Assessment of quality of life, information, and supportive care needs in patients with muscle and non-muscle invasive bladder cancer across the illness trajectory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, little research has examined the quality of life and cancer-associated needs of bladder cancer patients. The objective of the current study was to assess the quality of life (QoL), informational needs, and supportive care needs (SCN) in a large sample of muscle invasive (MIBC) and non-muscle invasive (NMIBC) bladder cancer survivors across the treatment trajectory (newly diagnosed and undergoing treatment, post-treatment follow-up, and treatment for advanced/recurrent disease). METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to a convenience sample of patients registered with Bladder Cancer Canada, the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, or The Ottawa Hospital. Eligibility criteria included being > 18 years of age, English-speaking, and diagnosed with bladder cancer. The questionnaire included an adapted tool to measure informational needs, and validated measures for QoL (Bladder Utility Symptom Scale, BUSS) and SCN (Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs Measure, CaSUN). QoL scores and unmet needs were calculated and compared between disease groups and cancer trajectory groups. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 1126 surveys distributed, 586 were completed (response = 52%). Mean age was 67.3 ± 10.2 years, and 401 participants (68.7%) were male. The mean QoL score (BUSS) for the sample was 78.1 ± 17.9 (median 81.7). Respondents with MIBC had significantly lower QoL scores compared to NMIBC. Further, scores differed across the cancer phase groups with the follow-up surveillance group having significantly higher QoL scores compared to the newly diagnosed and advance/recurrent disease groups. The ten most highly ranked informational needs were from the medical, physical, and practical domains. Eighty-eight percent (95% CI 85-91%) of respondents reported at least one SCN, with a median of 12. Over half of the participants (54%, 95% CI 49-59%) had at least one unmet need and 15% had ≥ 10 unmet needs. Newly diagnosed participants had the highest number of unmet needs. CONCLUSION: We found that the number of unmet supportive care needs and quality of life differed across cancer trajectory and disease groups. Future efforts should focus on the development and evaluation of tailored resources and programs to address the needs of people diagnosed and treated for BC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".