Quality of Life Assessment and Pain Severity in Breast Cancer Patients Prior to Palliative Oncology Treatment in Indonesia: A Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: Studies assessing quality of life (QOL) in palliative care settings are still scarce. We assessed the QOL score and pain severity in advanced breast cancer patients at the National Cancer Hospital in Indonesia and associations between QOL domains with QOL and pain scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 160 patients who met the study inclusion criteria (female, >18 years old, diagnosed with stage III or IV breast cancer) answered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL) and the visual analogue scale (VAS) tool for pain severity, prior to palliative oncology treatment. Additionally, several sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were collected. Linear regression models, adjusted for age, the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score, and specific QOL domains were used to explore the associations between the global QOL and VAS scores with the different QOL domains. RESULTS: The patients had a mean age of 50 years (range: 29-76). The overall score for QOL and score for VAS was (mean ± SD) 78.02 ± 15.34 and 2.1 ± 2.4, respectively. The analysis demonstrated that the domains of emotional functioning (effect estimate: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.37), fatigue (-0.21; -0.33 to -0.09), pain (-0.13; -0.25 to -0.01), insomnia (-0.25; -0.37 to -0.13), and appetite loss (-0.13; -0.25 to -0.008) were associated with the QOL score. Only the KPS score (-0.28; -0.46 to -0.11) was associated with the VAS score. CONCLUSION: Our study showed high QOL and low VAS scores in advanced breast cancer patients prior to palliative oncology treatment. Several QOL domains (emotional functioning, fatigue, pain, insomnia, and appetite loss) were associated with QOL and the KPS was associated with the pain score. Therefore, these specific QOL domains should be given priority in improving QOL in this patient group.

Socioeconomic disparities in head and neck cancer survival in Germany: a causal mediation analysis using population-based cancer registry data.

PURPOSE: Despite recent improvements in cancer treatment in Germany, a marked difference in cancer survival based on socioeconomic factors persists. We aim to quantify the effect of socioeconomic inequality on head and neck cancer (HNC) survival. METHODS: Information on 20,821 HNC patients diagnosed in 2009-2013 was routinely collected by German population-based cancer registries. Socioeconomic inequality was defined by the German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation. The Cox proportional regression and relative survival analysis measured the survival disparity according to level of socioeconomic deprivation with respective confidence intervals (CI). A causal mediation analysis was conducted to quantify the effect of socioeconomic deprivation mediated through medical care, stage at diagnosis, and treatment on HNC survival. RESULTS: The most socioeconomically deprived patients were found to have the highest hazard of dying when compared to the most affluent (Hazard Ratio: 1.25, 95% CI 1.17-1.34). The most deprived patients also had the worst 5-year age-adjusted relative survival (50.8%, 95% CI 48.5-53.0). Our mediation analysis showed that most of the effect of deprivation on survival was mediated through differential stage at diagnosis during the first 6 months after HNC diagnosis. As follow-up time increased, medical care, stage at diagnosis, and treatment played no role in mediating the effect of deprivation on survival. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the survival disparity between affluent and deprived HNC patients in Germany. Considering data limitations, our results suggest that, within six months after HNC diagnosis, the elimination of differences in stage at diagnosis could reduce survival inequalities.

Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Access and Subscription Journals: Results of a Systematic Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Along with the proliferation of Open Access (OA) publishing, the interest for comparing the scientific quality of studies published in OA journals versus subscription journals has also increased. With our study we aimed to compare the methodological quality and the quality of reporting of primary epidemiological studies and systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals. METHODS: In order to identify the studies to appraise, we listed all OA and non-OA journals which published in 2013 at least one primary epidemiologic study (case-control or cohort study design), and at least one systematic review or meta-analysis in the field of oncology. For the appraisal, we picked up the first studies published in 2013 with case-control or cohort study design from OA journals (Group A; n = 12), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group B; n = 26); the first systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2013 from OA journals (Group C; n = 15), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group D; n = 32). We evaluated the methodological quality of studies by assessing the compliance of case-control and cohort studies to Newcastle and Ottawa Scale (NOS) scale, and the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale. The quality of reporting was assessed considering the adherence of case-control and cohort studies to STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist, and the adherence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. RESULTS: Among case-control and cohort studies published in OA and non-OA journals, we did not observe significant differences in the median value of NOS score (Group A: 7 (IQR 7-8) versus Group B: 8 (7-9); p = 0.5) and in the adherence to STROBE checklist (Group A, 75% versus Group B, 80%; p = 0.1). The results did not change after adjustment for impact factor. The compliance with AMSTAR and adherence to PRISMA checklist were comparable between systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals (Group C, 46.0% versus Group D, 55.0%; p = 0.06), (Group C, 72.0% versus Group D, 76.0%; p = 0.1), respectively). CONCLUSION: The epidemiological studies published in OA journals in the field of oncology approach the same methodological quality and quality of reporting as studies published in non-OA journals.