OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship among three validated head and neck-specific measures of functional status and a general measure of quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer. DESIGNS: Cross-sectional study using medical chart review, patient interview, and test administration. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral center. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty adults patients 3 months to 6 years after major surgery for head and neck cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Scores from a general measure of quality of life (the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy), a subscale specific to head and neck cancer, the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients. RESULTS: The disease-specific measures of functional status correlate well with one another. However, there were low correlations between the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and the disease-specific measures, indicating that general and disease-specific instruments contribute unique information about quality of life. CONCLUSION: A general measure of quality of life augments information obtained by disease-specific instruments by interpreting functional status in the broader scope of the patient's life.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship among three validated head and neck-specific measures of functional status and a general measure of quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer. DESIGNS: Cross-sectional study using medical chart review, patient interview, and test administration. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral center. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty adults patients 3 months to 6 years after major surgery for head and neck cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Scores from a general measure of quality of life (the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy), a subscale specific to head and neck cancer, the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck CancerPatients. RESULTS: The disease-specific measures of functional status correlate well with one another. However, there were low correlations between the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and the disease-specific measures, indicating that general and disease-specific instruments contribute unique information about quality of life. CONCLUSION: A general measure of quality of life augments information obtained by disease-specific instruments by interpreting functional status in the broader scope of the patient's life.
Authors: Lisa A Kachnic; Kathryn Winter; Todd Wasserman; David Kelsen; Robert Ginsberg; Thomas M Pisansky; James Martenson; Ritsuko Komaki; Gordon Okawara; Seth A Rosenthal; Christopher G Willett; Bruce D Minsky Journal: Gastrointest Cancer Res Date: 2011-03
Authors: Jane Turner; Patsy Yates; Lizbeth Kenny; Louisa G Gordon; Bryan Burmeister; Brett G M Hughes; Alexandra L McCarthy; Chris Perry; Raymond J Chan; Alana Paviour; Helen Skerman; Martin Batstone; Lisa Mackenzie Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Cecilia M Patino; Rohit Varma; Stanley P Azen; David V Conti; Michael B Nichol; Roberta McKean-Cowdin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Jianwen Cai; Hongtao Zhang; Jaeun Choi; Mark C Weissler; David Cella; Andrew F Olshan Journal: Head Neck Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Chandylen L Nightingale; Deidre B Pereira; Barbara A Curbow; John R Wingard; Giselle D Carnaby Journal: Biol Res Nurs Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 2.522