Literature DB >> 27148419

Patient features predicting long-term survival and health-related quality of life after radical surgery for non-small cell lung cancer.

Ville Rauma1, Jarmo Salo1, Harri Sintonen2, Jari Räsänen1, Ilkka Ilonen1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study presents a retrospective evaluation of patient, disease, and treatment features predicting long-term survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients who underwent surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS: Between January 2000 and June 2009, 586 patients underwent surgery at the Helsinki University Hospital. The 276 patients still alive in June 2011 received two validated quality of life questionnaires (QLQ): the generic 15D and the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 + QLQ-LC13. We used binary and linear regression analysis modeling to identify patient, disease, and treatment characteristics that predicted survival and long-term HRQoL.
RESULTS: When taking into account patient, disease, and treatment characteristics, long-term survival was quite predictable (69.5% correct), but not long-term HRQoL (R (2) between 0.041 and 0.119). Advanced age at the time of surgery, male gender, comorbidity (measured with the Charlson comorbidity index), clinical and pathological stages II-IV, and postoperative infectious complications predicted a lower survival rate. Features associated with poorer long-term HRQoL (measured with the 15D) were comorbidity, postoperative complications, and the use of the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) technique.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term HRQoL is only moderately predictable, while prediction of long-term survival is more reliable. Lower HRQoL is associated with comorbidities, complications, use of the VATS technique, and reduced pulmonary function, while adjuvant therapy is associated with higher HRQoL.

Entities:  

Keywords:  15D; EORTC QLQ‐C30; NSCLC; health‐related quality of life; lung cancer; surgery

Year:  2016        PMID: 27148419      PMCID: PMC4846622          DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.12333

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thorac Cancer        ISSN: 1759-7706            Impact factor:   3.500


Introduction

Lung cancer is the most common cancer worldwide and the leading cause of cancer death, with a worldwide mortality‐to‐incidence ratio of 0.87, indicating a truly poor prognosis.1 The development of treatment options promises treatment for more and more patients, although the majority receive only palliative care. The primary treatment modality, especially in early stage non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), is radical surgery with a curative aim.2 Although postoperative health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) is naturally the main indicator of treatment outcome in palliative care, it has also become more important in the evaluation of curative treatment outcomes. Numerous studies aiming to identify factors affecting postoperative HRQoL have shown varying results.3, 4 A recent large study found that comorbidities and the use of adjuvant therapy had a significant negative effect on long‐term HRQoL.3 Another study showed a significant negative effect of complications on HRQoL, while tumor stage remained a non‐significant factor.4 Both studies found the that extent of resection significantly affected HRQoL, although the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy was contradictory.3, 4 Preoperative values for predicting postoperative outcome, such as forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), are incapable of adequately predicting postoperative HRQoL.2, 5, 6, 7 A common finding of numerous studies has been the significant role of preoperative HRQoL as a prognostic factor for patient survival.8, 9 Montazeri et al. found preoperative HRQoL, measured with the EORTC QLQ‐C30 + LC13 questionnaire, to be the most important prognostic factor for survival, although postoperative HRQoL may also have prognostic value for survival.10 , 11 While these studies have defined singular patient, disease, and treatment factors that impact postoperative HRQoL, they have not evaluated the strength of such factors in predicting overall HRQoL. It is still important to determine patient and disease features and to create prognostic models that could serve in predicting how a treatment affects HRQoL. This determination could prove useful in preoperative patient selection to identify patients in which surgery is likely to have a negative impact. The aim of this study was to clarify the relationship between individual patient and disease characteristics and to clarify the association of such characteristics with variance in HRQoL, as well as to create a prognostic multivariate model for predicting long‐term HRQoL.

Patients and methods

Patients

We analyzed the data of patients who underwent surgery for NSCLC from January 2000 to June 2009 in our hospital. During this period, 586 patients underwent surgery, 79 with video‐assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) lobectomy or segmentectomy, introduced in our hospital in 2006. Except for three cases, VATS patients had either clinical stage IA or IB disease. Patients who were still alive in June 2011 (n = 276) received two HRQoL questionnaires through the mail. After one month, non‐respondents received another set of questionnaires and were eventually contacted by phone.

Quality of life instruments

We measured HRQoL with two self‐administered quality of life questionnaires (QLQ): the 15D and the EORTC QLQ‐C30 + LC13.12 , 13 The 15D is a generic HRQoL instrument consisting of 15 individual functional dimensions, each of which contains five ordinal levels. We used a set of population‐based preference or utility weights to calculate from the health state descriptive system (questionnaire) the single index score (15D score), representing overall HRQoL on a scale from zero (death) to one (full health), and the dimension level values, reflecting a good state of function relative to no problems in the dimension (=1) and to death (=0). A recent study determined the minimal important difference (MID) in the 15D score (representing overall HRQoL) to be 0.015.14 The QLQ‐C30 is a disease‐specific HRQoL instrument used for oncology patients, and the LC13 is its lung cancer‐specific supplementary module; both have a score scale ranging from 0 to 100, a high score reflecting either a good state of function or a high intensity of symptoms. Maringva et al. determined a MID global QoL score of 9.4 for better or 4.4 for worse.15 A total of 230 patients replied to the 15D questionnaire, and 221 patients to both the 15D and EORTC QLQ‐C30 + LC13 questionnaires. Our previous article describes the questionnaires in more detail.16

Statistical analysis

We determined Pearson's correlation coefficients in order to identify significant correlations between variables included in the analyses and considered a P value < 0.05 statistically significant. We used SPSS version 21.0.0 to analyze the data (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). We used binary logistic regression models (with forward logistic regression as the method) to predict the probability of death by the time of the study. The first model included preoperative patient and disease variables, and the second model included perioperative variables. Model 1 included the surgical technique, as the surgeons chose it before surgery. We used a nearly identical approach in an effort to identify factors that significantly influence long‐term HRQoL. The difference was that we used both stepwise (the rules for taking a new variable into the model were less strict than in the binary logistic regression models noted above) and backward methods to build our models. With a similar model, using the stepwise method, we identified factors that statistically significantly affected the most severely impaired 15D dimensions. The coefficients represent the mean change in HRQoL scores per unit change in the given predictor variable. For the categorical variables, the change is compared with the alternatively prevailing situation. For the VATS technique, the change is compared with thoracotomy as the surgical technique. For squamous cell carcinoma, for example, the change is given compared with adenocarcinoma as the histological finding. The Ethics Committee of the Helsinki University Hospital approved this protocol.

Results

Study population

By June 2011, 301 (51.4%) patients had died. We were unable to obtain data on seven patients, as these patients did not attend follow‐up at our institution. In the beginning, we excluded 48 patients from the analyses because of insufficient data; an additional seven patients were excluded during the analysis stage for this same reason. In total, we included survival data on 524 patients. A total of 221 patients completed both HRQoL questionnaires, while nine answered only the 15D questionnaire. Patient characteristics are listed in Table 1. The median follow‐up time among the respondents was 4.85 years (range 2.01–11.13). About 88% of the patients were smokers. Noted postoperative complications among the respondents included bleeding in five (2.2%), infection in 20 (8.7%), cardiac events in two (0.9%), prolonged air leak in 12 (5.2%), and other complications in 14 patients (6.1%). A total of 48 respondents experienced complications (20.9%); five of these had two separate complications. In these patients, only the first complication was included in the analyses. Twenty‐five respondents experienced recurrence with a mean time to recurrence of 38 ± 24 months. The correlation between recurrence status and total HRQoL, however, showed no statistical significance.
Table 1

Patient characteristics

All patients (n = 524) Respondents (n = 230)Thoracotomy (n = 188)VATS (n = 42)
Mean ± SD or N (%)
Age65.1 ± 8.863.0 ± 8.762.1 ± 8.466.9 ± 8.9
Women201 (37.9)108 (47.0)82 (43.6)26 (61.9)
CCI score
0292 (55.0)136 (59.1)119 (63.3)17 (40.5)
1133 (25.0)55 (23.9)43 (22.9)12 (28.6)
276 (14.3)29 (12.6)18 (9.6)11 (26.2)
324 (4.5)9 (3.9)7 (3.7)2 (4.8)
≥ 46 (1.1)1 (0.4)1 (0.5)0
FEV1%76.2 ± 18.577.0 ± 18.777.0 ± 18.477.1 ± 20.5
SPY42.1 ± 19.241.5 ± 19.241.5 ± 19.641.2 ± 17.5
Clinical stage
IA168 (31.6)92 (40.0)60 (31.9)32 (76.2)
IB119 (22.4)49 (21.3)39 (20.7)10 (23.8)
IIA10 (1.9)5 (2.2)5 (2.7)0
IIB138 (26.0)46 (20.0)46 (24.5)0
IIIA51 (9.6)20 (8.7)20 (10.6)0
IIIB43 (8.1)18 (7.8)18 (9.6)0
IV2 (0.4)000
Operation
Pneumonectomy60 (11.3)18 (7.8)18 (9.6)0
Lobectomy408 (76.8)182 (79.1)147 (78.2)35 (83.3)
Sleeve31 (5.8)13 (5.7)13 (6.9)0
Sub‐lobar32 (6.0)17 (7.4)10 (5.3)7 (16.7)
Neoadjuvant therapy61 (11.5)25 (10.9)25 (13.3)0
Adjuvant therapy91 (17.1)37 (16.1)35 (18.6)2 (4.8)
Histology
Adenocarcinoma273 (51.4)124 (53.9)94 (50.0)30 (71.4)
Squamous cell carcinoma197 (37.1)83 (36.1)72 (38.3)11 (26.2)
Large cell carcinoma30 (5.6)8 (3.5)7 (3.7)1 (2.4)
Undifferentiated31 (5.8)15 (6.5)15 (8.0)0
Pathological stage
IA153 (28.8)89 (38.7)61 (32.4)28 (66.7)
IB150 (28.2)70 (30.4)60 (31.9)10 (23.8)
IIA20 (3.8)11 (4.8)9 (4.8)2 (4.8)
IIB99 (18.6)37 (16.1)37 (19.7)0
IIIA68 (12.8)14 (6.1)12 (6.4)2 (4.8)
IIIB39 (7.3)9 (3.9)9 (4.8)0
IV2 (0.4)000
Complication167 (31.5)48 (20.9)43 (22.9)5 (11.9)
Recurrence208 (39.2)25 (10.9)22 (11.7)3 (7.1)

Respondents grouped according to surgical technique applied. CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; FEV1%, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) percentage of the predicted value; SD, standard deviation; SPY, smoke pack‐years (given for smokers); VATS, video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

Patient characteristics Respondents grouped according to surgical technique applied. CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; FEV1%, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) percentage of the predicted value; SD, standard deviation; SPY, smoke pack‐years (given for smokers); VATS, video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

Survival

One, two, and five‐year survival rates after surgery were 84.5%, 73.2%, and 51.2%, respectively. Features included in the analyses for patient survival and the results are listed in Table 2.
Table 2

Variables included in the multivariate analyses and results for the probability of death at the time of the study (n = 524)

Mean ± SD or N (%)Probability of death
Mod 1Mod 2
Coefficient (Sig.)
Percentage predicted correctly67.969.5
Constant−5.70−5.76
Preoperative features
Time since operation (months)81.2 ± 33.20.021 (0.001)0.021 (0.001)
Age at operation65.1 ± 8.80.056 (0.001)0.052 (0.001)
Male330 (62.1)0.442 (0.027)0.488 (0.016)
SPY 42.1 ± 19.2
CCI score0.72 ± 1.00.238 (0.026)0.242 (0.029)
FEV1%76.2 ± 18.5
Clinical stages II‐IV 245 (46.1)0.546 (0.006)
Neoadjuvant therapy61 (11.5)
VATS68 (12.8)
Perioperative features
Lobectomy or segmentectomy394 (74.2)
Stages II‐IV 228 (42.9)0.902 (0.001)
Squamous cell carcinoma 197 (37.1)
Large cell or undifferentiated carcinoma 61 (11.5)
Adjuvant chemotherapy77 (14.5)
Adjuvant radiotherapy14 (2.6)
Complications
Bleeding15 (2.8)
Air leak29 (5.5)
Infection59 (11.1)0.837 (0.013)
Cardiac16 (3.0)1.93 (0.070)
Other48 (9.0)

Compared to stage I;

compared to adenocarcinoma. CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; FEV1%, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) percentage of the predicted value; SD, standard deviation; SPY, smoke pack‐years (given for smokers); VATS, video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery; SD, standard deviation.

Variables included in the multivariate analyses and results for the probability of death at the time of the study (n = 524) Compared to stage I; compared to adenocarcinoma. CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; FEV1%, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) percentage of the predicted value; SD, standard deviation; SPY, smoke pack‐years (given for smokers); VATS, video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery; SD, standard deviation.

Quality of life

Differences in 15D scores between our respondents and the age and gender‐standardized general population appear in our previous article.16 The respondents had significantly lower mean 15D scores and showed statistically significantly deteriorated function in regard to mobility, breathing, usual activities, depression, distress, and vitality compared with the general population. The most severe HRQoL impairment occurred in breathing and mobility. The same article reported the QLQ‐C30 results for our respondents and showed lower scores among the respondents on the global QoL item. Features predicting patients' long‐term HRQoL are detailed in Table 3. The results were virtually identical for both methods, so for clarity we provide only the results from the stepwise analysis.
Table 3

Features predicting long‐term HRQoL among respondents (n = 230)

15D scoreEORTC QLQ‐C30 Global health status
Model 1Model 2Model 1Model 2
Adjusted R square0.0600.1190.0410.088

Compared to stage I;

compared to adenocarcinoma. CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; FEV1%, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) percentage of the predicted value; HRQoL, health‐related quality of life; SD, standard deviation; SPY, smoke pack‐years (given for smokers); VATS, video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery; SD, standard deviation.

Features predicting long‐term HRQoL among respondents (n = 230) Compared to stage I; compared to adenocarcinoma. CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; FEV1%, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) percentage of the predicted value; HRQoL, health‐related quality of life; SD, standard deviation; SPY, smoke pack‐years (given for smokers); VATS, video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery; SD, standard deviation. The characteristics that demonstrate a statistically significant effect on the 15D dimensions most severely impaired among the respondents (i.e. breathing and mobility) are detailed in Table 4.
Table 4

Features that statistically significantly affect moving and breathing on the 15D questionnaire (n = 230)

MovingBreathing
Adjusted R square0.1030.117

CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; FEV1%, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) percentage of the predicted value; SPY, smoke pack‐years (given for smokers).

Features that statistically significantly affect moving and breathing on the 15D questionnaire (n = 230) CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; FEV1%, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) percentage of the predicted value; SPY, smoke pack‐years (given for smokers).

Discussion

This study has demonstrated the poor predictability of long‐term HRQoL based on common preoperative clinical factors. This trend was also observed in a previous study, where baseline HRQoL rather than preoperative clinical features was the most significant predictive factor for postoperative short‐term HRQoL in patients treated surgically.17 However, surgery for NSCLC seldom corrects or alleviates symptoms, as patients are usually asymptomatic; surgery may even cause significant disease burden in itself. Some previous studies have shown that comorbidities have no significant impact on long‐term HRQoL.5, 18 This difference may stem from the varied methods of categorizing patients based on the extent of their comorbidity: Paull et al. used subgroups comprising patients with Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) scores between 0 and 2 and scores > 2, while Balduyck et al. categorized their patients into subgroups with CCI scores of 0, 1–2, 3–4 and ≥ 5.5 , 18 In our study, the presence or absence of comorbidity was one of the strongest predictors of HRQoL, emphasizing the importance of this patient feature as a predictive factor for long‐term postoperative HRQoL. According to current understanding, preoperative FEV1 value is a useful predictor of the quantitative outcome of surgery, especially when expressed as a percentage of the normal value, but fails to predict long‐term HRQoL with sufficient accuracy.2, 7, 19, 20, 21 Nevertheless, the statistically significant influence of FEV1 status on QLQ‐C30 global health status (Table 2) and on the 15D dimension of breathing (Table 3) observed in this study indicates that preoperative FEV1 may also be a predictive factor for HRQoL. Other researchers have made similar observations.22 Postoperative complications seemed to significantly impact patients' long‐term survival and HRQoL. The presence or absence of comorbidity did not correlate with the occurrence of postoperative complications, but advanced age (≥70 years) at the time of surgery (n = 176) correlated significantly with the risk of complications. Complications seem to affect patients' HRQoL much longer than previous studies have reported.20 Future studies should aim to examine this relationship between complications and long‐term survival and HRQoL in more detail and particularly focus on finding potential factors capable of predicting the high risk for complications. Our surprising and seemingly illogical finding of the negative effect of the VATS technique on long‐term HRQoL contradicts the results of previous studies; however, our finding may be biased because of the retrospective nature of our study.23 In a previous study, our group found that patients who underwent surgery with the VATS technique were older, had more comorbidities, and poorer absolute pulmonary function.24 The main characteristics of the two groups appear in Table 1. The use of VATS showed no correlation with the occurrence of complications or possible progression of the disease. In the absence of data on baseline HRQoL – the strongest predictive factor for long‐term HRQoL – factors mimicking its effect gain more power. Comorbidities showed a strong negative effect on HRQoL and correlated positively with the probability of using VATS as a surgical technique. This indicates that patients who underwent surgery with VATS may have had poor HRQoL even before the surgery, and the set of variables we included in the analyses failed to account for this bias. The use of VATS also correlated strongly with time since surgery, age at the time of surgery, disease stage, and the extent of resection, all of which is understandable. We tried to minimize the effect of such correlations by replacing the variables with new ones derived from previous variables or by removing correlating variables from the analyses, but doing so failed to alter the results. For example, replacing the variables of clinical stage and use of the VATS technique with a hybrid variable for separating patients with stage I disease and who underwent surgery with VATS from the rest of the patients had no significant effect on the results. Thus, we decided to include the primary clinical variables in the tables in order to enable clear evaluation of the results. An important finding was the statistically and clinically significant positive effect of adjuvant therapy on HRQoL when measured with QLQ‐C30 (Table 2). Numerous studies have earlier reported that adjuvant therapy has either a negative effect or no effect at all on HRQoL, while still emphasizing the fact that clinicians should not be discouraged from using adjuvant therapy, as it is only associated with a moderate decline in HRQoL.4, 5, 20 The five‐year survival in our patient group (51.2%) was comparable to other studies (42%–47%).25, 26 Our observation that advanced age at the time of surgery had no influence on long‐term HRQoL supports the prevalent opinion that advanced age shows no correlation with a steeper decline in long‐term postoperative HRQoL.27, 28

Limitations

As noted above, baseline HRQoL prior to treatment would have been a key variable in the model for predicting long‐term HRQoL. The absence of this knowledge probably significantly lowered the explanatory power of our model. It may also have led to bias, as factors indicating or correlating with possible lower preoperative HRQoL, such as the CCI score and use of VATS, may carry too much weight in the analyses or have inappropriately negative coefficients. One limitation of the results regarding the use of the VATS technique was its introduction into practice in our hospital in 2006 (i.e. in the middle of the study period). The long period during which our patients underwent surgery also raises difficulties in the analyses and may lead to significant bias.

Conclusion

In conclusion, because objective clinical measurements seem to play such a small role in predicting HRQoL, patients should systematically receive information about possible declines in long‐term HRQoL. Moreover, clinicians should employ every measure available to avoid complications, as such complications can significantly compromise long‐term HRQoL.

Disclosure

No authors report any conflict of interest.
  27 in total

Review 1.  The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications.

Authors:  H Sintonen
Journal:  Ann Med       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.709

2.  Health-related quality of life in disease-free survivors of surgically treated lung cancer compared with the general population.

Authors:  Young Ho Yun; Young Ae Kim; Young Hee Min; Yoon Jung Chang; Jongmog Lee; Moon Soo Kim; Hyun-Sung Lee; Jhingook Kim; Yong Soo Choi; Young Mog Shim; Jae Ill Zo
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Estimating the minimum important change in the 15D scores.

Authors:  Soili Alanne; Risto P Roine; Pirjo Räsänen; Tarja Vainiola; Harri Sintonen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  How best to assess the quality of life in long-term survivors after surgery for NSCLC? Comparison between clinical predictors and questionnaire scores.

Authors:  Silvia Sterzi; Alfredo Cesario; Giacomo Cusumano; Giuseppe Corbo; Filippo Lococo; Barbara Biasotti; Luisa Maria Lapenna; Giovanni Magrone; Valentina Dall'armi; Elisa Meacci; Venanzio Porziella; Stefano Bonassi; Stefano Margaritora; Pierluigi Granone
Journal:  Clin Lung Cancer       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 4.785

5.  Health-related quality of life in patients surviving non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Janneke P C Grutters; Manuela A Joore; Erwin M Wiegman; Johannes A Langendijk; Dirk de Ruysscher; Monique Hochstenbag; Anita Botterweck; Philippe Lambin; Madelon Pijls-Johannesma
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 9.139

6.  Long-term lung cancer survivors have permanently decreased quality of life after surgery.

Authors:  Ville Rauma; Harri Sintonen; Jari V Räsänen; Jarmo A Salo; Ilkka K Ilonen
Journal:  Clin Lung Cancer       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 4.785

7.  Pretreatment quality of life and functional status assessment significantly predict survival of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving chemotherapy: a prognostic analysis of the multicenter Italian lung cancer in the elderly study.

Authors:  Paolo Maione; Francesco Perrone; Ciro Gallo; Luigi Manzione; FrancoVito Piantedosi; Santi Barbera; Silvio Cigolari; Francesco Rosetti; Elena Piazza; Sergio Federico Robbiati; Oscar Bertetto; Silvia Novello; Maria Rita Migliorino; Adolfo Favaretto; Mario Spatafora; Francesco Ferraù; Luciano Frontini; Alessandra Bearz; Lazzaro Repetto; Cesare Gridelli; Emiddio Barletta; Maria Luisa Barzelloni; Rosario Vincenzo Iaffaioli; Ermelinda De Maio; Massimo Di Maio; Gianfranco De Feo; Giuseppe Sigoriello; Paolo Chiodini; Angela Cioffi; Vincenzo Guardasole; Valentina Angelini; Antonio Rossi; Domenico Bilancia; Domenico Germano; Alfredo Lamberti; Vittorio Pontillo; Luigi Brancaccio; Francesco Renda; Francesco Romano; Gabriella Esani; Anna Gambaro; Orazio Vinante; Giuseppe Azzarello; Maurizia Clerici; Roberto Bollina; Paolo Belloni; Mirella Sannicolò; Libero Ciuffreda; Giuseppe Parello; Mary Cabiddu; Cosimo Sacco; Angela Sibau; Gianfranco Porcile; Federico Castiglione; Oliviero Ostellino; Silvio Monfardini; Micaela Stefani; Giorgio Scagliotti; Giovanni Selvaggi; Filippo De Marinis; Olga Martelli; Giampietro Gasparini; Alessandro Morabito; Domenico Gattuso; Giuseppe Colucci; Domenico Galetta; Francesco Giotta; Vittorio Gebbia; Nicola Borsellino; Antonio Testa; Emilia Malaponte; Matteo A Capuano; Michele Angiolillo; Francesco Sollitto; Umberto Tirelli; Simona Spazzapan; Vincenzo Adamo; Giuseppe Altavilla; Antonio Scimone; Maria Raffaella Hopps; Francesco Tartamella; Giovanni Pietro Ianniello; Vincenza Tinessa; Giuseppe Failla; Roberto Bordonaro; Nicola Gebbia; Maria Rosaria Valerio; Modesto D'Aprile; Enzo Veltri; Maurizio Tonato; Samir Darwish; Sante Romito; Francesco Carrozza; Sandro Barni; Antonio Ardizzoia; Giuliana Mara Corradini; Gianfranco Pavia; Mario Belli; Giuseppe Colantuoni; Enzo Galligioni; Orazio Caffo; Roberto Labianca; Antonello Quadri; Enrico Cortesi; Giuliana D'Auria; Sergio Fava; Anna Calcagno; Gino Luporini; M Cristina Locatelli; Francesco Di Costanzo; Silvia Gasperoni; Luciano Isa; Paola Candido; Fernando Gaion; Giovanni Palazzolo; Giuseppe Nettis; Anselmo Annamaria; Massimo Rinaldi; Massimo Lopez; Raffaella Felletti; Giorgio Bernabò Di Negro; Nestore Rossi; Antonio Calandriello; Luigi Maiorino; Rodolfo Mattioli; Alfredo Celano; Stefania Schiavon; Alfonso Illiano; Carlo Alberto Raucci; Michele Caruso; Paolo Foa; Giuseppe Tonini; Carlo Curcio; Marina Cazzaniga
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Minimal important differences for interpreting health-related quality of life scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 in lung cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  John T Maringwa; Chantal Quinten; Madeleine King; Jolie Ringash; David Osoba; Corneel Coens; Francesca Martinelli; Jurgen Vercauteren; Charles S Cleeland; Henning Flechtner; Carolyn Gotay; Eva Greimel; Martin J Taphoorn; Bryce B Reeve; Joseph Schmucker-Von Koch; Joachim Weis; Egbert F Smit; Jan P van Meerbeeck; Andrew Bottomley
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Prospective external convergence evaluation of two different quality-of-life instruments in lung resection patients.

Authors:  Cecilia Pompili; Alessandro Brunelli; Francesco Xiumé; Majed Refai; Michele Salati; Laura Socci; Luca Di Nunzio; Armando Sabbatini
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2010-12-14       Impact factor: 4.191

10.  Can factors related to mortality be used to predict the follow-up health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in cardiac surgery patients?

Authors:  Tarja Vainiola; Risto P Roine; Raili Suojaranta-Ylinen; Antti Vento; Harri Sintonen
Journal:  Intensive Crit Care Nurs       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 3.072

View more
  8 in total

1.  EORTC QLQ-C30 general population normative data for Italy by sex, age and health condition: an analysis of 1,036 individuals.

Authors:  Micha J Pilz; Eva-Maria Gamper; Fabio Efficace; Juan I Arraras; Sandra Nolte; Gregor Liegl; Matthias Rose; Johannes M Giesinger
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 4.135

2.  Prospective assessment of demographic characteristics associated with worse health related quality of life measures following definitive chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Jennifer Vogel; Xingmei Wang; Andrea B Troxel; Charles B Simone; Ramesh Rengan; Lilie L Lin
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2019-08

3.  Comorbidities with non-small cell lung cancer: Is there an interdisciplinary consensus needed to qualify patients for surgical treatment?

Authors:  Marta Lembicz; Piotr Gabryel; Beata Brajer-Luftmann; Wojciech Dyszkiewicz; Halina Batura-Gabryel
Journal:  Ann Thorac Med       Date:  2018 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.219

4.  Gender effects on quality of life and symptom burden in patients with lung cancer: results from a prospective, cross-cultural, multi-center study.

Authors:  Myriam Koch; Marianne Jensen Hjermstad; Krzysztof Tomaszewski; Iwona Tomaszewska; Kjersti Hornslien; Amelie Harle; Juan Arraras; Ofir Morag; Cecilia Pompili; Georgios Ioannidis; Chiara Navarra; Weichu Chie; Colin Johnson; Thomas Bohrer; Annelies Janssens; Dagmara Kulis; Andrew Bottomley; Christian Schulz; Florian Zeman; Michael Koller
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 5.  Effect of operative approach on quality of life following anatomic lung cancer resection.

Authors:  Emily S Singer; Peter J Kneuertz; Jennifer Nishimura; Desmond M D'Souza; Ellen Diefenderfer; Susan D Moffatt-Bruce; Robert E Merritt
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Psychosocial Burden and Quality of Life of Lung Cancer Patients: Results of the EORTC QLQ-C30/QLQ-LC29 Questionnaire and Hornheide Screening Instrument.

Authors:  Myriam Koch; Laura Gräfenstein; Julia Karnosky; Christian Schulz; Michael Koller
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2021-08-07       Impact factor: 3.989

7.  Gender Differences in Quality of Life of Metastatic Lung Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Myriam Koch; Frederike Rasch; Tobias Rothammer; Karolina Müller; Arno Mohr; Michael Koller; Christian Schulz
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-10-11       Impact factor: 3.602

8.  Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life of Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery for Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Kerry N L Avery; Jane M Blazeby; Katy A Chalmers; Timothy J P Batchelor; Gianluca Casali; Eveline Internullo; Rakesh Krishnadas; Clare Evans; Doug West
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 5.344

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.