A Simon Pickard1, Ruixuan Jiang2, Hsiang-Wen Lin3, Sarah Rosenbloom4, David Cella4. 1. Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: pickard1@uic.edu. 2. Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 3. College of Pharmacy, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan. 4. Department of Social Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the health-related quality of life (HRQL) burden across different types of advanced cancer with the use of 2 widely used patient-reported outcome measures, the generic EQ-5D and the cancer-specific Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer of the bladder, brain, breast, colon/rectum, head/neck, hepatobiliary tract/pancreas, kidney, lung, lymphoma, ovary, or prostate completed the EQ-5D and FACT-G. HRQL domains and summary scores were compared across types of cancer, using regression models to adjust for age and sex. FINDINGS: Approximately 50 patients with each type of cancer were recruited (total, 534 patients). According to EQ-5D dimensions, the highest proportion of problems was associated with prostate (mobility); prostate and kidney (self-care); head/neck, bladder, and lung (usual activities); breast, head/neck, and lung (pain/discomfort); and lymphoma and lung (anxiety/depression) cancers. EQ-5D visual analogue scale scores were lowest for breast and head/neck cancers; US index-based scores were lowest for breast and lung cancers and highest for brain cancer. For the FACT-G, physical well-being scores were lowest for head/neck, hepatobiliary, and kidney cancers; emotional well-being scores were lowest for hepatobiliary cancer, and functional well-being scores were lowest for head/neck, hepatobiliary, and bladder cancers. IMPLICATIONS: The overall and dimension-specific HRQL burden of advanced cancer depended on the type of cancer. Such results may aid clinicians and patients in better understanding of how cancer site can affect HRQL and functioning in different ways.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the health-related quality of life (HRQL) burden across different types of advanced cancer with the use of 2 widely used patient-reported outcome measures, the generic EQ-5D and the cancer-specific Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). METHODS:Patients with advanced cancer of the bladder, brain, breast, colon/rectum, head/neck, hepatobiliary tract/pancreas, kidney, lung, lymphoma, ovary, or prostate completed the EQ-5D and FACT-G. HRQL domains and summary scores were compared across types of cancer, using regression models to adjust for age and sex. FINDINGS: Approximately 50 patients with each type of cancer were recruited (total, 534 patients). According to EQ-5D dimensions, the highest proportion of problems was associated with prostate (mobility); prostate and kidney (self-care); head/neck, bladder, and lung (usual activities); breast, head/neck, and lung (pain/discomfort); and lymphoma and lung (anxiety/depression) cancers. EQ-5D visual analogue scale scores were lowest for breast and head/neck cancers; US index-based scores were lowest for breast and lung cancers and highest for brain cancer. For the FACT-G, physical well-being scores were lowest for head/neck, hepatobiliary, and kidney cancers; emotional well-being scores were lowest for hepatobiliary cancer, and functional well-being scores were lowest for head/neck, hepatobiliary, and bladder cancers. IMPLICATIONS: The overall and dimension-specific HRQL burden of advanced cancer depended on the type of cancer. Such results may aid clinicians and patients in better understanding of how cancer site can affect HRQL and functioning in different ways.
Authors: Jessica E Ebrahimzadeh; Jessica M Long; Louise Wang; John T Nathanson; Shazia Mehmood Siddique; Anil K Rustgi; David S Goldberg; Bryson W Katona Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Reinhard Stauder; Ge Yu; Karin A Koinig; Tim Bagguley; Pierre Fenaux; Argiris Symeonidis; Guillermo Sanz; Jaroslav Cermak; Moshe Mittelman; Eva Hellström-Lindberg; Saskia Langemeijer; Mette Skov Holm; Krzysztof Mądry; Luca Malcovati; Aurelia Tatic; Ulrich Germing; Aleksandar Savic; Corine van Marrewijk; Agnès Guerci-Bresler; Elisa Luño; Jackie Droste; Fabio Efficace; Alex Smith; David Bowen; Theo de Witte Journal: Leukemia Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Albert H Kim; Steven Tatter; Ganesh Rao; Sujit Prabhu; Clark Chen; Peter Fecci; Veronica Chiang; Kris Smith; Brian J Williams; Alireza M Mohammadi; Kevin Judy; Andrew Sloan; Zulma Tovar-Spinoza; James Baumgartner; Constantinos Hadjipanayis; Eric C Leuthardt Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Mengxi Du; Christina F Griecci; David D Kim; Frederick Cudhea; Mengyuan Ruan; Heesun Eom; John B Wong; Parke E Wilde; Dominique S Michaud; Yujin Lee; Renata Micha; Dariush Mozaffarian; Fang Fang Zhang Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2020-08-25
Authors: Patrick D Albright; Syed Haider Ali; Hunter Jackson; Billy T Haonga; Edmund Ndalama Eliezer; Saam Morshed; David W Shearer Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.755