S Singer1, C Ziegler, T Schwalenberg, A Hinz, H Götze, T Schulte. 1. Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Division of Epidemiology and Health Services Research, University Medical Centre of Johannes Gutenberg University, Obere Zahlbacher Straße 69, 55131, Mainz, Germany. singers@uni-mainz.de
Abstract
PURPOSE: Compared to the literature on other malignancies, data on quality of life (QoL) in bladder cancer are sparse. This study sought answers to the following questions: In what QoL domains do patients with bladder cancer differ from the general population? Do patients with radical cystectomy differ in QoL compared to those who received conservative treatment? Do patients with neobladder generally have better QoL compared to patients with other diversion methods? METHODS: At the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation, N = 823 patients with bladder cancer were assessed. Data of a representative community sample (N = 2037) were used for comparison. The questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30 was used to measure QoL. Multivariate linear regression models were computed to investigate differences between groups. RESULTS: Patients with both non-muscle invasive and muscle invasive bladder cancer reported significantly more problems and worse functioning than the general population. Radiotherapy is associated with clinically relevant more pain, dyspnoea, constipation, appetite loss and decreased social functioning while chemotherapy is associated more with dyspnoea. Cystectomy patients reported more fatigue, appetite loss and decreased role functioning. Male patients ≥70 years with conduit experienced more sleep and emotional problems. These effects of urinary diversion were not observed in women and younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bladder cancer experience various QoL concerns at the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation. These problems can partly be explained by the type of treatment the patients receive. Type of urinary diversion is relevant for QoL in subgroups of patients.
PURPOSE: Compared to the literature on other malignancies, data on quality of life (QoL) in bladder cancer are sparse. This study sought answers to the following questions: In what QoL domains do patients with bladder cancer differ from the general population? Do patients with radical cystectomy differ in QoL compared to those who received conservative treatment? Do patients with neobladder generally have better QoL compared to patients with other diversion methods? METHODS: At the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation, N = 823 patients with bladder cancer were assessed. Data of a representative community sample (N = 2037) were used for comparison. The questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30 was used to measure QoL. Multivariate linear regression models were computed to investigate differences between groups. RESULTS:Patients with both non-muscle invasive and muscle invasive bladder cancer reported significantly more problems and worse functioning than the general population. Radiotherapy is associated with clinically relevant more pain, dyspnoea, constipation, appetite loss and decreased social functioning while chemotherapy is associated more with dyspnoea. Cystectomy patients reported more fatigue, appetite loss and decreased role functioning. Male patients ≥70 years with conduit experienced more sleep and emotional problems. These effects of urinary diversion were not observed in women and younger patients. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with bladder cancer experience various QoL concerns at the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation. These problems can partly be explained by the type of treatment the patients receive. Type of urinary diversion is relevant for QoL in subgroups of patients.
Authors: Yair Lotan; Gilad Amiel; Stephen A Boorjian; Peter E Clark; Michael Droller; Jeffrey R Gingrich; Thomas J Guzzo; Brant A Inman; Ashish M Kamat; Larry Karsh; Matthew E Nielsen; Norm D Smith; Shahrokh F Shariat; Robert S Svatek; Jennifer M Taylor Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2011-11-06 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Daniel A Barocas; Denise R Globe; Danielle C Colayco; Ahunna Onyenwenyi; Amanda S Bruno; Thomas J Bramley; Rachel J Spear Journal: Adv Urol Date: 2012-05-10
Authors: Deniz Bolat; Serdar Çelik; Mehmet Erhan Aydın; Özgü Aydoğdu; Bülent Günlüsoy; Tansu Değirmenci; Çetin Dinçel Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2017-09-12
Authors: Maja Vejlgaard; Sophia Liff Maibom; Ulla Nordström Joensen; Peter Ole Thind; Malene Rohrsted; Eske Kvanner Aasvang; Henrik Kehlet; Martin Andreas Røder Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-05-20 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ahrang Jung; Jamie L Crandell; Matthew E Nielsen; Sophia K Smith; Ashley Leak Bryant; Deborah K Mayer Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Matthew B Clements; Thomas M Atkinson; Guido M Dalbagni; Yuelin Li; Andrew J Vickers; Harry W Herr; S Machele Donat; Jaspreet S Sandhu; Daniel S Sjoberg; Amy L Tin; Bruce D Rapkin; Bernard H Bochner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Claudia Rutherford; Manish I Patel; Margaret-Ann Tait; David P Smith; Daniel S J Costa; Shomik Sengupta; Madeleine T King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ahrang Jung; Matthew E Nielsen; Jamie L Crandell; Mary H Palmer; Sophia K Smith; Ashley Leak Bryant; Deborah K Mayer Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 5.588