D Ahmed-Lecheheb1, F Joly2,3. 1. U1086 INSERM, Cancers and Preventions, Center François Baclesse, 3 Avenue du General Harris, 14076, Caen, France. d.ahmed-lecheheb@mail.baclesse.fr. 2. U1086 INSERM, Cancers and Preventions, Center François Baclesse, 3 Avenue du General Harris, 14076, Caen, France. 3. Medical Oncology Department-Clinical Research Department, Center François Baclesse-CHU Côte de nacre, Caen, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The assessment of quality of life (QOL) among ovarian cancer (OC) patients has mainly focused on the acute phase of treatment. This systematic review examines studies measuring QOL in patients who survived OC after treatment and synthesizes results in order to assess QOL and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data at long-term follow-up. METHODS: Articles published in English between 1990 to November 2014 were identified with the databases MEDLINE and PubMed, using the specific keywords "OC survivors" combined with the terms, "QOL," "health-related QOL," and "PROs." Data were reviewed for design, time since end of treatment, measurement tools, and outcomes (categorized in three topics: global QOL compared to controls, treatment sequelae, and intervention strategies). RESULTS: The initial search strategy provided 148 articles of which 31 were considered eligible. Most studies focused on epithelial OC, and only a few studies investigated survivors of ovarian germ cell tumor. More than 60 instruments of QOL measures were used in the corpus. Despite the persistence of psychological and physical symptoms, treatment sequelae, sexual problems, and fear of recurrence in some survivors, most studies demonstrated that OC survivors generally have good QOL compared to healthy women. Studies proposing interventions are lacking. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVOR: OC survivors experience a wide range of sequelae that may persist for a long time and negatively impact QOL. Further large-scale research is needed to fully understand problems that have significant effects on QOL, in order to develop interventions and treatments suitable for women at need.
PURPOSE: The assessment of quality of life (QOL) among ovarian cancer (OC) patients has mainly focused on the acute phase of treatment. This systematic review examines studies measuring QOL in patients who survived OC after treatment and synthesizes results in order to assess QOL and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data at long-term follow-up. METHODS: Articles published in English between 1990 to November 2014 were identified with the databases MEDLINE and PubMed, using the specific keywords "OC survivors" combined with the terms, "QOL," "health-related QOL," and "PROs." Data were reviewed for design, time since end of treatment, measurement tools, and outcomes (categorized in three topics: global QOL compared to controls, treatment sequelae, and intervention strategies). RESULTS: The initial search strategy provided 148 articles of which 31 were considered eligible. Most studies focused on epithelial OC, and only a few studies investigated survivors of ovarian germ cell tumor. More than 60 instruments of QOL measures were used in the corpus. Despite the persistence of psychological and physical symptoms, treatment sequelae, sexual problems, and fear of recurrence in some survivors, most studies demonstrated that OC survivors generally have good QOL compared to healthy women. Studies proposing interventions are lacking. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVOR: OC survivors experience a wide range of sequelae that may persist for a long time and negatively impact QOL. Further large-scale research is needed to fully understand problems that have significant effects on QOL, in order to develop interventions and treatments suitable for women at need.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ovarian cancer; Patient-reported outcomes; Quality of life; Survivors
Authors: Chun-Pin Chang; Yuji Chen; Brenna Blackburn; Sarah Abdelaziz; Kerry Rowe; John Snyder; Mark Dodson; Vikrant Deshmukh; Michael Newman; Joseph B Stanford; Christina A Porucznik; Jennifer Ose; Alison Fraser; Ken Smith; Jennifer Doherty; David Gaffney; Mia Hashibe Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-02-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Christelle Schofield; Robert U Newton; Paul A Cohen; Daniel A Galvão; Joanne A McVeigh; Ganendra R Mohan; Jason Tan; Stuart G Salfinger; Leon M Straker; Carolyn J Peddle-McIntyre Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Roger T Anderson; Lauren C Peres; Fabian Camacho; Elisa V Bandera; Ellen Funkhouser; Patricia G Moorman; Lisa E Paddock; Edward S Peters; Sarah E Abbott; Anthony J Alberg; Jill Barnholtz-Sloan; Melissa Bondy; Michele L Cote; Ann G Schwartz; Paul Terry; Joellen M Schildkraut Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Teresa Hagan Thomas; Karin Nauth-Shelley; Michael A Thompson; Deanna J Attai; Matthew S Katz; David Graham; Dee Sparacio; Christina Lizaso; Audun Utengen; Don S Dizon Journal: J Patient Cent Res Rev Date: 2018-04-26
Authors: Mark J A Rietveld; Olga Husson; M C Caroline Vos; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; P B Nelleke Ottevanger; Nicole P M Ezendam Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 3.603