0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Prospective Evaluation of Quality of Life and Nutrition Before and After Treatment for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma FREE

Justine E. Oates, RN, BSc; Jonathan R. Clark, MBBS, BSc(Med), FRACS; Jane Read, BSc, MND, APD; Nicole Reeves, BAppSc; Kan Gao, BEngDip; Michael Jackson, BA, MBBChir, FRANZCR; Michael Boyer, MBBS, PhD, FRACP; Christopher J. O’Brien, AM, MBBS, MS, MD, FRACS
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Sydney Head and Neck Cancer Institute (Mss Oates, Read, and Reeves; Drs Clark and O’Brien; and Mr Gao) and Departments of Radiation Oncology (Dr Jackson) and Medical Oncology (Dr Boyer), Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.


Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133(6):533-540. doi:10.1001/archotol.133.6.533.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective  To prospectively assess quality of life in patients undergoing chemoradiation therapy for nasopharyngeal cancer. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is standard for advanced nasopharyngeal cancer; however, the toxic effects of this treatment are substantial.

Design  Prospective evaluation of quality of life and nutritional status before and after treatment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Patients and Intervention  A cohort of 14 patients, treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy for 7 weeks, completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and Head and Neck Module before and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. Changes in score were analyzed and correlated with the toxic effect grade.

Results  Quality of life issues during the 24 months of follow-up included poorer global health (P = .01), fatigue (P = .01), appetite loss (P<.001), swallowing difficulties (P = .002), sense problems (P = .03), difficulty with social eating (P = .005), dental problems (P = .045), trismus (P = .001), xerostomia (P<.001), sticky saliva (P = .001), cough (P = .02), and feeling ill (P = .03). Pain (P = .004) and emotional functioning (P<.001) significantly improved from the pretreatment rating. The median weight loss was 7 kg, with most weight loss occurring during treatment, despite nutritional support with gastrostomy feeding tubes. One patient still required percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding at 2 years after treatment. Physician-scored toxic effects correlated poorly with quality-of-life scores.

Conclusions  Quality of life and functional assessment should be important end points in the follow-up of patients with nasopharyngeal cancer who receive chemoradiotherapy. This study supports the need for ongoing support and rehabilitation in a multidisciplinary setting.

Figures in this Article

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a relatively uncommon malignancy in Australia with an incidence of about one thirtieth of that reported in China and Southeast Asia.1 Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is now accepted as standard treatment for stages III and IV NPC, and many patients will achieve long-term cure despite advanced locoregional disease.2 Although the addition of platinum-based chemotherapy improves disease control, it is associated with considerable early and late toxic effects. Hence, subjective measures such as health-related quality of life and functional status are important end points and should be incorporated into the evaluation of therapies with substantial adverse effects.

Quality of life may be defined as a patient's appraisal of and satisfaction with his or her current level of functioning compared with what is perceived to be possible.3 Evidence regarding quality of life provides patients with a comprehensible measure of the functional consequences that result from the complex interaction between disease and treatment. In addition, it gives the clinician an unbiased measure that can be used to balance the gain in disease control against the effects of treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively the changes in quality of life during a 2-year period in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for NPC at a single tertiary care institution.

POPULATION AND TREATMENT

After institutional ethics approval and patient consent were obtained, data were prospectively collected for all patients with NPC who presented to the Sydney Head and Neck Cancer Institute, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, between January 21, 2002, and December 31, 2003. Patients eligible for this study were those 18 years or older with newly diagnosed NPC treated with curative intent. During this 2-year period, 14 patients aged 27 to 71 years were enrolled. All patients underwent assessment at the multidisciplinary head and neck clinic before commencing treatment and staging according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer stages4 as summarized in Table 1.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.   American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor and Node Stages*

Therapy consisted of concurrent chemoradiotherapy during a 7-week period using conventional computed tomography–planned radiotherapy with photons from a megavoltage linear accelerator. All patients received 70 Gy in 35 fractions, except one who received 60 Gy in 30 fractions. Treatment fields included the primary site and neck (bilateral) in all 14 patients. Chemotherapy was planned as 3 cycles of intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m2) given every 21 days, followed by an additional 3 cycles of adjuvant cisplatin (80 mg/m2) and fluorouracil (1000 mg/m2 daily for 4 days) after completion of radiotherapy. No patient received the full 6 (3 + 3) cycles of chemotherapy, and only 3 patients tolerated 5 (3 + 2) cycles. Nine patients received 3 (3 + 0) cycles of concurrent chemotherapy, and 2 patients tolerated only 2 (2 + 0) cycles. In 1 patient, cisplatin was substituted with carboplatin, at a target area under the curve of 5.

QUALITY-OF-LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE AND DATA COLLECTION

The questionnaire consisted of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the EORTC Head and Neck Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (QLQ-H&N35). The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a validated cancer-specific self-report questionnaire.58 It consists of a global quality-of-life scale, 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social), and 9 symptom scales (fatigue, pain, nausea/vomiting, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties). The EORTC QLQ-H&N35 is designed to be used together with the QLQ-C30 and is a tumor-specific, self-report questionnaire with good reliability and validity among patients with head and neck cancer912 and, in particular, those with NPC.13 It consists of 6 symptom scales (pain, swallowing, senses [taste/smell], speech, social eating, and social contacts) and 7 single items (sexuality, teeth problems, problems opening mouth, dry mouth, sticky saliva, cough, and feeling ill).

Patients were asked to complete questionnaires before treatment and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months thereafter. A follow-up quality-of-life and nutrition clinic was introduced by our head and neck care coordinator (J.E.O.), dietitian (J.R.), and speech pathologist (N.R.) to assess patients, complete the questionnaires, and record nutritional variables. The time frame of the core and module questionnaires was “during the past week,” and items were scored on a Likert-type categorical scale (“not at all,” “a little,” “quite a bit,” and “very much”). The scores were linearly transformed into scales ranging from 0 to 100. A high score for global health and for a functional scale represents a better level of functioning, whereas a high score for a symptom or a single-item scale represents a high level of symptom problems.14 An absolute change of 10 or more corresponds to a clinically important effect on a scale of 0 to 100.15,16

TOXIC EFFECTS

Late toxic effects were recorded with reference to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0.17 Objective grading assessment was performed by a radiation oncologist (M.J.) and a medical oncologist (M.B.) at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after diagnosis. In addition, nutritional variables such as weight loss and the need for tube feeding were recorded for each period.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software, version 11 for Windows (SPSS Institute, Chicago, Ill). To avoid problems associated with multiple significance tests and repeated measures, we analyzed changes in median scores of the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35 using the Friedman analysis of variance and used the Kendall W to indicate the agreement between patients. Statistically significant differences were assumed when P<.05 was achieved. We performed post hoc analyses using the Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare differences in baseline scores and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, applying the Bonferroni correction; hence, significant differences were assumed when P<.0125, although P values less than .05 were recorded as trends toward significance. Correlation between toxic effects and quality-of-life scores was performed using the Spearman ρ.

TREATMENT

Posttreatment positron emission tomography performed 3 months after treatment showed that 12 patients had a complete response to treatment, 1 had local persistent disease, and 1 had distant metastases. Clinical and radiological surveillance during the 2-year period did not detect any other disease recurrence. Overall survival at 2 years after treatment was 86% (12 patients), with 2 patients dying of their disease.

QUALITY-OF-LIFE QUESTIONNAIRES

All 14 patients completed the quality-of-life questionnaires before and 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment. At 24 months, the 12 patients who remained alive and disease-free completed the questionnaires. Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the results of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35 questionnaires, respectively. The median, mean, standard deviation, P values, and correlation coefficient (Kendall W) at diagnosis and subsequent evaluation are provided.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.   EORTC QLQ-C30 Score Before and After Chemoradiotherapy in 14 Patients
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.   EORTC QLQ-H&N35 Scores Before and After Chemoradiotherapy in 14 Patients
TOXIC EFFECTS

Toxic effects are summarized in Table 4. A cumulative toxic effect score was created by combining all recorded toxic effects and taking the median value. This had a positive correlation with fatigue (ρ = 0.89; P = .04) but did not correlate with global health status or any functional score. When the median grade for toxic effects for individual variables was analyzed, the only relevant significant correlations were between dysphagia and social eating (ρ = 0.88; P = .047) and between dysphagia and sticky saliva (ρ = 0.913; P = .03). Dysphagia did not correlate with swallowing problems (ρ = 0.47; P = .42), and xerostomia did not significantly correlate with dry mouth (ρ = 0.79; P = .11) or sticky saliva (ρ = 0.41; P = .50).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4.   Severity Grading of Toxic Effects

At the initial visit, the median weight was 64.3 kg (range, 45.5-90.3 kg) and the median body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) was 25 (range, 20-25). During chemoradiotherapy, the median weight loss was 8.2 (range, 2.3-13.9) kg, representing a proportional weight loss of 4% to 17%. The median weight loss during the full 2 years was 7 (range, 2.2-17.3) kg or 7.9% (range, 3%-22%). Weight loss occurred principally during radiotherapy, despite support with enteral tube feeding. Thirteen patients required a gastrostomy tube for nutritional support during treatment. All feeding tubes except 1 (n = 12) were removed by 6 months after treatment; the remaining patient continued tube feeding at 2 years after treatment.

There is an increasing trend toward incorporating quality-of-life assessment tools into the routine analysis of treatment outcomes for cancer patients. This is owing to the recognition that the subjective well-being of patients is almost as important as traditional measures of disease control and survival. Quality-of-life assessment improves multidisciplinary care and rehabilitation by identifying specific problems following treatment, providing better patient information, and helping to accurately define poor outcome groups.18 Prospective quality-of-life information can be used to inform patients at the time of diagnosis about the effects of treatment and their subsequent recovery. This study represents a prospective series of 14 patients undergoing quality-of-life evaluation during a 2-year period and identifies significant health and functional changes during that period.

EORTC QLQ-C30 GLOBAL HEALTH AND FUNCTIONAL SCALES

In contrast to other studies specifically looking at patients with NPC,1921 we identified a modest but significant (P = .01) deterioration in global health status. This occurred within the initial 3 months, with a drop in the mean score of 20 (P = .008), and did not recover during the 2-year period, as shown in Figure 1. It is somewhat counterintuitive, therefore, that none of the functional scale scores deteriorated and, in fact, that the emotional functioning score significantly improved (P<.001) with a high level of interpatient correlation (W = 0.42). Emotional functioning appears to correspond to likelihood of disease control, whereas global health is more complex and may be disproportionately affected by particular symptoms.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Mean functional and symptom scores with significant change over time from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire.

Graphic Jump Location
EORTC QLQ-C30 SYMPTOM SCALES

Differences were detected in fatigue (P = .01), pain (P = .004), appetite loss (P<.001), and financial difficulties (P = .02) as shown in Figure 1. As expected, fatigue and appetite loss increased in the initial 3 months and then gradually declined. Appetite loss has a high level of interpatient correlation (W = 0.41). Financial difficulties declined over time and did not increase from the time of diagnosis. This is surprising because many patients would require leave from work during therapy; this suggests that most patients were able to return to employment in the medium term.

EORTC QLQ-H&N35 SYMPTOM SCALES

The differences exhibited in the QLQ-H&N35 questionnaire, when compared with the QLQ-C30 questionnaire, demonstrate the importance of site-specific evaluation and correspond more closely to global health status in this sample of patients with NPC. In particular, oropharyngeal function substantially deteriorated from the time of diagnosis. Specifically, patients had progressive problems with teeth (P = .045), trismus (P = .001), dry mouth (P<.001), swallowing (P = .002), and social eating (P = .005), as shown in Figure 2. Dry mouth had the highest interpatient correlation (W = 0.42) and demonstrated the greatest increase (deterioration) in the mean score (70) at 2 years. Dental problems correlated the least (W = 0.17), suggesting that caries were not inevitable in the medium term given appropriate pretreatment and posttreatment care.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Mean symptom scores with significant change over time from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Quality-of-Life Questionnaire.

Graphic Jump Location

In contrast to the other oropharyngeal symptom scales, sticky saliva was a major problem in the initial 6 months (P = .007), but it returned to near baseline levels at 2 years, with a high interpatient correlation (W = 0.35). The sensory problems associated with cisplatin and radiation treatments, although increased at 3 months (P = .049), tended to resolve by 1 year. Unfortunately, this was poorly correlated (W = 0.19), and some patients had major persistent problems. Other symptoms such as pain (P = .01) and feeling ill (P = .03) improved gradually over time following completion of therapy.

DO TOXIC EFFECTS CORRELATE WITH QUALITY OF LIFE?

Toxic effects are measured by the clinician and, although they provide important objective outcome measures, do not allow for self-reporting of symptoms. What a clinician believes to be of minor importance may depart substantially from the patient's experience. The lack of correlation between the toxic effects grade and quality-of-life scores supports this concept. In fact, combined toxic effects only correlated with fatigue (ρ = 0.89; P = .04) and dysphagia with social eating (ρ = 0.88; P = .047) and sticky saliva (ρ = 0.91; P = .03). While the sample size in this study is small, the toxic effect grade is not a reliable measure of the patient's perception of quality of life.

ENTERAL FEEDING

Following the completion of therapy, fatigue and appetite loss improved and the patients gradually gained weight, allowing for the removal of all but 1 gastrostomy tube at 6 months. All patients lost weight, although they had feeding tubes for nutritional support. During treatment, patients experience nausea associated with chemotherapy and are often unable to meet their nutritional requirements. Oral feeding during treatment is a major problem, and gastrostomy tubes are essential in many patients to prevent excessive weight loss and nutritional depletion. There was a similar degree of weight loss from the time of diagnosis to the start of treatment and during therapy. These results italicasize the need for early nutritional intervention by a dietitian before commencing chemoradiotherapy.

COMPARISON WITH LITERATURE

It is difficult to determine whether the present series is representative, given the small sample size, skewed distribution, and high level of variance. However, results from previous studies are remarkably consistent, with the exception of global health status. Hammerlid et al19 described quality-of-life results for 11 patients with NPC who recorded a high pain score and concerns with trouble enjoying meals, feeling ill, and dry mouth, but no change in global health. Huguenin et al20 found quality-of-life issues for 12 patients with NPC to consist of dry mouth, sticky saliva, trismus, and problems with teeth and eating, with no effect on global health. Talmi et al21 showed difficulties with swallowing, xerostomia, dysphagia, and hearing, again with no deterioration in global health scores. It is difficult to explain the difference in global health status noted in the present study, but this may represent methodological or population differences. Furthermore, we cannot predict the effect on quality of life from highly conformal radiation techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and we plan to prospectively compare this group with more recent patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

This study gives an insight into the various issues experienced by patients who received treatment for NPC and helps identify concerns to assist with future rehabilitation needs. There is substantial deterioration on oropharyngeal function following chemoradiotherapy, and this has a significant effect on global health status. This information gives a clearer understanding about the slow progression toward recovery following therapy that is poorly represented by physician grading of toxic effects alone. Quality of life and functional outcomes should become standard outcome measures in the comprehensive assessment of cancer therapy.

Correspondence: Justine E. Oates, RN, BSc, Sydney Head and Neck Cancer Institute, Level 6, Gloucester House, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Road, Camperdown, Sydney, New South Wales 2047, Australia (justine.oates@email.cs.nsw.gov.au).

Submitted for Publication: October 11, 2006; accepted December 30, 2006.

Author Contributions: Mss Oates and Read and Drs Clark and Boyer had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Oates, Read, Reeves, and O’Brien. Acquisition of data: Oates, Read, Reeves, and Gao. Analysis and interpretation of data: Oates, Clark, Read, Gao, Jackson, Boyer, and O’Brien. Drafting of the manuscript: Oates, Clark, Read, and O’Brien. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Oates, Clark, Read, Reeves, Gao, Jackson, Boyer, and O’Brien. Statistical analysis: Clark and Gao. Administrative, technical, and material support: Oates, Read, Reeves, and Gao. Study supervision: Clark, Jackson, Boyer, and O’Brien.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Rodriguez-Monge  EShin  DLippman  S Head and neck cancer.  In: Pazdur R, ed.Medical Oncology: A Comprehensive Review. Huntington, NY: PRR Inc; 1997:1-21
Faivre  SJanot  FArmand  J Optimal management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Curr Opin Oncol 2004;16231- 235
PubMed
Cella  DFCherin  E Quality of life during and after cancer treatment. Compr Ther 1988;1469- 75
PubMed
Greene  FPage  DFleming  I  et al AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag NY Inc; 2002:33-42
de Haes  JCurran  CYoung  T  et al. EORTC Quality of Life Study Group, Quality of life evaluation in oncological trials—the EORTC model. Eur J Cancer 2000;36821- 825
PubMed
Aaronson  NKAhmedzai  SBergman  B  et al.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85365- 376
PubMed
Hjermstad  MJFossa  SBjordal  KKaas  S Test/retest study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. J Clin Oncol 1995;131249- 1254
PubMed
Groenvold  MKlee  MSprangers  MGaronson  N Validation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire through combined qualitative and quantitative assessment of patient-observer agreement. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50441- 450
PubMed
Bjordal  KAhlner-Elmqvist  MTollesson  E  et al. EORTC Quality of Life Study Group, Development of a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire module to be used in life assessments in head and neck cancer patients. Acta Oncol 1994;33879- 885
PubMed
Bjordal  KHammerlid  EAhlner-Elmqvist  M  et al.  Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–H&N 35. J Clin Oncol 1999;171008- 1019
PubMed
Bjordal  Kde Graeff  AFayers  PM  et al. EORTC Quality of Life Group, A 12 country field study of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) and the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) in head and neck patients. Eur J Cancer 2000;361796- 1807
PubMed
Sherman  ACSimonton  SAdams  DVural  EOwens  BHanna  E Assessing quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer, cross validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Head and Neck module (QLQ-H&N35). Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126459- 467
PubMed
Chie  WCHong  RLai  CTing  LHsu  H Quality of life in patients of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. Qual Life Res 2003;1293- 99
PubMed
Fayers  PAaronson  NBjordal  K  et al EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual.  Brussels, Belgium: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 1995
Fayers  PM Interpreting quality of life data: population-based reference data for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Eur J Cancer 2001;371331- 1334
PubMed
Osoba  DRodrigues  GMyles  JZee  BPater  J Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol199816139144
PubMed
Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program OCTD/NCI/NIH Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Version 3.0.  Rockville, Md: Capital Technology Information Services; 2003
Smith  GIYeo  DClark  J  et al.  Measures of health-related quality of life and functional status in survivors of oral cavity cancer who have had defects reconstructed with radial forearm free flaps. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;44187- 192
PubMed
Hammerlid  EBjordal  KAhlner-Elmqvist  M  et al.  A prospective study of quality of life in head and neck cancer patients, I: at diagnosis. Laryngoscope 2001;111669- 680
PubMed
Huguenin  PUTaussky  DMoe  K  et al.  Quality of life in patients cured from a carcinoma of the head and neck by radiotherapy: the importance of target volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;4547- 52
PubMed
Talmi  YHorowitz  ZBedrin  L  et al Quality of Life of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients.  Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society; 2002:1012-1017

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Mean functional and symptom scores with significant change over time from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Mean symptom scores with significant change over time from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Quality-of-Life Questionnaire.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.   American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor and Node Stages*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.   EORTC QLQ-C30 Score Before and After Chemoradiotherapy in 14 Patients
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.   EORTC QLQ-H&N35 Scores Before and After Chemoradiotherapy in 14 Patients
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4.   Severity Grading of Toxic Effects

References

Rodriguez-Monge  EShin  DLippman  S Head and neck cancer.  In: Pazdur R, ed.Medical Oncology: A Comprehensive Review. Huntington, NY: PRR Inc; 1997:1-21
Faivre  SJanot  FArmand  J Optimal management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Curr Opin Oncol 2004;16231- 235
PubMed
Cella  DFCherin  E Quality of life during and after cancer treatment. Compr Ther 1988;1469- 75
PubMed
Greene  FPage  DFleming  I  et al AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag NY Inc; 2002:33-42
de Haes  JCurran  CYoung  T  et al. EORTC Quality of Life Study Group, Quality of life evaluation in oncological trials—the EORTC model. Eur J Cancer 2000;36821- 825
PubMed
Aaronson  NKAhmedzai  SBergman  B  et al.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85365- 376
PubMed
Hjermstad  MJFossa  SBjordal  KKaas  S Test/retest study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. J Clin Oncol 1995;131249- 1254
PubMed
Groenvold  MKlee  MSprangers  MGaronson  N Validation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire through combined qualitative and quantitative assessment of patient-observer agreement. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50441- 450
PubMed
Bjordal  KAhlner-Elmqvist  MTollesson  E  et al. EORTC Quality of Life Study Group, Development of a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire module to be used in life assessments in head and neck cancer patients. Acta Oncol 1994;33879- 885
PubMed
Bjordal  KHammerlid  EAhlner-Elmqvist  M  et al.  Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–H&N 35. J Clin Oncol 1999;171008- 1019
PubMed
Bjordal  Kde Graeff  AFayers  PM  et al. EORTC Quality of Life Group, A 12 country field study of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) and the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) in head and neck patients. Eur J Cancer 2000;361796- 1807
PubMed
Sherman  ACSimonton  SAdams  DVural  EOwens  BHanna  E Assessing quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer, cross validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Head and Neck module (QLQ-H&N35). Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126459- 467
PubMed
Chie  WCHong  RLai  CTing  LHsu  H Quality of life in patients of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. Qual Life Res 2003;1293- 99
PubMed
Fayers  PAaronson  NBjordal  K  et al EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual.  Brussels, Belgium: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 1995
Fayers  PM Interpreting quality of life data: population-based reference data for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Eur J Cancer 2001;371331- 1334
PubMed
Osoba  DRodrigues  GMyles  JZee  BPater  J Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol199816139144
PubMed
Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program OCTD/NCI/NIH Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Version 3.0.  Rockville, Md: Capital Technology Information Services; 2003
Smith  GIYeo  DClark  J  et al.  Measures of health-related quality of life and functional status in survivors of oral cavity cancer who have had defects reconstructed with radial forearm free flaps. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;44187- 192
PubMed
Hammerlid  EBjordal  KAhlner-Elmqvist  M  et al.  A prospective study of quality of life in head and neck cancer patients, I: at diagnosis. Laryngoscope 2001;111669- 680
PubMed
Huguenin  PUTaussky  DMoe  K  et al.  Quality of life in patients cured from a carcinoma of the head and neck by radiotherapy: the importance of target volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;4547- 52
PubMed
Talmi  YHorowitz  ZBedrin  L  et al Quality of Life of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients.  Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society; 2002:1012-1017

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 40

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics