Differences in Type Composition of Symptom Clusters as Predictors of Quality of Life in Patients with Meningioma and Glioma

Sung Reul Kim, Yong Soon Shin, Jeong Hoon Kim, Minseon Choi, Sung Hee Yoo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective Objectives of this study were to identify and compare symptom clusters in patients with meningioma and glioma and to assess and compare predictors of quality of life (QoL) in both patient groups. Methods Data were collected using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor Module, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, and Karnofsky Performance Sale. Of 158 participating patients, 77 had meningioma, and 81 had glioma. Results In patients with meningioma, 4 symptom clusters were identified with 55.4% total variance: 1) physical, 2) cognitive, 3) elimination-appearance, and 4) motor-sensory symptoms. In patients with glioma, 4 clusters with 67.3% total variance were identified: 1) treatment-related, 2) cognitive, 3) appearance-elimination, and 4) gastrointestinal symptoms. Predictors of QoL in patients with meningioma were Karnofsky Performance Scale score (β = 0.41, P < 0.001), cognitive symptom cluster (β = −0.36, P < 0.001), and physical symptom cluster (β = −0.32, P = 0.001), whereas treatment-related symptom cluster (β = −0.55, P < 0.001) was identified as a predictor of QoL in patients with glioma. Conclusions In this study, the type and composition of symptom clusters differed between patients with meningioma and glioma. Our data also provide evidence that even when participants reported mild symptoms, these clusters could be used to predict QoL in patients with meningioma and glioma.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)50-59
Number of pages10
JournalWorld Neurosurgery
Volume98
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Feb 1
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Meningioma
Glioma
Quality of Life
Karnofsky Performance Status
Neurobehavioral Manifestations
Neoplasms
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Glioma
  • Meningioma
  • Quality of life
  • Symptom cluster

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Differences in Type Composition of Symptom Clusters as Predictors of Quality of Life in Patients with Meningioma and Glioma. / Kim, Sung Reul; Shin, Yong Soon; Kim, Jeong Hoon; Choi, Minseon; Yoo, Sung Hee.

In: World Neurosurgery, Vol. 98, 01.02.2017, p. 50-59.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kim, Sung Reul ; Shin, Yong Soon ; Kim, Jeong Hoon ; Choi, Minseon ; Yoo, Sung Hee. / Differences in Type Composition of Symptom Clusters as Predictors of Quality of Life in Patients with Meningioma and Glioma. In: World Neurosurgery. 2017 ; Vol. 98. pp. 50-59.
@article{be39a0f44d474d6b83fed01a60d04ab3,
title = "Differences in Type Composition of Symptom Clusters as Predictors of Quality of Life in Patients with Meningioma and Glioma",
abstract = "Objective Objectives of this study were to identify and compare symptom clusters in patients with meningioma and glioma and to assess and compare predictors of quality of life (QoL) in both patient groups. Methods Data were collected using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor Module, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, and Karnofsky Performance Sale. Of 158 participating patients, 77 had meningioma, and 81 had glioma. Results In patients with meningioma, 4 symptom clusters were identified with 55.4{\%} total variance: 1) physical, 2) cognitive, 3) elimination-appearance, and 4) motor-sensory symptoms. In patients with glioma, 4 clusters with 67.3{\%} total variance were identified: 1) treatment-related, 2) cognitive, 3) appearance-elimination, and 4) gastrointestinal symptoms. Predictors of QoL in patients with meningioma were Karnofsky Performance Scale score (β = 0.41, P < 0.001), cognitive symptom cluster (β = −0.36, P < 0.001), and physical symptom cluster (β = −0.32, P = 0.001), whereas treatment-related symptom cluster (β = −0.55, P < 0.001) was identified as a predictor of QoL in patients with glioma. Conclusions In this study, the type and composition of symptom clusters differed between patients with meningioma and glioma. Our data also provide evidence that even when participants reported mild symptoms, these clusters could be used to predict QoL in patients with meningioma and glioma.",
keywords = "Glioma, Meningioma, Quality of life, Symptom cluster",
author = "Kim, {Sung Reul} and Shin, {Yong Soon} and Kim, {Jeong Hoon} and Minseon Choi and Yoo, {Sung Hee}",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.085",
language = "English",
volume = "98",
pages = "50--59",
journal = "World Neurosurgery",
issn = "1878-8750",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differences in Type Composition of Symptom Clusters as Predictors of Quality of Life in Patients with Meningioma and Glioma

AU - Kim, Sung Reul

AU - Shin, Yong Soon

AU - Kim, Jeong Hoon

AU - Choi, Minseon

AU - Yoo, Sung Hee

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - Objective Objectives of this study were to identify and compare symptom clusters in patients with meningioma and glioma and to assess and compare predictors of quality of life (QoL) in both patient groups. Methods Data were collected using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor Module, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, and Karnofsky Performance Sale. Of 158 participating patients, 77 had meningioma, and 81 had glioma. Results In patients with meningioma, 4 symptom clusters were identified with 55.4% total variance: 1) physical, 2) cognitive, 3) elimination-appearance, and 4) motor-sensory symptoms. In patients with glioma, 4 clusters with 67.3% total variance were identified: 1) treatment-related, 2) cognitive, 3) appearance-elimination, and 4) gastrointestinal symptoms. Predictors of QoL in patients with meningioma were Karnofsky Performance Scale score (β = 0.41, P < 0.001), cognitive symptom cluster (β = −0.36, P < 0.001), and physical symptom cluster (β = −0.32, P = 0.001), whereas treatment-related symptom cluster (β = −0.55, P < 0.001) was identified as a predictor of QoL in patients with glioma. Conclusions In this study, the type and composition of symptom clusters differed between patients with meningioma and glioma. Our data also provide evidence that even when participants reported mild symptoms, these clusters could be used to predict QoL in patients with meningioma and glioma.

AB - Objective Objectives of this study were to identify and compare symptom clusters in patients with meningioma and glioma and to assess and compare predictors of quality of life (QoL) in both patient groups. Methods Data were collected using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor Module, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, and Karnofsky Performance Sale. Of 158 participating patients, 77 had meningioma, and 81 had glioma. Results In patients with meningioma, 4 symptom clusters were identified with 55.4% total variance: 1) physical, 2) cognitive, 3) elimination-appearance, and 4) motor-sensory symptoms. In patients with glioma, 4 clusters with 67.3% total variance were identified: 1) treatment-related, 2) cognitive, 3) appearance-elimination, and 4) gastrointestinal symptoms. Predictors of QoL in patients with meningioma were Karnofsky Performance Scale score (β = 0.41, P < 0.001), cognitive symptom cluster (β = −0.36, P < 0.001), and physical symptom cluster (β = −0.32, P = 0.001), whereas treatment-related symptom cluster (β = −0.55, P < 0.001) was identified as a predictor of QoL in patients with glioma. Conclusions In this study, the type and composition of symptom clusters differed between patients with meningioma and glioma. Our data also provide evidence that even when participants reported mild symptoms, these clusters could be used to predict QoL in patients with meningioma and glioma.

KW - Glioma

KW - Meningioma

KW - Quality of life

KW - Symptom cluster

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85007048704&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85007048704&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.085

DO - 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.085

M3 - Article

C2 - 27794512

AN - SCOPUS:85007048704

VL - 98

SP - 50

EP - 59

JO - World Neurosurgery

JF - World Neurosurgery

SN - 1878-8750

ER -