PURPOSE: To describe quality of life (QoL) in a cohort of surviving women 4 years after breast cancer treatment and to analyze its role as a predictor of mortality within 2 years. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of 544 women who have undergone surgical treatment, from 2001 to 2002 and who answered a questionnaire about QoL in 2006. After, we conducted a survival study to evaluate the association between QoL and mortality within 2 years with the same population. We conducted factor analysis between the variables of the scales of function and symptoms. Survival analysis was conducted by Kaplan-Meier, and differences in survival curves were assessed with the log-rank test, assuming significant statistical level of 5 %. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to explore the relationship between QoL variables (functional scales) and prognostic value for survival. RESULTS: The mean age of the women was 59.1 years (SD 11.66). The mean of overall QoL score was 75.16 (SD 20.93). Using factor analysis, we identified three conditions that made up the construct of QoL in this group of patients: social, psycho-emotional, and physical. Social condition was the most important factor. After assessment of QoL, the mean survival was 23 months (SD 3.90). Women who reported worse future perspective had higher chance of death compared with women better prospect of future (HR = 3.46; 95 % CI 1.36-8.79; p value = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Future perspectives were predictors of mortality, which reinforce the relevance of social support and psychological aspects for these women.
PURPOSE: To describe quality of life (QoL) in a cohort of surviving women 4 years after breast cancer treatment and to analyze its role as a predictor of mortality within 2 years. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of 544 women who have undergone surgical treatment, from 2001 to 2002 and who answered a questionnaire about QoL in 2006. After, we conducted a survival study to evaluate the association between QoL and mortality within 2 years with the same population. We conducted factor analysis between the variables of the scales of function and symptoms. Survival analysis was conducted by Kaplan-Meier, and differences in survival curves were assessed with the log-rank test, assuming significant statistical level of 5 %. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to explore the relationship between QoL variables (functional scales) and prognostic value for survival. RESULTS: The mean age of the women was 59.1 years (SD 11.66). The mean of overall QoL score was 75.16 (SD 20.93). Using factor analysis, we identified three conditions that made up the construct of QoL in this group of patients: social, psycho-emotional, and physical. Social condition was the most important factor. After assessment of QoL, the mean survival was 23 months (SD 3.90). Women who reported worse future perspective had higher chance of death compared with women better prospect of future (HR = 3.46; 95 % CI 1.36-8.79; p value = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Future perspectives were predictors of mortality, which reinforce the relevance of social support and psychological aspects for these women.
Authors: Myung Kyung Lee; Byung Ho Son; Sook Yeon Hwang; Wonshik Han; Jung-Hyun Yang; Seeyoun Lee; Young Ho Yun Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-02-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: José Luiz B Bevilacqua; Michael W Kattan; Yu Changhong; Sergio Koifman; Inês E Mattos; Rosalina J Koifman; Anke Bergmann Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ana Claudia Garabeli Cavalli Kluthcovsky; Almir Antonio Urbanetz; Denise Siqueira de Carvalho; Eliane Mara Cesario Pereira Maluf; Geovana Cristina Schlickmann Sylvestre; Sergio Bruno Bonatto Hatschbach Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kathleen Meeske; Ashley Wilder Smith; Catherine M Alfano; Bonnie A McGregor; Anne McTiernan; Kathy B Baumgartner; Kathleen E Malone; Bryce B Reeve; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Leslie Bernstein Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: P Reynolds; P T Boyd; R S Blacklow; J S Jackson; R S Greenberg; D F Austin; V W Chen; B K Edwards Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 1994 Apr-May Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Alem A Belachew; Monica E Reyes; Yuanqing Ye; Gottumukkala S Raju; M Alma Rodriguez; Xifeng Wu; Michelle A T Hildebrandt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ana Isabel Cobo-Cuenca; Noelia María Martín-Espinosa; María Aurora Rodríguez-Borrego; Juan Manuel Carmona-Torres Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Xifeng Wu; Yuanqing Ye; Carlos H Barcenas; Wong-Ho Chow; Qing H Meng; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Michelle A T Hildebrandt; Hua Zhao; Xiangjun Gu; Yang Deng; Elizabeth Wagar; Francisco J Esteva; Debu Tripathy; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Julia de Mello Ramirez Medina; Ingrid de Araujo Trugilho; Giovanna Nunes Belo Mendes; Josiel Guedes Silva; Maria Alexsandra da Silva Paiva; Suzana Sales de Aguiar; Luiz Claudio Santos Thuler; Anke Bergmann Journal: Eur J Breast Health Date: 2018-12-19
Authors: Ganga Vijayasiri; Yamile Molina; Ifeanyi Beverly Chukwudozie; Silvia Tejeda; Heather A Pauls; Garth H Rauscher; Richard T Campbell; Richard B Warnecke Journal: J Health Dispar Res Pract Date: 2018
Authors: Young Ho Yun; Young Ae Kim; Jin Ah Sim; Ae Sun Shin; Yoon Jung Chang; Jongmog Lee; Moon Soo Kim; Young Mog Shim; Jae Lll Zo Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Zobaida Edib; Verasingam Kumarasamy; Norlia Binti Abdullah; A M Rizal; Sami Abdo Radman Al-Dubai Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Jason Talevski; Kerrie M Sanders; Sara Vogrin; Gustavo Duque; Alison Beauchamp; Ego Seeman; Sandra Iuliano; Axel Svedbom; Fredrik Borgström; John A Kanis; Amanda L Stuart; Sharon L Brennan-Olsen Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 2.617