比较原发性直肠癌和局部复发性直肠癌患者的健康相关生活质量的登记研究。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Ejso Pub Date : 2024-10-02 DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108736
Niamh McKigney , Amy Downing , Galina Velikova , Julia M. Brown , Deena P. Harji
{"title":"比较原发性直肠癌和局部复发性直肠癌患者的健康相关生活质量的登记研究。","authors":"Niamh McKigney ,&nbsp;Amy Downing ,&nbsp;Galina Velikova ,&nbsp;Julia M. Brown ,&nbsp;Deena P. Harji","doi":"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>National clinical registries offer the benefits of a comprehensive dataset, particularly when linked with patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. This aim of this study was to utilise UK registry data to assess cross-sectional differences in health-related quality of life (HrQoL) in patients with primary rectal (PRC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Data were extracted from the COloRECTal cancer Repository (CORECT-R) and the Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer – Quality of Life (LRRC-QoL) datasets. Propensity score matching was undertaken in a 1:1 ratio using two covariates: age and sex. The primary outcome was the FACT-C Colorectal Cancer Subscale (CCS). Statistical significance was determined using p &lt; 0.05 and clinical significance using effect size (ES) and minimally important clinical difference (MCID).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A matched cohort with 72 patients in each group was identified. Overall FACT-C CCS scores were worse in patients with LRRC from a statistical (11.80 vs 18.03, p &lt; 0.001) and clinically meaningful perspective (ES 1.63, MCID 6.23). Patients with PRC reported better digestion (p &lt; 0.001, ES 0.85), better control over their bowels (p &lt; 0.001, ES 1.03) and increased appetite (p &lt; 0.001, ES 1.74, MCID 2.08). Patients with LRRC reported worse stomach swelling (p &lt; 0,001, ES 0.97) and more diarrhoea (p &lt; 0.001, ES 0.92), however they reported better body image (p &lt; 0.001, ES 0.80).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Patients with LRRC reported significantly worse overall scores in the FACT-C CCS from both a statistical and clinical perspective, demonstrating the ability of the FACT-C to distinguish between these patient groups and the benefits of the inclusion of PROs within colorectal cancer registries, specifically including patients with advanced/recurrent disease.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11522,"journal":{"name":"Ejso","volume":"50 12","pages":"Article 108736"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Registry-based study comparing health-related quality of life between patients with primary rectal cancer and locally recurrent rectal cancer\",\"authors\":\"Niamh McKigney ,&nbsp;Amy Downing ,&nbsp;Galina Velikova ,&nbsp;Julia M. Brown ,&nbsp;Deena P. Harji\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108736\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>National clinical registries offer the benefits of a comprehensive dataset, particularly when linked with patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. This aim of this study was to utilise UK registry data to assess cross-sectional differences in health-related quality of life (HrQoL) in patients with primary rectal (PRC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Data were extracted from the COloRECTal cancer Repository (CORECT-R) and the Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer – Quality of Life (LRRC-QoL) datasets. Propensity score matching was undertaken in a 1:1 ratio using two covariates: age and sex. The primary outcome was the FACT-C Colorectal Cancer Subscale (CCS). Statistical significance was determined using p &lt; 0.05 and clinical significance using effect size (ES) and minimally important clinical difference (MCID).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A matched cohort with 72 patients in each group was identified. Overall FACT-C CCS scores were worse in patients with LRRC from a statistical (11.80 vs 18.03, p &lt; 0.001) and clinically meaningful perspective (ES 1.63, MCID 6.23). Patients with PRC reported better digestion (p &lt; 0.001, ES 0.85), better control over their bowels (p &lt; 0.001, ES 1.03) and increased appetite (p &lt; 0.001, ES 1.74, MCID 2.08). Patients with LRRC reported worse stomach swelling (p &lt; 0,001, ES 0.97) and more diarrhoea (p &lt; 0.001, ES 0.92), however they reported better body image (p &lt; 0.001, ES 0.80).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Patients with LRRC reported significantly worse overall scores in the FACT-C CCS from both a statistical and clinical perspective, demonstrating the ability of the FACT-C to distinguish between these patient groups and the benefits of the inclusion of PROs within colorectal cancer registries, specifically including patients with advanced/recurrent disease.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ejso\",\"volume\":\"50 12\",\"pages\":\"Article 108736\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ejso\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798324007935\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejso","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798324007935","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:国家临床登记提供了全面数据集的优势,尤其是与患者报告结果 (PRO) 数据相关联时。本研究旨在利用英国登记数据评估原发性直肠癌(PRC)和局部复发性直肠癌(LRRC)患者健康相关生活质量(HrQoL)的横断面差异:数据提取自COloRECTal癌症资料库(CORECT-R)和局部复发性直肠癌-生活质量(LRRC-QoL)数据集。使用年龄和性别两个协变量按 1:1 的比例进行倾向得分匹配。主要结果是 FACT-C 大肠癌分量表 (CCS)。统计显著性采用 p 结果:确定了一个匹配队列,每组有 72 名患者。从统计学角度看,LRRC 患者的 FACT-C CCS 总分较低(11.80 vs 18.03,p 结论:LRRC 患者的 FACT-C CCS 总分较低:从统计学和临床角度来看,LRRC 患者的 FACT-C CCS 总分都明显较差,这表明 FACT-C 能够区分这些患者群体,也表明在结直肠癌登记中纳入 PROs 的益处,特别是纳入晚期/复发性疾病患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Registry-based study comparing health-related quality of life between patients with primary rectal cancer and locally recurrent rectal cancer

Aim

National clinical registries offer the benefits of a comprehensive dataset, particularly when linked with patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. This aim of this study was to utilise UK registry data to assess cross-sectional differences in health-related quality of life (HrQoL) in patients with primary rectal (PRC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC).

Materials and methods

Data were extracted from the COloRECTal cancer Repository (CORECT-R) and the Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer – Quality of Life (LRRC-QoL) datasets. Propensity score matching was undertaken in a 1:1 ratio using two covariates: age and sex. The primary outcome was the FACT-C Colorectal Cancer Subscale (CCS). Statistical significance was determined using p < 0.05 and clinical significance using effect size (ES) and minimally important clinical difference (MCID).

Results

A matched cohort with 72 patients in each group was identified. Overall FACT-C CCS scores were worse in patients with LRRC from a statistical (11.80 vs 18.03, p < 0.001) and clinically meaningful perspective (ES 1.63, MCID 6.23). Patients with PRC reported better digestion (p < 0.001, ES 0.85), better control over their bowels (p < 0.001, ES 1.03) and increased appetite (p < 0.001, ES 1.74, MCID 2.08). Patients with LRRC reported worse stomach swelling (p < 0,001, ES 0.97) and more diarrhoea (p < 0.001, ES 0.92), however they reported better body image (p < 0.001, ES 0.80).

Conclusion

Patients with LRRC reported significantly worse overall scores in the FACT-C CCS from both a statistical and clinical perspective, demonstrating the ability of the FACT-C to distinguish between these patient groups and the benefits of the inclusion of PROs within colorectal cancer registries, specifically including patients with advanced/recurrent disease.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ejso
Ejso 医学-外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1148
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: JSO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology ("the Journal of Cancer Surgery") is the Official Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and BASO ~ the Association for Cancer Surgery. The EJSO aims to advance surgical oncology research and practice through the publication of original research articles, review articles, editorials, debates and correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Comment on "The mode of circumferential margin involvement in rectal cancer determines its impact on outcomes: A population-based study". Risk factors for surgical site infections following hepatobiliary surgery: An umbrella review and meta-analyses. Changes in health-related quality of life following breast cancer surgery: A systematic review of the literature on the role of surgical approaches. Reconstruction of diaphragm with cadaveric fascia lata during extended surgery for pleural mesothelioma: A single-center experience. Response prediction for neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer patients-improvement in decision-making: A systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1