Impact of weight loss and eating difficulties on health‐related quality of life up to 10 years after oesophagectomy for cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 410-418.
Published: 21st November 2017
Authors: P. Anandavadivelan, A. Wikman, A. Johar, P. Lagergren
Severe weight loss is experienced by patients with eating difficulties after surgery for oesophageal cancer. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to asssess the influence of eating difficulties and severe weight loss on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) up to 10 years after oesophagectomy.
Data on bodyweight and HRQoL were collected at 6 months, 3, 5 and 10 years in patients who underwent surgery for oesophageal cancer in Sweden between 2001 and 2005. Exposures were percentage weight loss, and eating difficulties defined by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ‐OES18 questionnaire. Outcomes were HRQoL scores from the EORTC QLQ‐C30 questionnaire. Repeated‐measures ANOVA, adjusting for potential confounders, was used to assess the association between eating difficulties and weight loss (4 exposure groups) and HRQoL scores at each time point. Mean score differences (MDs) between time points or exposure groups were defined as clinically relevant in accordance with evidence‐based interpretation guidelines.
In total, 92 of 104 10‐year survivors (88·5 per cent) responded to the questionnaires. Weight loss was greatest within 6 months of surgery. Patients with eating difficulties with or without weight loss reported clinically and statistically significantly worsened HRQoL in almost all aspects. The largest MD was seen between 5 and 10 years after surgery for global quality of life, physical, role and social function (MD –22 to –30), as well for fatigue, nausea, dyspnoea, insomnia, appetite loss and diarrhoea (MD 24–36).
Eating difficulties are associated with deterioration in several aspects of HRQoL up to 10 years after surgery for oesophageal cancer.Read more
You may also be interested in
Relationship between intraoperative non‐technical performance and technical events in bariatric surgery.
Authors: A. B. Fecso, S. S. Kuzulugil, C. Babaoglu, A. B. Bener, T. P. Grantcharov
Notes: Ways to assess team performance
Cardiopulmonary fitness before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with oesophagogastric cancer.
Authors: M. Navidi, A. W. Phillips, S. M. Griffin, K. E. Duffield, A. Greystoke, K. Sumpter et al.
Notes: Chemotherapy reduces cardiopulmonary reserve
Randomized clinical trial
Multicentre randomized clinical trial of inspiratory muscle training versus usual care before surgery for oesophageal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 502-511.
Authors: K. Valkenet, J. C. A. Trappenburg, J. P. Ruurda, E. M. Guinan, J. V. Reynolds, P. Nafteux et al.
Notes: Increased muscle function, no better outcome
Population‐based cohort study of surgical myotomy and pneumatic dilatation as primary interventions for oesophageal achalasia.
Authors: S. R. Markar, H. Mackenzie, A. Askari, O. Faiz, J. Hoare, G. Zaninotto et al.
Notes: Less reinterventions after surgical myotomy
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of stent type in endoscopic treatment of gastric leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 570-577.
Authors: C. Cosse, L. Rebibo, F. Brazier, S. Hakim, R. Delcenserie, J. M. Regimbeau et al.
Notes: Double pigtail is better
Using textbook outcome as a measure of quality of care in oesophagogastric cancer surgery. BJS 2018; 105: 561-569.
Authors: R. T. van der Kaaij, M. V. de Rooij, F. van Coevorden, F. E. M. Voncken, P. Snaebjornsson, H. Boot et al.
Notes: Quality of care in one number
[18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and prediction of histopathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction. BJS 2018; 105: 419-428.
Authors: T. Harustiak, M. Zemanova, P. Fencl, L. Hornofova, A. Pazdro, M. Snajdauf et al.
Notes: Of no use
Meta‐analysis of delayed gastric emptying after pylorus‐preserving versus pylorus‐resecting pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 339-349.
Authors: U. Klaiber, P. Probst, O. Strobel, C. W. Michalski, C. Dörr‐Harim, M. K. Diener et al.
Notes: No difference
Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis and predictors of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 552-560.
Authors: J. A. H. Gooszen, L. Goense, S. S. Gisbertz, J. P. Ruurda, R. van Hillegersberg, M. I. van Berge Henegouwen et al.
Notes: Lower leak rates after intrathoracic anastomosis
Meta‐analysis of metabolic surgery versus medical treatment for microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. BJS 2018; 105: 168-181.
Authors: A. T. Billeter, K. M. Scheurlen, P. Probst, S. Eichel, F. Nickel, S. Kopf et al.
Notes: Surgery is better
Health‐related quality of life after open transhiatal and transthoracic oesophagectomy for cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 230-236.
Authors: J. H. Kauppila, A. Johar, J. A. Gossage, A. R. Davies, J. Zylstra, J. Lagergren et al.
Notes: Favours transhiatal
Patient‐derived organoid models help define personalized management of gastrointestinal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e48-e60.
Authors: M. R. Aberle, R. A. Burkhart, H. Tiriac, S. W. M. Olde Damink, C. H. C. Dejong, D. A. Tuveson et al.
Notes: Accelerating the science of personal care