PURPOSE: We prospectively evaluated the general and cancer specific quality of life, and psychosocial adjustment of patients with a renal mass treated with radical vs partial nephrectomy via a laparoscopic or an open approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 172 patients with renal tumors completed questionnaires before surgery, and 3 weeks, and 2, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. We assessed general quality of life using SF-36™ and cancer specific quality of life using the Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-Short Form, in addition to intrusive thoughts, avoidance behaviors and fear of recurrence. We used mixed model regression analysis to compare these measures across surgery types during the study course, adjusted for tumor size, histology, stage and renal function. RESULTS: The SF-36 physical component score differed significantly by surgery type with time (p = 0.04). Patients treated with laparoscopy improved by month 2 while those treated with open surgery had poorer quality of life until month 3. Better cancer specific quality of life was reported in patients who underwent radical vs partial nephrectomy. Age also had a significant effect on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We report one of the most comprehensive patient reported prospective quality of life studies in patients with renal cell carcinoma. There were significant differences in quality of life and psychosocial adjustment outcomes during 1 year among patients treated with 1 of 4 commonly accepted surgical renal procedures. These outcomes must be evaluated in the context of tumor characteristics, cancer specific outcomes and renal function. These quality of life issues may be important to consider when choosing surgical procedures for patients with renal tumors.
PURPOSE: We prospectively evaluated the general and cancer specific quality of life, and psychosocial adjustment of patients with a renal mass treated with radical vs partial nephrectomy via a laparoscopic or an open approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 172 patients with renal tumors completed questionnaires before surgery, and 3 weeks, and 2, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. We assessed general quality of life using SF-36™ and cancer specific quality of life using the Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-Short Form, in addition to intrusive thoughts, avoidance behaviors and fear of recurrence. We used mixed model regression analysis to compare these measures across surgery types during the study course, adjusted for tumor size, histology, stage and renal function. RESULTS: The SF-36 physical component score differed significantly by surgery type with time (p = 0.04). Patients treated with laparoscopy improved by month 2 while those treated with open surgery had poorer quality of life until month 3. Better cancer specific quality of life was reported in patients who underwent radical vs partial nephrectomy. Age also had a significant effect on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We report one of the most comprehensive patient reported prospective quality of life studies in patients with renal cell carcinoma. There were significant differences in quality of life and psychosocial adjustment outcomes during 1 year among patients treated with 1 of 4 commonly accepted surgical renal procedures. These outcomes must be evaluated in the context of tumor characteristics, cancer specific outcomes and renal function. These quality of life issues may be important to consider when choosing surgical procedures for patients with renal tumors.
Authors: David C Miller; John M Hollingsworth; Khaled S Hafez; Stephanie Daignault; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Danielle Petricone-Westwood; Georden Jones; Brittany Mutsaers; Caroline Séguin Leclair; Christina Tomei; Geneviève Trudel; Andreas Dinkel; Sophie Lebel Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2019-02
Authors: Patricia A Parker; Frances Alba; Bryan Fellman; Diana L Urbauer; Yisheng Li; Jose A Karam; Nizar Tannir; Eric Jonasch; Christopher G Wood; Surena F Matin Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-02-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Joseph A Baiocco; Mark W Ball; Asha K Pappajohn; Kareem N Rayn; Gennady Bratslavsky; Shawna L Boyle; William M Linehan; Adam R Metwalli Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Andreas Becker; Lea Pradel; Luis Kluth; Marianne Schmid; Christian Eichelberg; Sascha Ahyai; Quoc Trinh; Daniel Seiler; Roland Dahlem; Jens Hansen; Michael Rink; Mario Zacharias; Anja Mehnert; Corinna Bergelt; Margit Fisch; Felix K H Chun Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-05-31 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Kathrin Milbury; Gabriel Lopez; Amy Spelman; Christopher Wood; Surena F Matin; Nizar M Tannir; Eric Jonasch; Louis Pisters; Qi Wei; Lorenzo Cohen Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 3.894