| Literature DB >> 21605390 |
James F Grutsch1, Carol Ferrans, Patricia A Wood, Jovelyn Du-Quiton, Dinah Faith T Quiton, Justin L Reynolds, Christine M Ansell, Eun Young Oh, Mary Ann Daehler, Robert D Levin, Donald P Braun, Digant Gupta, Christopher G Lis, William J M Hrushesky.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer patients routinely develop symptoms consistent with profound circadian disruption, which causes circadian disruption diminished quality of life. This study was initiated to determine the relationship between the severity of potentially remediable cancer-associated circadian disruption and quality of life among patients with advanced lung cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21605390 PMCID: PMC3114794 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-193
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Distribution of patient demographic and clinical variables by site
| Demographic/Clinicala | Inpatients (n = 42) | Outpatients (n = 42) | Site Difference (χ2, p)b |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years (Mean; Range) | 4.0, < 0.01 | ||
| Sex (M:F) | 24.6, < 0.01 | ||
| Cancer Stage (IIIA&B: IV) | 10:32 | 9:33 | 2.1, 0.36 |
| Prior Therapy (Yes:No) | 6.7, 0.01 | ||
| WHO ECOG (0:1:2) | 17:18:07 | 13:24:04d | 2.2, 0.33 |
| COPD (No:Mild:Mod:Severe)c | 14:7:13:8 |
aValues are numbers of patients except for Age. bBased on chi-square test. cBased on t-test. dOne patient at MRMC lacked documentation of prior therapy, while another patient at VAMC lacked documentation on ECOG scale. *Significant difference at p < 0.05 compared to outpatients.
Distribution of EORTC QLQ-C30 domain and symptom item scales by site
| Domain | Study Population (mean ± se) | General Populationc (mean) | Reference Populationd [mean (SD)] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Patients | Inpatients | Outpatients | |||
| 50.78 ± 3.15 | 49.80 ± 4.84 | 51.96 ± 3.86 | - | 54.7 (23.8) | |
| Physical | 64.53 ± 3.15 | 89.9 | 65.9 (25.6) | ||
| Role | 54.44 ± 4.28 | 60.57 ± 6.01 | 47.06 ± 5.91 | 83.3 | 55.5 (34.5) |
| Emotional | 59.52 ± 3.31 | 59.96 ± 4.24 | 58.99 ± 5.29 | 82.8 | 67.3 (24.1) |
| Cognitive | 70.22 ± 3.18 | 76.02 ± 4.15 | 63.24 ± 4.71 | 86.5 | 81.6 (22.7) |
| Social | 55.33 ± 3.77 | 51.22 ± 5.35 | 60.29 ± 5.22 | 85.8 | 69.8 (30.3) |
| Fatigue | 52.00 ± 3.55 | 28.8 | 44.2 (27.5) | ||
| Nausea | 15.78 ± 2.53 | 14.63 ± 3.30 | 17.16 ± 3.95 | 4 | 10.8 (19.1) |
| Pain | 53.33 ± 4.38 | 48.37 ± 6.10 | 59.31 ± 6.22 | 20.5 | 34.7 (32.3) |
| Dyspnoea | 46.22 ± 3.79 | 14.3 | 40.7 (32.2) | ||
| Insomnia | 44.00 ± 3.91 | 39.84 ± 4.97 | 49.02 ± 6.17 | 20.4 | 34.8 (33.4) |
| Appetite Loss | 39.11 ± 3.97 | 33.33 ± 4.94 | 46.08 ± 6.30 | 7.5 | 31.1 (34.6) |
| Constipation | 29.33 ± 3.90 | 26.83 ± 4.83 | 32.35 ± 6.37 | 10.4 | 22.2 (31.7) |
| Diarrhea | 7.11 ± 2.03 | 5.69 ± 2.83 | 8.82 ± 2.92 | 9.4 | 7.3 (18.1) |
aHigher scores indicate better daily function, thus better quality of life. bLower scores indicate fewer symptoms, thus better quality of life. cEORTC general population of 1,965 randomly selected subjects ages 18 to 93 years (Hjermstad, et. al. J Clin Oncol 1998)., dEORTC reference population of 1,313 lung cancer patients with stage III and IV disease (Scott, et. al. EORTC Reference Manual 2008). *Inpatients versus Outpatients are significantly different, p < 0.05.
Distribution of Powers and Ferrans QLI domain scores by site
| Domain | Study Population (mean ± se) | General Populationb [mean (SD)] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Patients | Inpatients | Outpatients | ||
| Health & Functioninga | 15.13 ± 1.14 | 17.55 ± 0.0.73 | ||
| Social/Economica | 21.15 ± 0.46 | 21.21 ± 0.58 | 21.08 ± 0.74 | 21.83 (4.11) |
| Psychological/Spirituala | 21.57 ± 0.71 | 21.04 ± 0.88 | 22.21 ± 1.16 | 22.95 (5.21) |
| Familya | 23.22 ± 0.60 | 24.50 ± 0.75 | 21.68 ± 0.89 | 25.60 (4.49) |
| Overall Quality of Lifea | 19.61 ± 0.48 | 19.28 ± 0.69 | 20.02 ± 0.66 | 23.00 (4.04) |
aHigher scores indicate greater satisfaction with life. bPowers and Ferrans QLI General Population is taken from a database of 339 randomly selected subjects ages 18 and above (C. Ferrans, Feb 2009). *Study Population scores are markedly lower than General Population scores.
Figure 1Comparison of the circadian activity rhythm of healthy controls and lung cancer patients. Healthy controls (A) show a more robust circadian activity rhythm compared to lung cancer inpatients and outpatients combined (B). Outpatients (C) have better circadian organization of sleep/activity compared to the hospitalized group (D). Concurrent plot of all groups (E) shows that peak daytime activity is compromised in all lung cancer patients and especially among hospitalized ones. Nightly sleep is, however, markedly and identically disturbed among lung cancer patients regardless of where it is measured.
Actigraphic sleep-activity characteristics of non-small cell lung cancer patients compared to normal individuals during the putative wakefulness and during the putative sleepfulness
| Parameters | All patients | Inpatients | Outpatients | Healthy Controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 68 | 35 | 33 | 35 |
| Mean Activity (accel/min) | 126.9 ± 4.9 | 182.6 ± 25 | ||
| 797.5 ± 26 | 947.1 ± 11 | |||
| 208.8 ± 18 | 46.5 ± 6.9 | |||
| 20.9 ± 1.8 | 4.7 ± 0.7 | |||
| 43.0 ± 2.8 | 23.6 ± 0.6 | |||
| 95.0 ± 8.8 | 31.1 ± 3.6 | |||
| 284.0 ± 18.3 | 417.89.4 | |||
| 72.5 ± 2.0 | 93.0 ± 0.8 | |||
| 79.8 ± 1.7 | 95.9 ± 0.7 | |||
| 91.7 ± 7.4 | 225.6 ± 17 | |||
| 20.8 ± 2.5 | 12.1 ± 6.9 |
*Inpatient vs. Outpatient difference is significant for all parameters (t-test, p < 0.05).
Figure 2Relationship between quality of life and circadian organization among inpatients and outpatients. Lung cancer patients who are most quiet in the nighttime and active during the day (highest circadian Rhythm Quotient) are the least fatigued, both in hospitalized and at home settings (A). The more stable the day-to-day pattern of daily activity and nighttime sleep (24-hour Autocorrelation), the better the overall ability to fulfill daily functions among outpatients (B), and the greater the patient's satisfaction with his/her health among inpatients and outpatients (C). The greater the peak activity, the greater the patient's overall satisfaction with life among outpatients (D, E).
Statistically Significant (P < 0.05) Correlations between Quality of Life (QoL) Domains and Cosinor Parameters in Outpatients
| QoL Domains | Mesor | Amplitude | Circadian
| Rhythm
| 24-hr Correlation | Night-day Sleep
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fatigue | -0.4 | -0.41 | -0.52 | |||
| Pain | -0.39 | |||||
| Loss of Appetite | -0.47 | |||||
| Social | .34 | |||||
| Role | 0.56 | |||||
| Cognitive | 0.45 | |||||
| 0.53 | ||||||
| Health/Function | 0.44 | 0.51 | 0.45 | 0.39 | ||
| Social/Economic | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.40 | |||
| Psychological Spiritual | .45 | 0.4 | 0.45 | |||
| Family | 0.45 |
Figure 3The relationships among two measures of quality of life and circadian rhythm stability. The greater the circadian rhythm in activity/rest, the greater the PF Health and Functioning; the lower the EORTC Fatigue Score (A) and the greater the EORTC Global Health Score (C) in the group as a whole. These relationships are especially clear among outpatients (B, D). *Significant r, p < 0.05. †Marginal r, p=0.08.