↓ Skip to main content

Clinical decision-making and health-related quality of life during first-line and maintenance therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): findings from a real-world setting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical decision-making and health-related quality of life during first-line and maintenance therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): findings from a real-world setting
Published in
BMC Cancer, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3543-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monika Sztankay, Johannes Maria Giesinger, August Zabernigg, Elisabeth Krempler, Georg Pall, Wolfgang Hilbe, Otto Burghuber, Maximilian Hochmair, Gerhard Rumpold, Stephan Doering, Bernhard Holzner

Abstract

Maintenance therapy (MT) with pemetrexed has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival of patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), without impairing patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) substantially. Comprehensive data on HRQOL under real-life conditions are necessary to enable informed decision-making. This study aims to (1) assess HRQOL during first-line chemotherapy and subsequent MT and (2) record patients' and physicians' reasons leading to clinical decisions on MT. Patients treated for NSCLC at three Austrian medical centres were included. HRQOL was assessed at every chemotherapy cycle using the EORTC QLQ-C30/+LC13 questionnaire. Semi-structured interviews were conducted before MT initiation and at the time of discontinuation to evaluate patients' and physicians' reasons for treatment decisions. Longitudinal QOL analysis was based on linear mixed models. Sixty-one (73%) out of 84 patients were considered for MT. Thirty-six patients (43%) received MT and 29 (35%) discontinued therapy. Decisions on MT initiation (in 20 cases by the physician vs 4 by the patient) and discontinuation (19 vs 10) were mainly voiced by the physician. Treatment toxicity of first-line chemotherapy was the main reason for rejection of MT in patients with stable disease and was more often indicated by patients than clinicians. HRQOL data were collected from 83 patients at 422 assessment time points and indicated significantly lower symptom severity during MT compared with first-line therapy for nausea and vomiting (p = 0.006), sleep disturbances (p < 0.001), appetite loss (p = 0.043), constipation (p = 0.017) and chest pain (p = 0.022), and a deterioration in emotional functioning (p = 0.023) and cognitive functioning (p = 0.044) during MT. Our results indicate that HRQOL and symptom burden improve between first-line treatment to MT in some respects, although some late toxicity persists. Discrepancies between patients' and physicians' perception of reasons for rejecting MT were evident. Thus, the integration of patient-reported outcomes, such as HRQOL, is required to enable shared decision-making and personalised healthcare based on mutual understanding of treatment objectives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Other 7 8%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 34 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 14%
Psychology 7 8%
Unspecified 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 38 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2019.
All research outputs
#5,451,109
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,326
of 8,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,917
of 317,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#23
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,356 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.