A structured review and theme analysis of papers published on ‘quality of life’ in head and neck cancer: 2000–2005

Rogers, Simon N.; Ahad, Samir; Murphy, Anne

doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2007.02.006

Cited by 220 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 168 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the past 10 years, HRQoL has been progressively more accepted as an important patient outcome result in oncology along with the other conventional outcomes used before such as treatment success, mean survival, disease free survival or cancer controlled survival [5,6]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The instruments that fulfill the minimal requisites for Oncology HRQoL assessment include: Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Questionnaire (BCQ), Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation Systems (CARES), European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scales (FACT), Functional Living Index Scale (FLIC), Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Medical Outcome Study Short Form (MOS SF-36), Multidimensional Quality of Life Scale, Quality of Life Index (QL- Index) (Spitzer Index), Rotterdam Symptom Check List (RSCL) [5,15,16]. The questionnaires EORTC-QLQ C30, FACT-G, MOS SF-36 and FLIC stand out as the main general in oncology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient reported outcomes in head and neck cancer: selecting instruments for quality of life integration in clinical protocols

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHealth Related Quality of Life has been used in medical research for more than twenty years, being progressively accepted during the last decade as an important patient reported outcome. Considering the multidimensional approach involved in Health Related Quality of Life assessment, instrument applicability and cultural adaptation must be tested for each population. In order to select the most appropriate instrument for Head and Neck cancer patients, two major Health Related Quality of Life specific questionnaires for Head and Neck cancer patients were compared. Conceptual differences, psychometric characteristics, scores, reliability, construct validity and sensitivity to symptomatology, tumour location, tumour size were analyzed.Methods102 consecutive Head and Neck cancer patients completed two different Health Related Quality of Life questionnaires: EORTC QLQ-C30 and its specific head and neck module QLQ-H&N35 and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scales (FACT-H&N). Patients completed the questionnaires, immediately before consultation as a part of the routine evaluation.ResultsA greater variability was always found in the EORTC QLC-C30 questionnaire's scores for all comparable domains. Both instruments revealed a good internal consistency and demonstrated to be good tools to distinguish symptomatic patients. The EORTC questionnaires still demonstrated sensitivity to distinguish T3 and T4 staging. Conceptual differences and the psychometric characteristics are discussed. Our results suggest that these two instruments assess different aspects of Health Related Quality of Life - the questionnaires should be used separately and chosen according to the study objectives and methodology.ConclusionsThis study emphases the importance in selecting the appropriate tool as a critical success factor in implementing routine Health Related Quality of Life assessment in clinical practice. This decision assumes particularly importance when utilization of results in real time and integration into clinical protocols are considered.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient reported outcomes in head and neck cancer: selecting instruments for quality of life integration in clinical protocols

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Quality of life is fundamentally important, as patients experience significant changes in the acute phase of treatment, and many suffer longer term functional difficulties [8][9][10]. The negative psychosocial consequences of HNC can be equally enduring [11].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors up to 5 years after end of treatment: a cross-sectional survey

Wells

Swartzman

Lang

et al. 2015

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Purpose This study aimed to assess quality of life (QoL) in head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors, and determine factors predictive of poor QoL in the first five years after the end of treatment. Methods A cross-sectional survey, including the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) measure, was sent to HNC survivors in three Scottish health regions, with responses linked to routinely collected clinical data. Independent sample t-tests, ANOVAs, Pearson correlations and multiple hierarchical regressions were used to explore associations between and to determine the contribution made by demographic, lifestyle and clinical factors to predicting 'generic' and 'cancer-specific' quality of life. Results 280 patients (65%) returned questionnaires. After adjustment, multivariate analysis showed that younger age, lower socio-economic status, unemployment and selfreported comorbidity independently contributed to poorer generic and cancer-specific quality of life. In addition to these factors, having had a feeding tube or a diagnosis of oral cavity cancer were independently predictive of poorer cancer-specific quality of life. Conclusions Socio-economic factors and co-morbidity are important predictors of QoL in HNC survivors. These factors and the detrimental long-term effects of feeding tubes need Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporationfurther attention in research and practice.

show abstract

“…Epidemiologic studies have suggested that coffee intake may decrease the risk of cancer. Coffee may help protect against cancer through the activity of its anticarcinogenic constituents (Daglia, 2000;Cavin, 2002;Hashimoto, 2004;Rogers, 2007) or polyphenolic compounds (Manach, 2004), which inhibit carcinogenesis through antioxidant, antihormonal, and anti-inflammatory mechanisms (Scalbert, 2005). Cafestol and kahweal, 2 coffee-specific diterpenes, can reduce the genotoxicity of multiple carcinogens (Cavin, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lifestyle Factors Including Diet and Leukemia Development: a Case-Control Study from Mumbai, India

Ganesh

Saoba²,

Sarhade³

et al. 2013

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A structured review and theme analysis of papers published on ‘quality of life’ in head and neck cancer: 2000–2005

Cited by 220 publications

References 168 publications

Patient reported outcomes in head and neck cancer: selecting instruments for quality of life integration in clinical protocols

Patient reported outcomes in head and neck cancer: selecting instruments for quality of life integration in clinical protocols

Predictors of quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors up to 5 years after end of treatment: a cross-sectional survey

Lifestyle Factors Including Diet and Leukemia Development: a Case-Control Study from Mumbai, India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About