Quality of life of cervical cancer patients after specialized treatment in Kazakhstan.

Dilyara Kaidarova, Roza Pak, Zhanna K. Chingissova

2020

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.e18024
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

e18024 Background: In Kazakhstan cervical cancer (CC) ranks 2nd in morbidity and mortality among women with malignant neoplasms. 88% of women are diagnosed in stages 1-2. Age range of patients with cervical cancer is becoming younger with women age 35-55 years old. This urges implementation of an effective system for assessing and maintaining the quality of life of people with CC who undergo special treatment. Methods: During study we used The EORTC quality of life questionnaire (QLQ C-30) Version 3.0 on 157 patients with stage 1-2 CC, 1+ year after chemoradiotherapy (CRT, n = 65) and surgical treatment (ST, n = 92). For statistical analysis, we used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the chi-square test using SPSS version 22.0. Results: When analyzing limitations in everyday activities (work etc) (sign 1), 13.8% -18.5% of patients with cervical cancer noted “significant” and “very strong” impact on quality of life after CRT compared with 1.1% - 3.3% of patients after ST (p < 0.001). Study showed that there is a strong correlation between treatment method and quality of life (table 1). 35.4% of patients after CRT have noted “significant” difficulties in carrying out work requiring a higher level of physical effort (sign 2). In contrast, only 16.3% of patients after ST noted “significant” difficulties, which is 2.2 times less (p < 0.006). Assessment revealed a moderate quantitative correlation (table 1). 16.9% of patients after CRT noted severe pain (sign 3) compared with 2.2% of patients who received ST (p < 0.001). Assessment revealed a moderate quantitative correlation (table 1). Absence of feeling of weakness (sign 4) was greater among patients from the ST group - 21.7% compared with CRT - 9.2% (p < 0.03). Assessment revealed a strong quantitative correlation (table). 15.4% of patients after CRT, compared with 2.2% of patients who received ST (p < 0.001) have noted that their physical condition and treatment had a “very strong” impact on their personal life (sign 5). Conclusions: Assessment revealed that CC patients who received CRT showed lower physical and social indicators of quality of life. [Table: see text]