Journal of surgical oncology · 2024
Quality of life following pelvic exenteration in neoplasms.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zanatto Renato Morato, Mucci Samantha, Pinheiro Rodrigo N, de Oliveira Junea Caris, Nicolau Ulisses Ribaldo, Domezi João Paulo, Silva Dárcia Lima E, Pracucho Eduardo Marcucci, Zanatto Daniela Ogawa, Saad Sarhan Sydney
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is an extensive surgical treatment reserved for advanced or recurrent pelvic neoplasms, with potential impacts on patients' quality of life (QoL) poorly referenced in the literature.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate QoL outcomes among three types of PE.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study assessed 106 patients divided into anterior PE (APE), posterior PE (PPE), or total PE (TPE) groups. QoL was measured using e short form 36 version 2 (SF-36) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) QoL questionnaires. Descriptive and inferential analyses compared questionnaire scores.
RESULTS: The findings unveiled a balance among the three groups concerning demographic variables and comorbidities, with the exception of a male predominance in the APE and TPE cohorts. Notably, the APE group exhibited elevated scores in overall health (assessed via SF-36) and social functioning and diarrhea domains (assessed via QLQ-C30). Moreover, in terms of the fatigue and nausea/vomiting domains (assessed via QLQ-C30), the APE group demonstrated superior QoL compared to the PPE group. Conversely, the PPE group manifested a notably lower QoL in the constipation domain (assessed via QLQ-C30) compared to the other two groups. Additionally, disease recurrence was significantly associated with diminished QoL across multiple domains.
CONCLUSION: APE patients exhibited better QoL than PPE and TPE groups, with disease recurrence adversely affecting QoL.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate QoL outcomes among three types of PE.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study assessed 106 patients divided into anterior PE (APE), posterior PE (PPE), or total PE (TPE) groups. QoL was measured using e short form 36 version 2 (SF-36) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) QoL questionnaires. Descriptive and inferential analyses compared questionnaire scores.
RESULTS: The findings unveiled a balance among the three groups concerning demographic variables and comorbidities, with the exception of a male predominance in the APE and TPE cohorts. Notably, the APE group exhibited elevated scores in overall health (assessed via SF-36) and social functioning and diarrhea domains (assessed via QLQ-C30). Moreover, in terms of the fatigue and nausea/vomiting domains (assessed via QLQ-C30), the APE group demonstrated superior QoL compared to the PPE group. Conversely, the PPE group manifested a notably lower QoL in the constipation domain (assessed via QLQ-C30) compared to the other two groups. Additionally, disease recurrence was significantly associated with diminished QoL across multiple domains.
CONCLUSION: APE patients exhibited better QoL than PPE and TPE groups, with disease recurrence adversely affecting QoL.