Health-related quality of life in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor: data from a real-world cohort compared with a normative population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Treatment and follow-up (FU) care procedures for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) impose great challenges on patients and could potentially affect their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The aims of our study were to (i) assess HRQoL among patients with GIST in different treatment phases and settings and to compare this with the HRQoL of an age- and sex-matched normative population, (ii) determine the occurrence of disease- and treatment-specific symptoms, and (iii) investigate which sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and symptoms were associated with HRQoL. Methods: A total of 328 Dutch patients with GIST (response rate 63%) completed a one-time survey including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), which was used to assess HRQoL. HRQoL scores are presented as means and standard deviations (mean ± SD), and were compared with those of an age- and sex-matched normative population. Results: The global QoL of patients receiving imatinib in a curative setting (mean ± SD 81.2 ± 12.6) was comparable with the normative population (mean ± SD 77.1 ± 18.2), while patients who had completed their curative treatment [including those discharged from FU (mean ± SD 85.2 ± 14.0) and still in FU (mean ± SD 82.7 ± 15.0)] had a significant better global QoL with comparable functioning scores. Patients on tyrosine kinase inhibitors in a palliative setting scored significantly lower on global QoL (mean ± SD 71.6 ± 19.4) and all functioning scales compared with the normative population. HRQoL was most affected by fatigue, in addition to pain, dyspnea, and financial difficulties, which all occurred more often in patients treated in a palliative setting compared with patients in the curative setting. Conclusion: With these results, medical oncologists can reassure patients with GIST treated in an adjuvant setting that their HRQoL will not be permanently affected by imatinib and provide appropriate support to patients in the palliative setting.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".