Monica E Reyes1, Yuanqing Ye1, Yeling Zhou1, Alexander Liang1, Scott Kopetz2, M Alma Rodriquez3,4, Xifeng Wu1, Michelle A T Hildebrandt5. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 2. Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 3. Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 4. Office of Cancer Survivorship, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. mhildebr@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the mediators of health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and effect on overall survival. METHODS: We analyzed baseline (within 1 year of diagnosis) SF-12v1 questionnaire data from 3734 CRC patients and assessed the differences in mental composite scores (MCS) and physical composite scores (PCS) by socio-demographics and risks of poor HR-QoL by these factors. Hazard ratios were generated using univariate Cox regression for MCS and PCS dichotomized using the normalized scoring-based mean of 50 and survival estimates generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Differences in MCS and PCS were identified by sex, age, education level, alcohol use, tobacco use, and stage. Race, marital status, and cancer site differed only by PCS. Being female, never married, former alcohol user, or with stage IV disease significantly increased risk of a poor HR-QoL, with magnitudes of risk from 1.25- to 1.97-fold. Higher education level had a protective effect (MCS: P trend = 2.32 × 10-7; PCS: P trend = 5.62 × 10-14). Hispanics and African-Americans had a 1.35- and 1.57-fold risk of poor PCS, and increase in age had a protective effect for risk of poor MCS (P trend = 1.84 × 10-7). Poor MCS or PCS were associated with poor prognosis and decreased survival at 5 years (HRMCS 1.57, 95 % CI 1.41-1.76 and HRPCS 2.38, 95 % CI 2.08-2.72), and both remained significant when adjusting for age, gender, race, education level, tumor stage, and tumor site. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identify potential mediators for HR-QoL and suggest that baseline HR-QoL assessment may be prognostic for CRC.
PURPOSE: To investigate the mediators of health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and effect on overall survival. METHODS: We analyzed baseline (within 1 year of diagnosis) SF-12v1 questionnaire data from 3734 CRC patients and assessed the differences in mental composite scores (MCS) and physical composite scores (PCS) by socio-demographics and risks of poor HR-QoL by these factors. Hazard ratios were generated using univariate Cox regression for MCS and PCS dichotomized using the normalized scoring-based mean of 50 and survival estimates generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Differences in MCS and PCS were identified by sex, age, education level, alcohol use, tobacco use, and stage. Race, marital status, and cancer site differed only by PCS. Being female, never married, former alcohol user, or with stage IV disease significantly increased risk of a poor HR-QoL, with magnitudes of risk from 1.25- to 1.97-fold. Higher education level had a protective effect (MCS: P trend = 2.32 × 10-7; PCS: P trend = 5.62 × 10-14). Hispanics and African-Americans had a 1.35- and 1.57-fold risk of poor PCS, and increase in age had a protective effect for risk of poor MCS (P trend = 1.84 × 10-7). Poor MCS or PCS were associated with poor prognosis and decreased survival at 5 years (HRMCS 1.57, 95 % CI 1.41-1.76 and HRPCS 2.38, 95 % CI 2.08-2.72), and both remained significant when adjusting for age, gender, race, education level, tumor stage, and tumor site. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identify potential mediators for HR-QoL and suggest that baseline HR-QoL assessment may be prognostic for CRC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal cancer; MCS; PCS; Quality of life; SF-12
Authors: Floortje Mols; Melissa S Y Thong; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Jan Anne Roukema; Johan Denollet Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: J A Sloan; C L Loprinzi; S A Kuross; A W Miser; J R O'Fallon; M R Mahoney; I M Heid; M E Bretscher; N L Vaught Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthias Kröz; Marcus Reif; Arndt Büssing; Roland Zerm; Gene Feder; Angelina Bockelbrink; Hans Broder von Laue; Harald Matthes H; Stefan N Willich; Matthias Girke Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2011-09-30 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Nik Nairan Abdullah; Idayu Badilla Idris; Khadijah Shamsuddin; Nik Muhd Aslan Abdullah Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 3.603
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: David Hui; Amy K Darke; Katherine A Guthrie; Ishwaria M Subbiah; Joseph M Unger; Dawn L Hershman; Robert S Krouse; Marie Bakitas; Mark A O'Rourke Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-10-04
Authors: Seongkum Heo; Terry A Lennie; Debra K Moser; Sandra B Dunbar; Susan J Pressler; JinShil Kim Journal: Geriatr Nurs Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 2.361
Authors: Anwar E Ahmed; Alaa S Almuzaini; Mohannad A Alsadhan; Abdulrahman G Alharbi; Hanin S Almuzaini; Yosra Z Ali; Abdul-Rahman Jazieh Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Miren Orive; Ane Anton-Ladislao; Santiago Lázaro; Nerea Gonzalez; Marisa Bare; Nerea Fernandez de Larrea; Maximino Redondo; Amaia Bilbao; Cristina Sarasqueta; Urko Aguirre; José M Quintana Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 3.359