Preoperative Quality-of-Life and Recovery Following Esophagectomy: Identifying Modifiable Factors Associated with Improvement
Amin, S.; Kweon, J.; Cheruvathur, J.; Dehghani, M.; Najmeh, S.; Mueller, C.; Cools-Lartigue, J.; Ferri, L.; Crump, T.
Show abstract
BACKGROUNDEsophagectomy remains the primary curative treatment for esophageal cancer, but it often leads to substantial declines in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). While prior studies have identified various demographic and clinical factors associated with postoperative HRQoL, most are non-modifiable and offer limited opportunities for intervention. This study aimed to examine whether modifiable preoperative factors, particularly baseline HRQoL, are associated with clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL one year after esophagectomy. METHODSThis retrospective cohort study used data from the McGill Esophageal and Gastric Database. Patients were included if they underwent curative esophagectomy for esophageal cancer and completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal (FACT-E) both before surgery and at one year postoperatively. HRQoL improvement was defined as a [≥] 5-point increase in total FACT-E score. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between preoperative factors and HRQoL improvement, with additional sensitivity analyses across various improvement thresholds. RESULTSOf 108 eligible patients, 42% experienced clinically meaningful HRQoL improvement one year after surgery. Lower preoperative FACT-E scores were significantly associated with greater odds of improvement. No other modifiable factors, including BMI, smoking, or alcohol use, were significantly associated with improvement. Sensitivity analyses confirmed consistent findings across alternative HRQoL thresholds. Among demographic variables, female sex was associated with lower odds of improvement. CONCLUSIONPatients with greater preoperative symptom burden were more likely to experience meaningful improvements in HRQoL after esophagectomy. These findings support the value of routine preoperative HRQoL assessment and suggest that baseline HRQoL could be used to identify patients who may benefit from targeted prehabilitation or psychosocial support. As precision medicine advances, incorporating patient-reported outcomes into preoperative risk stratification could enhance personalized recovery planning and improve survivorship care.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Study Protocol: LIAM Mc Trial (Linking In with Advice and supports for Men impacted by Metastatic cancer) 91%
- Survival benefit of adjuvant therapy following neoadjuvant therapy in patients with resected esophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study 91%
- Do people with disabilities experience disparities in cancer care? A systematic review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Landscape of Clinical Trials in Cancer Cachexia: Assessment of Trends From 1995-2024 92%
- Molecular subtyping improves prognostication of Stage 2 colorectal cancer 91%
- Assessing awareness of blood cancer symptoms and barriers to symptomatic presentation: Measure development and results from a population survey in the UK 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Disparities in outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer associated with emergency department visits 92%
- Pan-cancer analyses of the associations between 109 pre-existing conditions and cancer treatment patterns across 19 adult cancers 92%
- Impact of a natural disaster on access to care and biopsychosocial outcomes among Hispanic/Latino cancer survivors 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Molecular Heterogeneity in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer: Pathway-Specific Insights in High-Risk Populations 92%
- Ethnicity-Specific Molecular Alterations in MAPK and JAK/STAT Pathways in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer 91%
- Exploring Patient Centered Perspectives on Suicidal Ideation: A Mixed Methods Investigation in Gastrointestinal Cancer Care 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.