RESUMEN
We have previously identified a single-item measure for baseline overall quality of life (QOL) as a strong prognostic factor for survival, and that fatigue was an important component of patient QOL. To explore whether patient-reported fatigue was supplemental or redundant to the prognostic information of overall QOL, we performed a patient-level pooled analysis of 43 North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (MCCC) oncology clinical trials assessing the effect of baseline fatigue on overall survival (OS). 3,915 patients participating in 43 trials provided data at baseline for fatigue on a single-item 0-100 point scale. OS was tested for association with clinically deficient fatigue (CDF, score 0-50, n = 1,497) versus not clinically deficient fatigue (nCDF, score 51-100, n = 2,418). We explored whether fatigue contributed to overall survival in the presence of performance status and overall QOL. We used Cox proportional hazards models that adjusted for the effects of overall QOL, performance score, race, disease site, age and gender. Baseline fatigue was a strong predictor of OS for the entire patient cohort (CDF vs. nCDF: 31.5 months vs > 83.9 months, p < 0.0001). The effect sizes of fatigue on survival were more variable across different disease sites than was seen for overall QOL (GI, esophageal, head and neck, prostate, lung, breast and others). After controlling for covariates, including performance status and overall QOL, baseline fatigue remained a strong prognostic factor in multivariate models (CDF vs. nCDF: HR = 1.23, p = 0.02). Baseline fatigue is a strong and independent prognostic factor for OS over and above performance status (PS) and overall QOL in a wide variety of oncology patient populations. Single-item measures of overall QOL and fatigue can help to identify vulnerable subpopulations among cancer patients. We recommend these single-item measures for routine inclusion as a stratification factor or key covariate in the design and analysis of oncology treatment trials.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Little is known regarding the rate of burnout, career satisfaction, and quality of life (QOL) among surgical oncologists compared with other surgical subspecialties. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons conducted a survey in 2008 involving 7,905 respondents, of whom 407 were surgical oncologists. Demographic variables, practice characteristics, career satisfaction, burnout, and quality of life (QOL) of surgical oncologists were compared with other surgical subspecialties using validated instruments. RESULTS: Surgical oncologists were younger (mean age 49.9 years), more likely to be female (26%), and had younger children than other surgical subspecialties. With respect to practice characteristics, surgical oncologists had been in practice fewer years and had fewer nights on call per week than other surgical disciplines but worked more hours (mean 62.6/week), were more likely to be in an academic practice (59.5%), were more likely to be paid on a salaried basis (68%), and had more time devoted to non-patient activities (e.g., research). Compared with surgeons from all other specialties, surgical oncologists had similar incidence of burnout (36%), suicide ideation (4.9%), and QOL, but lower incidence of depression (24%), and better indices of career satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a frame of reference for valid comparisons of burnout, QOL, and career satisfaction indices for the surgical oncology community relative to all other surgical specialties. Surgical oncologists have higher career satisfaction and lower risk of depression than surgeons in other surgical disciplines but still experience high rates of burnout.
