4.6 Article

Prospective assessment of health-related quality of life in patients with low-grade glioma A single-center experience

Journal

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
Volume 20, Issue 8, Pages 1859-1868

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-011-1288-4

Keywords

Cognitive function; Health-related quality of life; Low-grade glioma; Radiotherapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in cancer patients has become increasingly important during the past decades. The aim of this study was to evaluate the HRQoL in patients treated for low-grade glioma (LGG). Forty-three adult patients with LGG were evaluated prospectively between September 2006 and December 2010. We assessed HRQoL at baseline (after surgery before radiotherapy), at the end of radiotherapy and during follow-up (every 3 months for the first 2 years and every 6 months between 2 and 5 years), using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire 30 (EORTC-C30), Brain Cancer Module-20 (BN-20), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). We demonstrated changes in global score (p = 0.004), and future uncertainty (p < 0.001), communication deficit (p = 0.007), headache (p < 0.001), drowsiness (p = 0.002) and hair loss (p < 0.001), and recall score (p = 0.0029) during follow-up. All complaints of LGG patients showed improvement, except for the hair loss. Although the baseline cognitive function scores was not significantly different, the third-year cognitive function scores of patients who used antiepileptic drugs had lower when compared to patients who did not use (p < 0.001). The baseline and follow-up anxiety and depression scores did not differ significantly. Our results suggested that there were improvement in HRQoL in LGG patients during follow-up and antiepileptic drugs had negative effect on cognitive functions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available