Validade discriminante do questionário de qualidade de vida da Universidade de Washington no contexto brasileiro / Discriminant validity of the University of Washington quality of life questionnaire in the Brazilian context

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a validade discriminante do questionário de qualidade de vida da Universidade de Washington para pacientes com câncer de cabeça e pescoço e identificar possíveis fatores sociodemográficos que modifiquem seus resultados. MÉTODOS: Foram entrevistados 47 pacientes com câncer de boca e orofaringe em estágio pré-cirúrgico em um hospital no sul do município de São Paulo em 2007, e 141 pacientes sem câncer, pareados por sexo e idade em uma proporção de três para um, que foram atendidos em ambulatórios do mesmo hospital em 2008. Os resultados obtidos para os dois grupos foram comparados pelo teste t de Student. Para os pacientes sem câncer utilizou-se análise de regressão de Poisson para avaliar possíveis fatores de modificação da qualidade de vida. RESULTADOS: O escore geral de qualidade de vida foi significantemente mais elevado (p < 0,001) para os pacientes sem câncer (91,1) do que para os pacientes com câncer (80,6). Observações análogas foram efetuadas para oito dos doze domínios de qualidade de vida compreendidos no questionário (dor, aparência, deglutição, mastigação, fala, ombros, paladar e ansiedade). Como possíveis fatores de modificação dos escores de qualidade de vida foram identificados renda familiar (com impacto nos domínios de recreação, p = 0,017, e função dos ombros, p = 0,049), escolaridade (em ansiedade, p = 0,003), sexo (em função dos ombros, p = 0,038) e dor de dente (em mastigação, p = 0,015). CONCLUSÕES: O questionário tem validade discriminante, pois seus escores são especificamente mais afetados para pacientes com câncer. Reforça-se a indicação do questionário para monitorar o tratamento e recomenda-se avaliar os fatores que podem causar impacto nesses indicadores.

OBJECTIVE: To assess discriminant validity of the University of Washington quality of life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer, and to identify socio-demographic factors that may modify its results. METHODS: We interviewed 47 patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer in pre-surgical stage in a hospital located in the South region of the city of São Paulo, in 2007, and 141 patients without cancer, matched by sex and age in a ratio of three to one, who were attending outpatient clinics of the same hospital in 2008. The results for the two groups were compared by the Student t test. Poisson regression models to evaluate factors that may modify quality of life scores among patients without cancer. RESULTS: The overall quality of life score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for patients without cancer (91.1) than for patients with cancer (80.6). Similar observations were made for eight of the twelve quality of life domains included in the questionnaire (pain, appearance, swallowing, chewing, speech, shoulder, taste, and anxiety). As factors that may modify the quality of life scores, we identified family income (which impacted in recreation, p = 0.017, and shoulder function, p = 0.049), schooling (in anxiety, p = 0.003), sex (in shoulder function, p = 0.038) and toothache (in chewing, p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire has discriminant validity, because its scores are specifically more reduced among cancer patients. The use of the questionnaire for monitoring the treatment of cancer patients is reinforced, and the assessment of factors that may impact in its results is recommended.

Discriminant validity of the University of Washington quality of life questionnaire in the Brazilian context.

OBJECTIVE: To assess discriminant validity of the University of Washington quality of life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer, and to identify socio-demographic factors that may modify its results. METHODS: We interviewed 47 patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer in pre-surgical stage in a hospital located in the South region of the city of São Paulo, in 2007, and 141 patients without cancer, matched by sex and age in a ratio of three to one, who were attending outpatient clinics of the same hospital in 2008. The results for the two groups were compared by the Student t test. Poisson regression models to evaluate factors that may modify quality of life scores among patients without cancer. RESULTS: The overall quality of life score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) for patients without cancer (91.1) than for patients with cancer (80.6). Similar observations were made for eight of the twelve quality of life domains included in the questionnaire (pain, appearance, swallowing, chewing, speech, shoulder, taste, and anxiety). As factors that may modify the quality of life scores, we identified family income (which impacted in recreation, p = 0.017, and shoulder function, p = 0.049), schooling (in anxiety, p = 0.003), sex (in shoulder function, p = 0.038) and toothache (in chewing, p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire has discriminant validity, because its scores are specifically more reduced among cancer patients. The use of the questionnaire for monitoring the treatment of cancer patients is reinforced, and the assessment of factors that may impact in its results is recommended.

Survival and quality of life of patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer at 1-year follow-up of tumor resection.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the survival and life quality evolution of patients subjected to surgical excision of oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients treated at a Brazilian healthcare unit specialized in head and neck surgery between 2006 and 2007 were enrolled in the study. The gathering of data comprised reviewing hospital files and applying the University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QOL) questionnaire previously and 1 year after the surgery. Comparative analysis used Poisson regression to assess factors associated with survival and a paired t-test to compare preoperative and 1-year postoperative QOL ratings. RESULTS: 1 year after surgery, 7 patients were not found (dropout of the cohort); 15 had died and 25 fulfilled the UW-QOL again. The risk of death was associated with having regional metastasis previously to surgery (relative risk=2.18; 95% confidence interval=1.09-5.17) and tumor size T3 or T4 (RR=2.30; 95%CI=1.05-5.04). Survivors presented significantly (p<0.05) poorer overall and domain-specific ratings of quality of life. Chewing presented the largest reduction: from 74.0 before surgery to 34.0 one year later. Anxiety was the only domain whose average rating increased (from 36.0 to 70.7). CONCLUSIONS: The prospective assessment of survival and quality of life may contribute to anticipate interventions aimed at reducing the incidence of functional limitations in patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer.

Survival and quality of life of patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer at 1-year follow-up of tumor resection

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the survival and life quality evolution of patients subjected to surgical excision of oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients treated at a Brazilian healthcare unit specialized in head and neck surgery between 2006 and 2007 were enrolled in the study. The gathering of data comprised reviewing hospital files and applying the University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QOL) questionnaire previously and 1 year after the surgery. Comparative analysis used Poisson regression to assess factors associated with survival and a paired t-test to compare preoperative and 1-year postoperative QOL ratings. RESULTS: 1 year after surgery, 7 patients were not found (dropout of the cohort); 15 had died and 25 fulfilled the UW-QOL again. The risk of death was associated with having regional metastasis previously to surgery (relative risk=2.18; 95 percent confidence interval=1.09-5.17) and tumor size T3 or T4 (RR=2.30; 95 percentCI=1.05-5.04). Survivors presented significantly (p<0.05) poorer overall and domain-specific ratings of quality of life. Chewing presented the largest reduction: from 74.0 before surgery to 34.0 one year later. Anxiety was the only domain whose average rating increased (from 36.0 to 70.7). CONCLUSIONS: The prospective assessment of survival and quality of life may contribute to anticipate interventions aimed at reducing the incidence of functional limitations in patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer.

Immediate impact of primary surgery on health-related quality of life of hospitalized patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer.

PURPOSE: Oral and oropharyngeal tumor resection may be associated with disfigurement and dysfunctions that affect essential domains of life. This study aimed at assessing the immediate impact of primary surgery on the health-related quality of life for these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lips, oral cavity, or oropharynx, and undergoing treatment in the head and neck surgery center of a large general hospital in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, from October 2005 to September 2006, completed the University of Washington Quality of Life questionnaire pre- and postoperatively (before hospital discharge). A paired t test evaluated differences between assessments; Poisson regression estimated ratios of ratings attributed to each domain (pain, appearance, activity, recreation, swallowing, chewing, speech, shoulder pain, taste, saliva, mood, and anxiety) per patient stratified by sociodemographic, clinical, and behavioral characteristics. RESULTS: The immediate impact of surgery on health-related quality of life corresponded to a 31.1% reduction in the overall rating. The most affected domains were chewing (-73.5%), taste (-61.4%), swallowing (-57.3%), speech (-46.0%), and pain (-42.3%). Anxiety (+65.5%) was the sole domain that improved immediately after surgery. Comparisons involving subgroups of patients indicated that different clinical conditions (regional metastasis, tumor size, and location) were not associated with discrepant health-related quality of life immediately after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The routine pre- and postoperative assessment of health-related quality of life may contribute to evaluate treatment effectiveness, which would otherwise rely exclusively on assessing end-point results such as survival and tumor relapse. This information is relevant to attenuate the prejudicial impact of surgery on the physical and psychosocial functioning of patients.