqueline L Bender; David Wiljer; Matthew J To; Philippe L Bedard; Peter Chung; Michael A S Jewett; Andrew Matthew; Malcolm Moore; Padraig Warde; Mary Gospodarowicz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-03-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: J Fleer; H J Hoekstra; D T Sleijfer; M A Tuinman; E C Klip; J E H M Hoekstra-Weebers Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2005-09-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Uros Bumbasirevic; Nebojsa Bojanic; Tatjana Pekmezovic; Aleksandar Janjic; Aleksandar Janicic; Bogomir Milojevic; Cane Tulic Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-08-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lauren Matheson; Mary Boulton; Verna Lavender; Andrew Protheroe; Sue Brand; Marta Wanat; Eila Watson Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 4.442