Objective: The assessment of the quality of life in patients with lung cancer has become one of the main goals in current clinical trials. To assess the quality of life of these patients, the most widely used instrument is the 30-item European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) in conjunction with its supplemental 13-item lung cancer-specific module (QLQ-LC13). The objective of this study was to assess the reproducibility of the Brazilian Portuguese version of these questionnaires. Methods: A prospective study involving 30 stable outpatients with lung cancer who completed the instruments on the first day of the study and two weeks later. Results: The test-retest reproducibility using the intraclass correlation coefficient for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-LC13 ranged from 0.64 to 1.00 and from 0.64 to 0.95, respectively. No correlations were found between the domains of the instruments and clinical parameters. Conclusions: Our findings show that these instruments were reproducible in this sample of patients with lung cancer in Brazil.

Keywords: Lung neoplasms; Reproducibility of results; Quality of life.

Background: Measurement of maximal respiratory pressures and vital capacity are essential in evaluating respiratory function. However, methodological variations may interfere with the interpretation of results. Objective: To compare values obtained using mouthpiece and face-mask evaluation methods in the measurement of maximal respiratory pressures and vital capacity. Method: We studied 30 patients (16 male), with a mean age of 55.9 ± 15.7, in the preoperative phase of abdominal surgery. Maximal inspiratory pressure and maximal expiratory pressure, as well as vital capacity, were evaluated using either a rigid flanged mouthpiece or a face mask, in randomized order. Results: Evaluation with a face mask did not significantly alter vital capacity and maximal inspiratory pressure values, although maximal expiratory pressure values were significantly lower than when measured using a rigid mouthpiece. During measurement of maximal expiratory pressure, air leakage from around the mask was observed in 60% of cases. When maximal expiratory pressure measurements in which there was no such leakage were considered in isolation, face-mask values were higher than those obtained with the moutpiece. Conclusion: With a face mask, maximal inspiratory pressure and vital capacity can be accurately evaluated. Maximal expiratory pressure can also be adequately evaluated using a face mask, provided that air leakage from the mask edges can be avoided. However, such leakage and the consequent reduction in the values obtained are common and limit the use of this method of evaluation.

Keywords: Respiratory function tests. Maximal voluntary ventilation. Respiratory muscles.

Objective: Lung cancer patients often experience profound physical and psychosocial changes as a result of disease progression or treatment side effects. Fatigue, pain, dyspnea, depression, and sleep disturbances appear to be the most common symptoms in such patients. The objective of the present study was to examine the prevalence of symptoms in lung cancer patients in order to identify subgroups (clusters) of patients, grouped according to the magnitude of the symptoms, as well as to compare the quality of life among the identified subgroups. Methods: A cross-sectional study involving agglomerative hierarchical clustering. A total of 50 lung cancer patients were evaluated in terms of their demographic characteristics and their scores on three quality of life questionnaires, namely the 30-item European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-form Survey. The cluster analysis took into account the magnitude of the most prevalent symptoms as assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 symptom scale scores; those symptoms were fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and insomnia. Results: Three clusters (subgroups)_of patients were identified on the basis of the magnitude of the four most prevalent symptoms. The three subgroups of patients were as follows: patients with mild symptoms (n = 30; 60%); patients with moderate symptoms (n = 14; 28%); and patients with severe symptoms (n = 6; 12%). The subgroup of patients with severe symptoms had the worst quality of life, as assessed by the total scores and by the integrated domains of all three instruments. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of symptom cluster assessment as an important tool to assess the quality of life of patients with chronic diseases, such as lung cancer.

Objective: To assess the quality of life of patients with lung cancer and to compare it with that of individuals without cancer. Methods: The Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) was administered to 57 patients diagnosed with lung cancer, treated at the Lung Cancer Outpatient Clinic of the Hospital São Paulo, and to a control group of 57 individuals recruited from the Extra Penha workout group. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the groups, domain by domain. The first model of logistic regression was adjusted for male gender, nonsurgical treatment, Karnofsky performance status and smoking, which were included as predictors. The second model was adjusted for each SF-36 domain in order to identify increases in the proportions of patients in stage IIIB or IV. Results: The lung cancer group and the control group presented the following mean scores, respectively, for the SF-36 domains: role limitations due to physical health problems, 29.39 ± 36.94 and 82.89 ± 28.80; role limitations due to emotional problems, 42.78 ± 44.78 and 86.55 ± 28.77; physical function, 56.49 ± 28.39 and 89.00 ± 13.80; vitality, 61.61 ± 23.82 and 79.12 ± 17.68; bodily pain, 62.72 ± 28.72 and 81.54 ± 19.07; general health, 62.51 ± 25.57 and 84.47 ± 13.47; emotional well-being, 68.28 ± 23.46 and 82.63 ± 17.44; and social functioning, 72.87 ± 29.20 and 91.67 ± 17.44. The logistic regression model showed that role limitations due to physical health problems, physical function and emotional well-being were predictors of stages IIIB and IV. Conclusions: The patients with lung cancer had a poorer quality of life, especially regarding physical aspects, than did the control subjects.

Keywords: Lung neoplasms; Quality of life; Health status.