M Wallwiener1, E Simoes2, A N Sokolov3, S Y Brucker3, P A Fasching4, J Graf5. 1. Abteilung für Allgemeine Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Department für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; Forschungsinstitut für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; Stabsstelle Sozialmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 3. Department für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; Forschungsinstitut für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 4. Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. 5. Department für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; Forschungsinstitut für Frauengesundheit, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; Studiendekanat, Medizinische Fakultät, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Abstract
Introduction: When cancer patients have advanced disease and a primary cure is no longer possible, the focus is on maintaining the patient's quality of life. Recent therapeutic advances in breast cancer treatment mean that even patients with metastatic disease can remain stable for long periods of time. The aim of this study was to look at the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of these patients and compare it with data for the general population and to show the differences in outcomes for different survey instruments used to measure quality of life. Material and Methods: A total of 96 breast cancer patients with metastatic disesae or receiving adjuvant therapy were questioned about their quality of life. Patients were investigated using the established survey instruments EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, EQ-5D-5L and EQ VAS. All patients filled out questionnaires. Statistical analysis was done using MS Excel and SPSS. Results: Although the questionnaires were completed at the same time, the different questionnaires showed significant differences with regard to the level of stress experienced by the patient. When the EQ VAS questionnaire was used, the patient's current state of health was assessed as significantly better than with the EORTC QLQ-C30. Overall, all aspects of patients' quality of life were found to be in need of optimization and HRQL of patients was significantly poorer in all areas compared to the reference population. Conclusion: To improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease, it is necessary to continuously monitor the success of therapy. The choice of survey tools is highly relevant as assessments differ considerably depending on the choice of questionnaire.
Introduction: When cancerpatients have advanced disease and a primary cure is no longer possible, the focus is on maintaining the patient's quality of life. Recent therapeutic advances in breast cancer treatment mean that even patients with metastatic disease can remain stable for long periods of time. The aim of this study was to look at the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of these patients and compare it with data for the general population and to show the differences in outcomes for different survey instruments used to measure quality of life. Material and Methods: A total of 96 breast cancerpatients with metastatic disesae or receiving adjuvant therapy were questioned about their quality of life. Patients were investigated using the established survey instruments EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23, EQ-5D-5L and EQ VAS. All patients filled out questionnaires. Statistical analysis was done using MS Excel and SPSS. Results: Although the questionnaires were completed at the same time, the different questionnaires showed significant differences with regard to the level of stress experienced by the patient. When the EQ VAS questionnaire was used, the patient's current state of health was assessed as significantly better than with the EORTC QLQ-C30. Overall, all aspects of patients' quality of life were found to be in need of optimization and HRQL of patients was significantly poorer in all areas compared to the reference population. Conclusion: To improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease, it is necessary to continuously monitor the success of therapy. The choice of survey tools is highly relevant as assessments differ considerably depending on the choice of questionnaire.
Entities:
Keywords:
EORTC QLQ-C30; HRQL; PRO; breast cancer; metastatic and adjuvant setting
Authors: Jürg Bernhard; Weixiu Luo; Karin Ribi; Marco Colleoni; Harold J Burstein; Carlo Tondini; Graziella Pinotti; Simon Spazzapan; Thomas Ruhstaller; Fabio Puglisi; Lorenzo Pavesi; Vani Parmar; Meredith M Regan; Olivia Pagani; Gini F Fleming; Prudence A Francis; Karen N Price; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch; Barbara A Walley Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Joachim Graf; Sara Y Brucker; Markus Wallwiener; Lina Matthies; Elisabeth Simoes; Lucia Keilmann; Andreas D Hartkopf; Alexander N Sokolov; Christina B Walter; Nina Sickenberger; Stephanie Wallwiener; Manuel Feisst; Paul Gass; Peter A Fasching; Michael P Lux; Diethelm Wallwiener; Florin-Andrei Taran; Joachim Rom; Andreas Schneeweiss Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Carolin C Hack; Sophia Antoniadis; Matthias W Beckmann; Anna Lisa Brandl; Peter A Fasching; Janina Hackl; Hanna Langemann; Stock Katja; Natalie Weber; Anna-Katharin Theuser Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Sunil Verma; Joyce O'Shaughnessy; Howard A Burris; Mario Campone; Emilio Alba; David Chandiwana; Anand A Dalal; Santosh Sutradhar; Mauricio Monaco; Wolfgang Janni Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Volkmar Müller; Achim Wöckel; Michael P Lux; Wolfgang Janni; Andreas D Hartkopf; Naiba Nabieva; Florin-Andrei Taran; Peyman Hadji; Hans Tesch; Johannes Ettl; Diana Lüftner; Manfred Welslau; Erik Belleville; Sara Y Brucker; Florian Schütz; Peter A Fasching; Tanja N Fehm; Hans-Christian Kolberg; Andreas Schneeweiss; Friedrich Overkamp Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Marloes E Clarijs; Jacob Thurell; Friedrich Kühn; Carin A Uyl-de Groot; Elham Hedayati; Maria M Karsten; Agnes Jager; Linetta B Koppert Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: W G Philipp-Dormston; K Müller; B Novak; K Strömer; C Termeer; U Hammann; J W Glutsch; G Krähn-Senftleben; H Lübbert; M Koller; R M Szeimies Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Lina Maria Matthies; Florin-Andrei Taran; Joachim Graf; Markus Wallwiener; Lucia Keilmann; Andreas Schneeweiss; Elisabeth Simoes; Andreas D Hartkopf; Alexander N Sokolov; Christina B Walter; Nina Sickenberger; Stephanie Wallwiener; Manuel Feisst; Paul Gass; Michael P Lux; Florian Schuetz; Peter A Fasching; Christof Sohn; Sara Y Brucker Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 5.428