Abstract
Objective:
This study aimed to examine the levels of functional status, supportive care needs, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and their relationships reported by advanced lung cancer patients aged 50 and older.
Methods:
A cross-sectional descriptive correlational study was conducted with 103 participants recruited from a cancer center in Singapore. Functional status, supportive care needs, and HRQOL were measured using validated instruments. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample profiles. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were adopted to determine factors that were associated with HRQOL.
Results:
About 70.9% of participants were dependent in at least one instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). The mean number of unmet needs rated by participants was 9 (range = 0–28). The top three ranked items with moderate-to-severe unmet needs were “not being able to do things you used to do” (28.2%), “fear about cancer spreading” (25.3%), and “lack of energy/tiredness” (25.2%). Higher IADL scores were significantly associated with better HRQOL, whereas higher levels of supportive care needs, particularly in psychological domain significantly predicted poorer HRQOL in most domains.
Conclusions:
This study found that poor functional status and unmet supportive care needs are common in advanced lung cancer patients. Psychological needs and functional status are associated with patients' HRQOL. Future interventions incorporating functional assistance and psychological support may increase HRQOL in this population.
Keywords: Functional status, health-related quality of life, instrumental activities of daily living, Lung cancer, supportive care needs
Introduction
Lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer globally, with an estimated 2.1 million new cases in 2018.[1] Nearly 95% of lung cancers are found in patients after 50 years old and mostly at advanced stages.[2,3] These patients generally have limited treatment options and very poor prognosis with a median survival time of 12 months.[4] They are also vulnerable to physical, psycho-social, and functional impairment due to disease and treatment.[5,6,7] Maximizing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and thereby becomes, especially important for this population.
HRQOL is a multidimensional concept representing patients' perceived impact of disease and its treatment on functional health. Lung cancer patients generally have lower levels of HRQOL in the physical and emotional domains than those of healthy controls.[8,9] Nonetheless, HRQOL ratings in different domains may vary according to patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, including age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, staging and duration of disease, surgery, receipt of adjuvant treatment, and comorbidity.[8,9,10,11] As these factors are nonmodifiable, supportive care for lung cancer patients has focused on improving HRQOL through managing physical and psychological symptoms.[12] However, little attention has been directed to the issues of poor functional status and unmet supportive care needs, which may signal new directions for optimizing HRQOL for patients.
Functional status is operationalized as an individual's ability to perform activities of daily living.[13] According to a systematic review (n = 43 studies), 36.7% and 54.6% of cancer patients reported difficulties in performing basic and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), respectively.[14] Furthermore, these patients are prone to experience decline in functional status over time.[7,15] However, few studies have examined the association between functional status and HRQOL among lung cancer patients.
The assessment of supportive care needs by health-care providers aims to identify patients' desire for actual services or resources in satisfying physical and daily living, psychological, sexual, patient care as well as health system and information needs.[16] Unmet needs often occur when patients perceive a lack of care or support that is necessary to achieve optimal well-being.[16] Lung cancer patients have greater supportive care needs as compared to those with other cancer types and rate the highest unmet needs in physical and psychological domains.[17,18] Despite mounting evidence suggests that greater care needs are associated with impaired HRQOL in cancer patients,[19] little is known specifically for lung cancer patients.
For lung cancer patients at advanced stages, the goal of cancer treatments and care is to ensure the benefit of HRQOL. A better understanding of the relationships between functional status, supportive care needs, and HRQOL would assist health care providers in identifying a vulnerable subgroup of patients for timely intervention. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the levels of functional status, supportive care needs and HRQOL, and their relationships reported by advanced lung cancer patients aged 50 and older.
Methods
Study design
This is a cross-sectional descriptive correlation study.
Setting and participants
Between December 2015 and January 2016, eligible participants were recruited using convenience sampling from a national cancer center in Singapore. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) aged 50 or above, (2) a diagnosis of lung cancer (Stage III–IV), and (3) being able to speak or read English/Chinese. Participants were excluded if they had psychiatric and cognitive disorders (e.g., schizophrenia and dementia). The sample size was estimated using a power analysis where a medium correlation coefficient is 0.3, power is 0.8, and alpha is 0.05,[20] thus at least 85 participants were required.
Measures
Functional status was measured using two scales, including the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Scale (ECOG-PS) and the Lawton and Brody's index of IADL. The ECOG-PS is a single-item measure of an individual's ability to perform daily and physical activities. It is rated from 0 (fully active) to 5 (dead). As the most commonly used cutoff for ECOG-PS is 2, a score of ≥2 indicates poor functional status.[21] The scale is reported with good predictive validity and inter-rater reliability.[22,23] The ECOG-PS score of each patient is rated based on a general impression of his or her activity by oncology nurses and extracted from his/her medical record by the researcher.
The Lawton and Brody's index of IADL was used to assess the level of functional dependence when an individual performs IADLs.[24] It includes eight items, covering the ability to use the telephone, shopping, food preparation, housekeeping, doing household laundry, transportation, taking medications as prescribed, and managing personal finances. Each item is scored as either 0 (dependent) or 1 (independent). Scores of all eight items are summed to yield a total score (range: 0–8), with a higher score indicating better functional status. IADL dependency is defined if a total score is <8.[7] Considerable evidence exists supporting good reliability and validity of the scale and the Chinese version of the scale has a Cronbach's alpha of 0.87.[25,26]
Supportive care needs were assessed using the 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form (SCNS-SF34). The SCNS-SF34 consists of five domains: psychological (10 items), health system and information (11 items), physical and daily living (5 items), patient care and support (5 items), and sexuality (3 items).[16] Each item is rated on a 5-point scale (1 = not applicable, 2 = satisfied, 3 = low need, 4 = moderate need, 5 = high need), with a score of ≥3 indicating the presence of an unmet needs and a score of ≥4 representing a unmet needs at moderate-to-severe level[27] Domain scores are calculated by adding up scores of related items and transformed into a 0–100 scale based on the instrument guide.[27] Psychometric properties of the English and Chinese versions of the SCNS-SF34 are well-documented; with Cronbach's alphas ranging between 0.88–0.96 and 0.75–0.92, respectively.[16,28]
HRQOL was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 30 Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) in conjunction with its lung cancer module (EORTC QLQ-L13).[29,30] The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a 30-item cancer-specific HRQOL scale and incorporates five functional domains (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social), three symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), six single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulty), and a global health scale.[29] The EORTC QLQ-L13 is a 13-item scale measuring dyspnea and other symptoms resulting from lung cancer and its treatment.[30] According to the scale scoring guideline, each functional domain or symptom scale/item is transformed on a 0–100 scale. Higher scores represent either better HRQOL on functional scales/global health scale, or worse symptoms on symptom scales/items. The English versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-LC13 demonstrated good reliability and validity.[29,30] The Chinese versions of the two scales are reported with good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha >0.7) as well as established convergent validity and contrasted-group validity.[31]
Sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained from patient self-reports or medical records. Sociodemographic characteristic included age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, education level, employment status, and religion. Clinical data were cancer stage, time since diagnosis, surgery, systematic treatment, number of comorbidities, and type of caregivers.
Data collection procedure
Participants were identified through nurse managers in various departments of the cancer center, including an outpatient clinic, ambulatory treatment unit, and radiotherapy clinic. After screening the eligibility of patients who attended oncologist consultations, nurse managers referred eligible participants to the researcher with participants' consent for study briefing. Once participants agreed to join, they were asked to sign on the consent forms. Questionnaires were subsequently administered either by the participants or using face-to-face interviews by the researcher.
Statistical analysis
Data were entered and analyzed using the SPSS 24.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and main study variables of the sample. To investigate factors that were associated with HRQOL, univariate and multivariate analyses were adopted. Univariate analyses were performed to investigate the associations between HRQOL (including global health and five functional domains only) with selected sociodemographic and clinical characteristics (based on prior literature),[9,10,11,13,18] functional status and supportive care needs. Student's t-tests or Pearson's correlation tests were used when appropriate. Those variables with P < 0.25 in univariate analyses were considered as candidate variables for stepwise multivariate regression analyses. The variance inflation factors of the independent variables are <2, thus no multicollinearity among study variables was detected. All statistical tests were two-sided, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Ethical approval
The Institutional Ethical Committee of the hospital approved the study. All participants signed the informed consent forms before commencement of the study. They were informed of the voluntary participation and the right to withdraw from the study anytime, as well as the right of keeping personal information data confidential.
Results
Participant characteristics
A total of 103 participants consented to join the study and the mean age was 65.1 (SD = 7.5, range = 50–83). Majority of them was married (85.4%), diagnosed with Stage IV (87.4%) and had not received surgery (85.2%). The sociodemographic and clinical profiles of the participants are depicted in Table 1.
Table 1.
Patient profiles (n=103)
| Characteristics | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Sociodemographic | |
| Age, mean±SD | 65.1±7.5 |
| Gender | |
| Male | 66 (64.1) |
| Female | 37 (35.9) |
| Marital status | |
| Single/widowed/divorced/separated | 18 (17.5) |
| Married | 85 (82.5) |
| Ethnicity | |
| Non-Chinese (Malay, Indian, and others) | 15 (14.6) |
| Chinese | 88 (85.4) |
| Education level | |
| Primary or less | 50 (48.5) |
| Secondary | 34 (33.0) |
| Tertiary | 19 (18.5) |
| Employment status | |
| Full-time/part-time/self employed | 21 (20.4) |
| Unemployed | 17 (16.5) |
| Retired | 65 (63.1) |
| Religion | |
| Buddhism | 40 (38.8) |
| Taoism | 21 (20.4) |
| Christian | 12 (11.7) |
| Muslim | 8 (7.8) |
| Catholic | 4 (3.9) |
| Hinduism | 3 (1.8) |
| Free thinker | 15 (14.6) |
| Clinical characteristics | |
| Number of comorbidities, mean±SD | 1.1±0.7 |
| Cancer stage | |
| Stage III | 13 (12.6) |
| Stage IV | 90 (87.4) |
| Time since diagnosis (year) | |
| <1 | 67 (65.0) |
| ≥1 | 36 (35.0) |
| Surgery | |
| Yes | 18 (17.5) |
| No | 85 (82.5) |
| Systematic treatment | |
| Chemotherapy only | 66 (64.1) |
| Chemotherapy and radiotherapy | 37 (35.9) |
| Type of caregivers | |
| Self | 28 (27.2) |
| Spouse | 45 (43.7) |
| Children | 20 (19.4) |
| Domestic helper | 10 (9.7) |
SD: Standard deviation
Functional status
About 43.7% (n = 45) of participants had an ECOG-PS score of ≥2 and 70.9% (n = 73) was dependent in at least one IADL. The most frequently affected IADLs were shopping (n = 56, 54.4%) followed by food preparation (n = 55, 53.4%).
Supportive care needs
Participants rated the highest mean ratings of supportive care needs in the physical and daily living domain (38.0 ± 20.9) and psychological domain (34.6 ± 20.7), whereas the sexuality domain (5.3 ± 9.7) had the lowest level of needs.
The mean number of unmet needs rated by participants was 9 (range = 0–28). Almost all of participants reported at least one unmet needs; 36%, 19%, 20%, 17%, and 5% reported 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and >20 unmet needs, respectively. All SCNS-SF34 needs items sorted by domains are presented in Table 2. The top three ranked items with moderate-to-severe unmet needs were “not being able to do things you used to do” (28.2%), “fear about the cancer spreading” (25.3%), and “lack of energy/tiredness” (25.2%). which were from either physical and daily living domain or psychological domain.
Table 2.
Prevalence of unmet needs as measured by 34-item supportive care needs survey short form (n=103) [n (%)]
| Items | Not applicable | Satisfied | Low need | Moderate/severe need |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical and daily living domain | ||||
| Pain | 37 (35.9) | 41 (39.8) | 19 (18.4) | 6 (5.8) |
| Lack of energy/tiredness | 16 (15.5) | 14 (13.6) | 47 (45.6) | 26 (25.2) |
| Feeling unwell a lot of the time | 19 (18.4) | 23 (22.3) | 38 (36.9) | 23 (22.3) |
| Work around the home | 20 (19.4) | 31 (30.1) | 29 (28.2) | 22 (21.4) |
| Not being able to do things you used to do | 19 (18.4) | 25 (24.3) | 30 (29.1) | 29 (28.2) |
| Psychological domain | ||||
| Anxiety | 32 (31.1) | 20 (19.4) | 36 (35.0) | 15 (14.6) |
| Feeling down or depressed | 27 ( 26.2) | 20 (19.4) | 36 (35.0) | 20 (19.4) |
| Feelings of sadness | 27 (26.2) | 20 (19.4) | 36 (35.0) | 20 (19.4) |
| Fears about the cancer spreading | 22 (21.4) | 21 (20.4) | 35 (34.0) | 25 (25.3) |
| Worry that the results of treatment are beyond your control | 32 (31.1) | 22 (21.4) | 34 (33.0) | 15 (14.6) |
| Uncertainty about the future | 34 (33.0) | 27 (26.2) | 26 (25.2) | 16 (15.5) |
| Learning to feel in control of your situation | 34 (33.0) | 29 (28.2) | 28 (27.2) | 12 (11.7) |
| Keeping a positive outlook | 30 (29.1) | 34 (33.0) | 30 (29.1) | 9 (8.7) |
| Feelings about death and dying | 27 (26.2) | 18 (17.5) | 43 (41.7) | 15 (14.6) |
| Concerns about the worries of those close to you | 24 (23.3) | 20 (19.4) | 39 (37.9) | 20 (19.4) |
| Sexual domain | ||||
| Changes in sexual feelings | 27 (26.2) | 18 (17.5) | 43 (41.7) | 15 (14.6) |
| Changes in sexual relationships | 90 (87.4) | 12 (11.7) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.0) |
| Being given information about sexual relationships | 71 (68.9) | 30 (29.1) | 2 (1.9) | 0 (0) |
| Patient care domain | ||||
| More choice about which cancer specialist you see | 56 (54.4) | 39 (37.9) | 6 (5.8) | 2 (1.9) |
| More choice about which hospital you attend | 57 (55.3) | 44 (42.7) | 2 (1.9) | 0 (0) |
| Reassurance by medical staff that the way you feel is normal | 39 (37.9) | 52 (50.5) | 10 (9.7) | 2 (1.9) |
| Hospital staff attending promptly to your physical needs | 32 (31.1) | 49 (47.6) | 21 (20.4) | 1 (1.0) |
| Hospital staff acknowledging and showing sensitivity to your feelings and emotional needs | 36 (35.0) | 48 (46.6) | 17 (16.5) | 2 (1.9) |
| Health system and information | ||||
| Being given written information about the important aspects of your care | 45 (43.7) | 49 (47.6) | 8 (7.8) | 1 (1.0) |
| Being given information about aspects of managing your illness and side effects at home | 46 (44.7) | 43 (41.7) | 11 (10.7) | 3 (2.9) |
| Being given explanations of those tests for which you would like explanations | 46 (44.7) | 52 (50.5) | 3 (2.9) | 2 (1.9) |
| Being adequately informed about the benefits and side effects of treatments before your choose to have them | 44 (42.7) | 53 (51.5) | 5 (4.9) | 1 (1.0) |
| Being informed about your test results as soon as possible | 44 (42.7) | 44 (42.7) | 12 (11.7) | 3 (2.9) |
| Being informed about cancer which is under control or diminishing | 44 (42.7) | 46 (44.7) | 10 (9.7) | 3 (2.9) |
| Being informed about things you can do to help yourself to get well | 43 (41.7) | 42 (40.8) | 14 (13.6) | 4 (3.9) |
| Having access to professional counseling if you, family or friends need it | 55 (53.4) | 37 (35.9) | 9 (8.7) | 2 (1.9) |
| Being treated like a person not just another case | 52 (50.5) | 43 (41.7) | 7 (6.8) | 1 (1.0) |
| Being treated in a hospital or clinic that is as physically pleasant as possible | 51 (49.5) | 46 (44.7) | 5 (4.9) | 1 (1.0) |
| Having one member of hospital staff with whom you can talk to about all aspects of your condition, treatment and follow-up | 50 (48.5) | 38 (36.9) | 11 (10.7) | 4 (3.9) |
SCNS-SF34: 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form
Health-related quality of life
As shown in Table 3, the mean global health score was 57.2 (standard deviation [SD] = 21.4). Among five functional domains of EORTC QLQ-C30, cognitive functioning had the highest mean score of 86.4 (SD = 20.3), and while role functioning had the lowest mean score of 63.6 (SD = 24.7). For the symptom scales, the top highest mean score items were insomnia (34.6 ± 28.7), financial difficulty (34.0 ± 28.0), and fatigue (32.8 ± 23.6). In the EORTC QLQ-L13 scale, the highest mean scores were noted for the items coughing (43.0 ± 25.0) and dyspnea (25.6 ± 19.6).
Table 3.
Mean scores of health-related quality of life (n=103)
| Measures | Mean±SD |
|---|---|
| EORTC QLQ C30 | |
| Global health | 57.2±21.4 |
| Functional scale | |
| Physical functioning | 73.9±19.7 |
| Role functioning | 63.6±24.7 |
| Emotional functioning | 75.1±22.9 |
| Cognitive functioning | 86.4±20.3 |
| Social functioning | 65.2±24.2 |
| Symptom scale/item | |
| Fatigue | 32.8±23.6 |
| Nausea/vomiting | 14.1±21.5 |
| Pain | 21.4±22.2 |
| Dyspnea | 27.5±26.2 |
| Insomnia | 34.6±28.7 |
| Appetite loss | 27.2±26.7 |
| Constipation | 19.1±24.2 |
| Diarrhea | 5.5±15.6 |
| Financial difficulty | 34.0±28.0 |
| EORTC QLQ LC13 | |
| Dyspnea | 25.6±19.6 |
| Coughing | 43.0±25.0 |
| Hemoptysis | 1.9±7.9 |
| Sore mouth | 9.1±18.2 |
| Dysphagia | 9.4±17.1 |
| Peripheral neuropathy | 17.5±22.3 |
| Alopecia | 15.2±24.6 |
| Pain in chest | 11.7±16.6 |
| Pain in arm or shoulder | 13.9±21.7 |
| Pain in other parts of body | 10.7±21.5 |
EORTC QLQ C30: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core-30-item quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ LC13: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer module, SD: Standard deviation
Predictors of health-related quality of life
Univariate and multivariate analysis results are shown in Table 4. Variables showing P < 0.25 in univariate analyses, including marital status (being married), ethnicity (Chinese), cancer stage (Stage IV), receipt of surgery (yes), number of comorbidities, ECOG-PS score (≥2), IADL scores, and supportive care needs (excluding sexual domain) were tested as candidate predictors of HRQOL in multivariate analysis.
Table 4.
Associations between health-related quality of life, functional status, and unmet supportive care needs (n=103)
| Variables | Global health of EORTC QLQ 30 | Functional domains of EORTC QLQ C30 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical | Role | |||||||||||
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||||
| Mean (SD)/correlation | P | β (SE) | P | Mean (SD)/correlation | P | β (SE) | P | Mean (SD)/correlation | P | β (SE) | P | |
| Sociodemographic variables | ||||||||||||
| Age | −0.14 | NS | NE | NE | −0.11 | NS | NE | NE | −0.06 | NS | NE | NE |
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| Male (ref) | 55.70 (19.90) | 73.9 (20.0) | 61.6 (24.6) | |||||||||
| Female | 56.31 (24.01) | 0.752 | NE | NE | 73.7 (19.4) | 0.952 | NE | NE | 67.1 (24.7) | 0.280 | NE | NE |
| Marital status | ||||||||||||
| Single/widowed/divorced/separated (ref) | 64.35 (23.54) | 69.6 (20.9) | 54.6 (26.7) | |||||||||
| Married | 55.69 (20.70) | 0.882 | NE | NE | 74.8 (19.5) | 0.320 | NE | NE | 65.5 (24.0) | 0.090 | 13.36 (5.41) | <0.01 |
| Ethnicity | ||||||||||||
| Non-Chinese (Malay/Indian/others) (ref) | 52.78 (19.07) | 74.3 (19.8) | 65.3 (23.7) | |||||||||
| Chinese | 57.96 (21.73) | 0.420 | NE | NE | 71.1 (19.8) | 0.563 | NE | NE | 53.3 (28.3) | 0.081 | NS | NS |
| Clinical variables | ||||||||||||
| Cancer stage | ||||||||||||
| Stage III (ref) | 70.51 (15.45) | 77.4 (18.2) | 60.3 (28.5) | |||||||||
| Stage IV | 55.28 (21.47) | <0.05 | −15.24 (6.19) | <0.05 | 73.3 (20.0) | 0.486 | NE | NE | 64.1 (24.2) | 0.604 | NE | NE |
| Time since diagnosis | ||||||||||||
| <1 year (ref) | 54.47 (23.07) | 75.1 (18.9) | 65.2 (24.9) | |||||||||
| ≥1 year | 58.57 (17.98) | 0.637 | NE | NE | 71.5 (21.3) | 0.374 | NE | NE | 60.7 (24.3) | 0.377 | NE | NE |
| Surgery | ||||||||||||
| No (ref) | 56.96 (21.85) | 72.8 (19.8) | 63.3 (24.4) | |||||||||
| Yes | 58.33 (19.39) | 0.806 | NE | NE | 78.5 (19.1) | 0.271 | NE | NE | 64.8 (26.8) | 0.818 | NE | NE |
| Systematic treatment | ||||||||||||
| Chemotherapy only (ref) | 56.06 (22.58) | 73.1 (18.3) | 62.4 (25.0) | |||||||||
| Chemotherapy and radiotherapy | 59.23 (19.12) | 0.472 | NE | NE | 75.1 (22.3) | 0.623 | NE | NE | 65.8 (24.2) | 0.506 | NE | NE |
| Number of comorbidities | −0.01 | NS | NE | NE | −0.260 | <0.01 | NS | NS | −0.176 | NS | NE | NE |
| Functional status | ||||||||||||
| ECOG PS | ||||||||||||
| 0-1 (ref) | 55.89 (21.58) | 81.8 (15.8) | 71.3 (23.5) | |||||||||
| ≥1 | 58.89 (21.20) | 0.483 | NE | NE | 63.6 (19.7) | <0.001 | NS | NS | 53.7 (22.7) | <0.001 | NS | NS |
| IADL scores | −0.08 | NS | NE | NE | 0.581 | <0.01 | 3.84 (0.96) | <0.001 | 0.448 | <0.01 | 4.55 (1.33) | <0.01 |
| SCNS SF-34 | ||||||||||||
| Physical and daily living | −0.04 | NS | NE | NE | −0.571 | <0.01 | −0.21 (0.10) | <0.05 | −0.454 | <0.01 | −0.35 (0.11) | <0.01 |
| Psychological | −0.07 | NS | NE | NE | −0.581 | <0.01 | −0.23 (0.10) | <0.05 | −0.400 | <0.01 | NS | NS |
| Sexual | −0.08 | NS | NE | NE | −0.054 | NS | NE | NE | −0.096 | NS | NE | NE |
| Patient care | −0.05 | NS | NE | NE | −0.190 | NS | NE | NE | −0.096 | NS | NE | NE |
| Health system and information | −0.09 | NS | NE | NE | −0.184 | NS | NE | NE | −0.028 | NS | NE | NE |
| R2 | 0.06 | 0.470 | 0.320 | |||||||||
| Sociodemographic variables | ||||||||||||
| Age | −0.06 | NS | NE | NE | −0.04 | NS | NE | NE | −0.07 | NS | NE | NE |
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| Male (ref) | 75.1 (23.6) | 87.1 (20.1) | 65.4 (24.5) | |||||||||
| Female | 75.0 (22.0) | 0.979 | NE | NE | 85.1 (20.3) | 0.636 | NE | NE | 64.9 (23.8) | 0.914 | NE | NE |
| Marital status | ||||||||||||
| Single/widowed/divorced/separated (ref) | 74.5 (21.9) | 83.3 (18.1) | 63.9 (20.8) | |||||||||
| Married | 75.2 (23.3) | 0.912 | NE | NE | 87.1 (20.8) | 0.482 | NE | NE | 65.5 (24.9) | 0.800 | NE | NE |
| Ethnicity | ||||||||||||
| Non-Chinese (Malay/Indian/others) (ref) | 75.1 (22.3) | 86.7 (19.8) | 65.7 (23.1) | |||||||||
| Chinese | 75.0 (26.9) | 0.988 | NE | NE | 84.4 (24.0) | 0.688 | NE | NE | 62.2 (30.5) | 0.607 | NE | NE |
| Clinical variables | ||||||||||||
| Cancer stage | ||||||||||||
| Stage III (ref) | 78.9 (22.0) | 89.7 (20.0) | 71.8 (24.0) | |||||||||
| Stage IV | 74.5 (23.1) | 0.529 | NE | NE | 85.9 (20.4) | 0.529 | NE | NE | 64.3 (24.2) | 0.295 | NE | NE |
| Time since diagnosis | ||||||||||||
| <1 year (ref) | 75.8 (22.4) | 86.8 (20.2) | 66.9 (23.3) | |||||||||
| ≥1 year | 73.8 (24.2) | 0.690 | NE | NE | 85.7 (20.8) | 0.782 | NE | NE | 62.0 (25.7) | 0.331 | NE | NE |
| Surgery | ||||||||||||
| No (ref) | 72.6 (23.5) | 84.9 (20.7) | 63.1 (24.3) | |||||||||
| Yes | 86.6 (16.2) | 0.018 | −10.38 (4.13) | <0.05 | 93.5 (17.3) | 0.102 | NS | NS | 75.0 (21.6) | 0.058 | NS | NS |
| Systematic treatment | ||||||||||||
| Chemotherapy only (ref) | 75.3 (22.6) | 84.8 (21.2) | 66.2 (23.9) | |||||||||
| Chemotherapy and radiotherapy | 74.8 (23.9) | 0.920 | NE | NE | 89.2 (18.5) | 0.300 | NE | NE | 63.5 (24.8) | 0.596 | NE | NE |
| Number of comorbidities | −0.326 | <0.01 | −4.93 (2.29) | <0.05 | −0.113 | NS | NE | NE | −0.200 | <0.05 | NS | NS |
| Functional status | ||||||||||||
| ECOG PS | ||||||||||||
| 0-1 (ref) | 83.5 (19.0) | 92.8 (13.3) | 72.1 (21.3) | |||||||||
| ≥2 | 64.3 (23.2) | <0.001 | NS | NS | 78.2 (24.6) | <0.001 | NS | NS | 56.3 (25.0) | <0.001 | NS | NS |
| IADL | 0.469 | <0.01 | NS | NS | 0.452 | <0.01 | 2.65 (1.06) | <0.05 | 0.477 | x003C;0.01 | 3.93 (1.29) | <0.01 |
| Unmet supportive care needs | ||||||||||||
| Physical and daily living | −0.546 | <0.01 | NS | NS | −0.434 | <0.01 | NS | NS | −0.485 | <0.01 | NS | NS |
| Psychological | −0.700 | <0.01 | −0.71 (0.08) | <0.001 | −0.527 | <0.01 | −0.36 (0.10) | <0.001 | −0.516 | <0.01 | −0.43 (0.11) | <0.001 |
| Sexual | 0.078 | NS | NE | NE | −0.138 | NS | NE | NE | −0.002 | NS | NE | NE |
| Patient care | −0.202 | <0.01 | NS | NS | −0.194 | <0.05 | NS | NS | −0.091 | NS | NE | NE |
| Health system and information | −0.167 | NS | NE | NE | −0.323 | <0.01 | −0.29 (0.11) | <0.001 | −0.178 | NS | NE | NE |
| R2 | 0.538 | 0.369 | 0.329 | |||||||||
β: Regression coefficient; SE: Standard error of the regression coefficient; NE: Not entered into the multivariate regression model; NS: Not significant in the analysis; IADL: Lawton and Brody's index Instrumental Activity of Daily Living; SCNS-SF34: 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form; EORTC QLQ C30: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core-30-item quality of life questionnaire, SD: Standard deviation
Multivariate analyses revealed that global health was significantly predicted by cancer stage only. Regarding physical functioning, IADL score (β = 3.84, P < 0.001) was significantly associated with better physical functioning, whereas higher levels of physical (β = –0.21, P < 0.05) and psychological needs (β = –0.23, P < 0.05) predicted poorer physical functioning. Role functioning was found to be significantly and positively associated with IADL score (β = 4.55, P < 0.01) and being married (β = 13.36, P < 0.01), but was negatively related to greater physical needs (β = –0.35, P < 0.01). For emotional functioning, participants with receipt of surgery (β = –10.38, P < 0.05), comorbidities (β = –4.93, P < 0.05), and psychological needs (β = –0.71, P < 0.001) tended to report poorer emotional functioning. Concerning cognitive and social functioning, IADL score and psychological needs were found as significant factors (P < 0.05–0.001). In addition, health system and information needs were significantly and negatively associated with cognitive functioning (β = –0.29, P < 0.001).
Discussion
This is one of the few studies to investigate the relationships between functional status, supportive care needs, and HRQOL among patients with advanced lung cancer. The study showed that 43.7% of the patients had an ECOG-PS score s2 and 70.9% was dependent in at least one IADL. This is partly in line with a study showing that 69.9% of lung cancer patients was IADL-dependent and 30.2% had poor functional status as measured by ECOG-PS scale.[32] When compared with those (33.8% for ECOG-PS and 62.9% for IADL, respectively) reported in another study of advanced lung cancer patients, the results of this study are higher.[7] Inconsistent findings across studies might be due to different patient profiles as our patients are younger (65.1 vs. 77 vs. 76 years old) and exclusively diagnosed at an advanced stage (100% vs. 77.2% vs. 86.6%). We also found that the most frequently affected IADLs were shopping and food preparation; both of which are household tasks requiring the physical and cognitive function to perform, suggesting the patients' needs for assisted services in household management to maintain an independent living in the community.
Almost all of the patients in this study had at least one unmet needs and the mean number of unmet needs was 9. This is higher than a study of lung cancer patients reporting that 78% of them had at least one unmet needs; although, the average number of unmet needs is similar across two studies (9 vs. 8).[33] Furthermore, participants reported the greatest unmet needs in the physical and daily living domain and psychological domain. This is a consistent finding in the literature, highlighting a priority for support in these two domains when a diagnosis of lung cancer is made.[17,33,34]
Consistent with the literature, the role functioning had the lowest mean score among the five domains of HRQOL.[8,35,36] The mean scores of HRQOL were comparable or better when compared with the reference values by the EORTC organization or published data on the same population, with one exception (social functioning).[8,35,36] Poor social functioning of patients identified from this study is not surprising as this reflects patients' limitations in doing social and work-related activities associated with advanced disease and complex treatments.
This study showed the higher scores for symptoms, including fatigue, insomnia, cough, and dyspnea, all of which are common symptoms experienced by lung cancer patients.[8,10] Noteworthy, the mean score of the item financial difficulties was much higher than published data in Western countries.[8,35] Although similar findings have been previously reported in China and India,[36,37] where social welfare systems are not well-established, this is not expected in a developed country alike to Singapore. A previous study in Singapore reported that old cancer patients, particularly those on target therapies or complementary and alternative medicine reported medical costs higher than expected.[38] As data on financial impact of cancer in Singapore are limited, more study is needed.
In line with the literature, cancer stage was found as a significant factor of global health.[10,37] We found that IADL score significantly predicted HRQOL in four of five domains except for emotional functioning, but ECOG-PS was not a significant factor of HRQOL in any domain. Evidence suggests that deficits in IADLs can occur earlier in the trajectory of the disease, whereas disability in daily and physical activities of living is often present until the disease is progressed.[15] Thus, decline in IADLs may be early signs of functional impairment, consequently deteriorating HRQOL.
Among the five needs domains, only physical and daily living, psychological, and health system and information needs were significantly associated with poorer HRQOL in at least one domain. These results lend further support to the accumulating evidence that addressing supportive care needs could maximize the HRQOL of lung cancer patients.[14] Noteworthy, patients with greater psychological needs had poorer HRQOL in most domains. Thus, when planning for palliative or supportive care for this population, psychological needs should be prioritized.
Limitations
This study has a few limitations. First, the generalizability of the study findings might be limited as the study was conducted on a conveniently selected small sample from a cancer center in Singapore. Second, the study was a cross-sectional survey with data collected at one time point, thus a dynamic understanding of inter-relationships among variables is impossible. Finally, although the Lawton and Brody's IADL index is the most widely used scale for measuring functional status in cancer patients,[14] this might be subjected to bias due to its potential gender differences in IADLs. For example, laundry and food preparation are considered as female tasks, particularly in Asian culture.
Implications for nursing practice
To improve HRQOL of advanced lung cancer patients, supportive care needs are recommended to be integrated as part of routine assessments by health care providers for the early identification of a subgroup of patients for timely intervention. Ongoing assessment of psychological needs is particularly considered as an effective strategy to ensure the adequate care that is delivered to advanced lung cancer patients. Furthermore, health-care providers should be aware of the importance of poor functional status in reducing HRQOL of patients, Great efforts should be directed to meet the patients' needs for services or help in household management. Future interventions incorporating functional assistance and psychological support may increase HRQOL in this population. There is a need for research on the type and level of assisted services or rehabilitation programs that can improve functional status for lung cancer patients.
Conclusion
This study found that poor functional status and supportive care needs, particularly in physical and psychological domains are common in advanced lung cancer patients. Higher level of psychological needs and functional status are associated with HRQOL in most domains. These findings should be useful for health-care providers in developing appropriate supportive or palliative care interventions for patients with advanced lung cancer.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ettinger DS, Aisner DL, Wood DE, Akerley W, Bauman J, Chang JY, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: Non-small cell lung cancer, version 5.2018. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16:807–21. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Navaneelan T, Janz T. Cancer in Canada: Focus On lung, Colorectal, Breast and Prostate Statistics Canada. 2011 [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ozkaya S, Findik S, Dirican A, Atici AG. Long-term survival rates of patients with stage IIIB and IV non-small cell lung cancer treated with cisplatin plus vinorelbine or gemcitabine. Exp Ther Med. 2012;4:1035–8. doi: 10.3892/etm.2012.714. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Iyer S, Roughley A, Rider A, Taylor-Stokes G. The symptom burden of non-small cell lung cancer in the USA: A real-world cross-sectional study. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22:181–7. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1959-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Mendoza TR, Kehl KL, Bamidele O, Williams LA, Shi Q, Cleeland CS, et al. Assessment of baseline symptom burden in treatment-naïve patients with lung cancer: An observational study. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27:3439–47. doi: 10.1007/s00520-018-4632-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Decoster L, Kenis C, Schallier D, Vansteenkiste J, Nackaerts K, Vanacker L, et al. Geriatric assessment and functional decline in older patients with lung cancer. Lung. 2017;195:619–26. doi: 10.1007/s00408-017-0025-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Larsson M, Ljung L, Johansson BB. Health-related quality of life in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Correlates and comparisons to normative data. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2012;21:642–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2012.01346.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lee LJ, Chung CW, Chang YY, Lee YC, Yang CH, Liou SH, et al. Comparison of the quality of life between patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and healthy controls. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:415–23. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9761-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Poghosyan H, Sheldon LK, Leveille SG, Cooley ME. Health-related quality of life after surgical treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review. Lung Cancer. 2013;81:11–26. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Poghosyan H, Stock S, Kennedy Sheldon L, Cromwell J, Cooley ME, Nerenz DR. Racial disparities in health-related quality of life after lung cancer surgery: Findings from the cancer care outcomes research and surveillance consortium. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10:1404–12. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Molassiotis A, Uyterlinde W, Hollen PJ, Sarna L, Palmer P, Krishnasamy M. Supportive care in lung cancer: Milestones over the past 40 years. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10:10–8. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Garman KS, Cohen HJ. Functional status and the elderly cancer patient. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2002;43:191–208. doi: 10.1016/s1040-8428(02)00062-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Neo J, Fettes L, Gao W, Higginson IJ, Maddocks M. Disability in activities of daily living among adults with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev. 2017;61:94–106. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.10.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Granger CL, McDonald CF, Irving L, Clark RA, Gough K, Murnane A, et al. Low physical activity levels and functional decline in individuals with lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2014;83:292–9. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.11.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Boyes A, Girgis A, Lecathelinais C. Brief assessment of adult cancer patients' perceived needs: Development and validation of the 34-item supportive care needs survey (SCNS-SF34) J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15:602–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01057.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Li J, Girgis A. Supportive care needs: Are patients with lung cancer a neglected population? Psychooncology. 2006;15:509–16. doi: 10.1002/pon.983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Maguire R, Papadopoulou C, Kotronoulas G, Simpson MF, McPhelim J, Irvine L. A systematic review of supportive care needs of people living with lung cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17:449–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2012.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Butow PN, Phillips F, Schweder J, White K, Underhill C, Goldstein D. Psychosocial well-being and supportive care needs of cancer patients living in urban and rural/regional areas: A systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20:1–22. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1270-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155–9. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Couderc AL, Boulahssass R, Nouguerède E, Gobin N, Guérin O, Villani P, et al. Functional status in a geriatric oncology setting: A review. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.02.004. pii: S1879-4068(18)30280-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Buccheri G, Ferrigno D, Tamburini M. Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: A prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer. 1996;32A:1135–41. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(95)00664-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Roila F, Lupattelli M, Sassi M, Basurto C, Bracarda S, Picciafuoco M, et al. Intra and interobserver variability in cancer patients' performance status assessed according to Karnofsky and ECOG scales. Ann Oncol. 1991;2:437–9. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a057981. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9:179–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Loewenstein DA, Mogosky BJ. The functional assessment of the older adult patient. In: Lichtenberg P, editor. Handbook of Assessment in Clinical Gerontology. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1999. pp. 529–54. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Chou YC, Schalock RL, Tzou PY, Lin LC, Chang AL, Lee WP, et al. Quality of life of adults with intellectual disabilities who live with families in Taiwan. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2007;51:875–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2007.00958.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.McElduff P, Boyes A, Zucca A, Girgis A. Supportive Care Needs Survey: A Guide to Administration, Scoring and Analysis Newcastle: Centre for Health Research & Psycho-Oncology. 2004 [Google Scholar]
- 28.Au A, Lam WW, Kwong A, Suen D, Tsang J, Yeo W, et al. Validation of the Chinese version of the short-form supportive care needs survey questionnaire (SCNS-SF34-C) Psychooncology. 2011;20:1292–300. doi: 10.1002/pon.1851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in International Clinical Trials in Oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–76. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Bergman B, Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Kaasa S, Sullivan M. The EORTC QLQ-LC13: A modular supplement to the EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for use in lung cancer clinical trials. EORTC study group on quality of life. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A:635–42. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(94)90535-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Chie WC, Yang CH, Hsu C, Yang PC. Quality of life of lung cancer patients: Validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:257–62. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000015295.74812.06. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Gironés R, Torregrosa D, Maestu I, Gómez-Codina J, Tenias JM, Costa RR. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) of elderly lung cancer patients: A single-center experience. J Geriatr Oncol. 2012;3:98–103. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Giuliani ME, Milne RA, Puts M, Sampson LR, Kwan JY, Le LW, et al. The prevalence and nature of supportive care needs in lung cancer patients. Curr Oncol. 2016;23:258–65. doi: 10.3747/co.23.3012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Sanders SL, Bantum EO, Owen JE, Thornton AA, Stanton AL. Supportive care needs in patients with lung cancer. Psychooncology. 2010;19:480–9. doi: 10.1002/pon.1577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bottomley A, de Graeff A, Groenvold M, et al. EORTC QLQ-C30 Reference Values. 2008. [Last updated on 2019 Jul 03]. Available from: http://groupseortcbe/qol/sites/default/files/img/newsletter/reference_values_manual2008pdf .
- 36.Aggarwal J, Chakraborty S, Ghosh Laskar S, Patil VM, Prabhash K, Bhattacharya A, et al. Reference data for standardized quality of life questionnaires in Indian patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: Results from a prospective study. Cureus. 2017;9:e1149. doi: 10.7759/cureus.1149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Li J, Xiao X, Wei Y, Li Y, Zhou M, Yu S, et al. Investigation of quality of life in patients with lung cancer by the EORTC QLQ-C30 (V3.0) Chinese version. Oncology. 2015;1:125–9. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Chan A, Chiang YY, Low XH, Yap KY, Ng R. Affordability of cancer treatment for aging cancer patients in Singapore: An analysis of health, lifestyle, and financial burden. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:3509–17. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1930-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]