Sara M Tinsley1, Steven K Sutton2, Ram Thapa2, Jeffrey Lancet2, Susan C McMillan2. 1. Moffitt Cancer Center (MCB)-Malignant Hematology and University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Electronic address: sara.tinsley@moffitt.org. 2. Moffitt Cancer Center (MCB)-Malignant Hematology and University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the present exploratory, observational study, we compared the effect of intensive versus nonintensive treatment on quality of life for patients aged ≥ 60 years diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome at 1 month after treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 73 patients with acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome who had been treated at the inpatient and outpatient malignant hematology at Moffitt Cancer Center, a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, were included. Two paired measurements of self-reported quality of life were used, 1 before treatment and 1 at 1 month after treatment to compare intensive versus nonintensive treatment. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia version for the quality-of-life measurement. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare the effect of treatment and time and the interaction of treatment and time. The main research variables were intensive versus nonintensive treatment as the independent variable and quality of life measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia version as the dependent variable. RESULTS: Physical function and leukemia symptoms improved for patients treated with intensive chemotherapy. A trend was found for improved quality of life for the intensive treatment compared with nonintensive treatment, for which the quality of life was stable at 1 month. CONCLUSION: The study participants treated with inpatient, induction chemotherapy experienced statistically significant improvement in their quality of life at 1 month. The outpatient, nonintensive study participants had stable quality of life at 1 month.
BACKGROUND: In the present exploratory, observational study, we compared the effect of intensive versus nonintensive treatment on quality of life for patients aged ≥ 60 years diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome at 1 month after treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 73 patients with acute myeloid leukemia or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome who had been treated at the inpatient and outpatient malignant hematology at Moffitt Cancer Center, a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, were included. Two paired measurements of self-reported quality of life were used, 1 before treatment and 1 at 1 month after treatment to compare intensive versus nonintensive treatment. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia version for the quality-of-life measurement. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare the effect of treatment and time and the interaction of treatment and time. The main research variables were intensive versus nonintensive treatment as the independent variable and quality of life measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia version as the dependent variable. RESULTS: Physical function and leukemia symptoms improved for patients treated with intensive chemotherapy. A trend was found for improved quality of life for the intensive treatment compared with nonintensive treatment, for which the quality of life was stable at 1 month. CONCLUSION: The study participants treated with inpatient, induction chemotherapy experienced statistically significant improvement in their quality of life at 1 month. The outpatient, nonintensive study participants had stable quality of life at 1 month.
Authors: Alan K Burnett; Nigel H Russell; Jonathan Kell; Michael Dennis; Donald Milligan; Stefania Paolini; John Yin; Dominic Culligan; Peter Johnston; John Murphy; Mary-Frances McMullin; Ann Hunter; Emma Das-Gupta; Richard Clark; Robert Carr; Robert K Hills Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Benjamin M Craig; Dana E Rollison; Alan F List; Christopher R Cogle Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: M A Sekeres; R M Stone; D Zahrieh; D Neuberg; V Morrison; D J De Angelo; I Galinsky; S J Lee Journal: Leukemia Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Jeff P Sharman; Kim Cocks; Chadi Nabhan; Nicole Lamanna; Neil E Kay; David L Grinblatt; Christopher R Flowers; Matthew S Davids; Pavel Kiselev; Arlene S Swern; Kristen Sullivan; Mecide M Gharibo; E Dawn Flick; Andrew Trigg; Anthony Mato Journal: EJHaem Date: 2020-07-26
Authors: Heidi D Klepin; Ellen Ritchie; Brittny Major-Elechi; Jennifer Le-Rademacher; Drew Seisler; Libby Storrick; Ben L Sanford; Guido Marcucci; Weiqiang Zhao; Susan A Geyer; Karla V Ballman; Bayard L Powell; Maria R Baer; Wendy Stock; Harvey Jay Cohen; Richard M Stone; Richard A Larson; Geoffrey L Uy Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Chandrika Sanapala; Grace Di Giovanni; Heidi D Klepin; Michelle Janelsins; Rebecca Schnall; Eva Culakova; Paula Vertino; Martha Susiarjo; Jason H Mendler; Jane L Liesveld; Po-Ju Lin; Richard F Dunne; Ian Kleckner; Karen Mustian; Supriya G Mohile Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Chandrika Sanapala; Michelle Janelsins; Heidi D Klepin; Rebecca Schnall; Eva Culakova; Michael B Sohn; Paula Vertino; Martha Susiarjo; Marielle Jensen-Battaglia; Michael W Becker; Jane Liesveld; Jason H Mendler; Eric Huselton; Po-Ju Lin; Karen Mustian Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 3.929