4.7 Article

Multivariate analysis of quality of life outcome for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients after treatment

Journal

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
Volume 97, Issue 2, Pages 263-269

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.05.022

Keywords

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Quality of life; EORTC QLQ-C30; EORTC QLQ-H&N35; Intensity-modulated radiotherapy

Funding

  1. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan [CMRPG860501, CMRPG860502]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The study analyzed the prognostic factors of quality of life (QoL) for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) after treatment, with focusing on the therapeutic benefits of the technological advances in radiotherapy (RT). Materials and methods: A cross-sectional investigation was conducted to assess the QoL of 356 NPC patients with cancer-free survival of more than 2 years. Among them, 106 patients were treated by two-dimensional RT (2DRT), 108 by 2DRT plus three-dimensional conformal RT (3DCRT) boost, 58 by 3DCRT alone, and 84 by intensity-modulated RT (IMRT). T he QoL was assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and QLQ-H&N35 module. The clinical difference of QoL scores between groups was calculated using Cohen's D coefficient. Results: We found NPC survivors who had a higher education level or annual family income and who had received more advanced RT treatments had better QoL outcomes. Compared with 2DRT, the impact of 3DCRT was small on most scales and moderate (Cohen's D: 0.53-0.67) on emotional functioning, pain, and mouth opening; the impact of IMRT was moderate on nine scales and large (Cohen's D: 0.80-0.88) on swallowing, social eating, teeth, and mouth opening. Conclusion: In addition to socioeconomic levels, advances in RT technique played a significant role in improve QoL of NPC patients. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 97 (2010) 263-269

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available