4.5 Article

Long-term functional and quality of life evaluation after treatment for advanced pharyngolaryngeal carcinoma

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/hed.23503

关键词

quality of life; pharyngolaryngeal carcinoma; total laryngectomy; chemoradiation; organ preservation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare total laryngectomy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for functional and long-term quality of life (QOL) outcomes in patients with pharyngolaryngeal carcinoma. MethodsAmong 145 patients treated for advanced pharyngolaryngeal cancer by CRT or total laryngectomy between 2000 and 2008, 47 patients who had completed treatment for >1 year and were determined to be disease-free were evaluated for function and QOL using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30-questions (EORTC-QLQ-C30). ResultsNo significant difference was observed between the total laryngectomy group (26 patients) and the CRT group (21 patients) concerning feeding tube (p = .72), oral supplements (p = .84), and pneumonia (p = 1.00). Laryngeal functional rate after CRT was 72% at 2 years. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups when using EORTC-QLQ-C30 scales (p > .05). According to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 Head and Neck 35-questions (EORTC-QLQ-C30-H&N35) questionnaire, surgical patients reported significantly greater difficulties with smell and taste (p = .005) and chemoradiation patients with dry mouth (p = .010) and weight loss (p = .022). Differences that seemed clinically meaningful but not statistically significant emerged on several other scales. ConclusionBoth total laryngectomy and CRT led to a similar high rate of dysphagia-related morbidity (feeding tube, oral supplements, and pneumonia) and QOL alteration, but the groups differed in the specific QOL domains affected. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 36: 1604-1610, 2014

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据