METHODS: A total of 74 patients with histologically proven HGGs treated between January 2008 and December 2014, who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, were enrolled. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazard regression were used.
RESULTS: Significant longer survival time (months) was observed in the FG group compared with the conventional group (12 months versus 8 months, P < 0.020). Even without adjuvant therapy, HGG patients from FG group survived longer than those from the conventional group (8 months versus 3 months, P = 0.006). No significant differences were seen in postoperative Karnofsky performance scale (KPS) between the groups at 6 weeks and 6 months after surgery compared to pre-operative KPS. Cox proportional hazard regression identified four independent predictors of survival: KPS > 80 (P = 0.010), histology (P < 0.001), surgical method (P < 0.001) and adjuvant therapy (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This study showed a significant clinical benefit for HGG patients in terms of overall survival using FG surgery as it did not result in worsening of post-operative function outcome when compared with the conventional surgical method. We advocate a further multicentered, randomised controlled trial to support these findings before FG surgery can be implemented as a standard surgical adjunct in local practice for the benefit of HGG patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 93 patients recruited from University Malaya and Universiti Kebangsaan Medical Centers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia using a self-administered method. Tools included QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29 and Karnofsky Performance Scales (KPS). Statistical analyses included Cronbach's alpha, test-retest correlations, multi-traits scaling and known-groups comparisons. A p value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: The internal consistency coefficients for body image, urinary frequency, blood and mucus and stool frequency scales were acceptable (Cronbach's alpha α ≥ 0.65). However, the coefficients were low for the blood and mucus and stool frequency scales in patients with a stoma bag (α = 0.46). Test-retest correlation coefficients were moderate to high (range: r = 0.51 to 1.00) for most of the scales except anxiety, urinary frequency, buttock pain, hair loss, stoma care related problems, and dyspareunia (r ≤ 0.49). Convergent and discriminant validities were achieved in all scales. Patients with a stoma reported significantly higher symptoms of blood and mucus in the stool, flatulence, faecal incontinence, sore skin, and embarrassment due to the frequent need to change the stoma bag (p < 0.05) compared to patients without stoma. None of the scales distinguished between patients based on the KPS scores. There were no overlaps between scales in the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 (r < 0.40).
CONCLUSIONS: the BM version of the QLQ-CR29 indicated acceptable psychometric properties in most of the scales similar to original validation study. This questionnaire could be used to complement the QLQ-C30 in assessing HRQOL among BM speaking population with colorectal cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Translated versions of the QLQ-C30 were obtained from the EORTC. A cross sectional study design was used to obtain data from patients receiving treatment at two teaching hospitals in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The Malaysian Chinese version of QLQ-C30 was self-administered in 96 patients while the Karnofsky Performance Scales (KPS) was generated by attending surgeons. Statistical analysis included reliability, convergent, discriminate validity, and known-groups comparisons. Statistical significance was based on p value ≤0.05.
RESULTS: The internal consistencies of the Malaysian Chinese version were acceptable [Cronbach's alpha (α≥ 0.70)] in the global health status/overall quality of life (GHS/QOL), functioning scales except cognitive scale (α≤0.32) in all levels of analysis, and social/family functioning scale (α=0.63) in patients without a stoma. All questionnaire items fulfilled the criteria for convergent and discriminant validity except question number 5, with correlation with role (r = 0.62) and social/family (r = 0.41) functioning higher than with physical functioning scales (r = 0.34). The test-retest coefficients in the GHS/QOL, functioning scales and in most of the symptoms scales were moderate to high (r = 0.58 to 1.00). Patients with a stoma reported statistically significant lower physical functioning (p=0.015), social/family functioning (p=0.013), and higher constipation (p=0.010) and financial difficulty (p=0.037) compared to patients without stoma. There was no significant difference between patients with high and low KPS scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Malaysian Chinese version of the QLQ-C30 is a valid and reliable measure of HRQOL in patients with colorectal cancer.