Quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer - Lessons learned from 549 prospectively evaluated patients

Citation
Ea. Weymuller et al., Quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer - Lessons learned from 549 prospectively evaluated patients, ARCH OTOLAR, 126(3), 2000, pp. 329-335
Citations number
7
Categorie Soggetti
Otolaryngology,"da verificare
Journal title
ARCHIVES OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY
ISSN journal
08864470 → ACNP
Volume
126
Issue
3
Year of publication
2000
Pages
329 - 335
Database
ISI
SICI code
0886-4470(200003)126:3<329:QOLIPW>2.0.ZU;2-2
Abstract
Objectives: To summarize our quality-of-life (QOL) research findings for pa tients with head and neck cancer, to suggest areas for future productive QO L research, and to discuss how to undertake QOL studies in a cost-effective manner. Design: Review of previously published analyses of advanced larynx cancer, advanced oropharynx cancer, and neck-dissection cases and current data from the complete:set of patients. Patients: From January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1998, data on 549 pati ents were entered in our head and neck database. Of these patients, 364 met additional criteria for histologic findings (squamous cell carcinoma) and the restriction of their cancer to 4 major anatomical sites (oral, orophary nx, hypopharynx, or larynx). Of these, 339 patients were more than 1 year b eyond initial treatment. Complete baseline TNM staging and QOL data were ob tained for 260 of these patients, of whom 210 presented with an untreated f irst primary tumor (index cases) to the University of Washington, Seattle, Intervention: Pretreatment QOL was assessed with an interviewer-supervised self-administered questionnaire. Subsequent self-administered tests were co mpleted at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Other data collected:on each patien t included cancer site, stage, treatment, histologic findings, type of surg ical reconstruction, and current disease and vital status. Results/Conclusions: It is difficult to achieve "statistically significant" results in a single-institution setting. The "composite" QOL score may not be a sufficiently sensitive tool. Analysis of separate domains may be more effective.