Objective: Patients with lung cancer experience different feelings and reactions, based on their family, social, cultural, and religious backgrounds, which are a source of great distress, not only for the patients but also for their family caregivers. This study aimed to evaluate the impact that lung cancer stage and quality of life (QoL) of lung cancer patients have on caregiver burden. Methods: This was a prospective cross-sectional study. Consecutive patient-caregiver dyads were selected and asked to complete the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item ShortForm Health Survey (SF-36). Family caregivers also completed the Caregiver Burden Scale. Group-based modeling was used in order to identify patients with early- or advanced-stage cancer (IA to IIIA vs. IIIB to IV) plus non-impaired or impaired QoL (SF36 total score > 50 vs. ≤ 50). Patient-caregiver dyads were stratified into four groups: early-stage cancer+non-impaired QoL; advanced-stage cancer+non-impaired QoL; early-stage cancer+impaired QoL; and advanced-stage cancer+impaired QoL. Results: We included 91 patient-caregiver dyads. The majority of the patients were male and heavy smokers. Family caregivers were younger and predominantly female. The burden, QoL, level of anxiety, and level of depression of caregivers were more affected by the QoL of the patients than by their lung cancer stage. The family caregivers of the patients with impaired QoL showed a higher median burden than did those of the patients with non-impaired QoL, regardless of disease stage. Conclusions: Caregiver burden is more affected by patient QoL than by lung cancer stage.

OBJECTIVES:It has been recognized that patients with non-small cell lung cancer who are lifelong never-smokers constitute a distinct clinical entity. The aim of this study was to assess clinical risk factors for survival among never-smokers with non-small cell lung cancer.METHODS:All consecutive non-small cell lung cancer patients diagnosed (n = 285) between May 2005 and May 2009 were included. The clinical characteristics of never-smokers and ever-smokers (former and current) were compared using chi-squared or Student's t tests. Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank tests were used for survival comparisons. A Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was evaluated by adjusting for age (continuous variable), gender (female vs. male), smoking status (never- vs. ever-smoker), the Karnofsky Performance Status Scale (continuous variable), histological type (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), AJCC staging (early vs. advanced staging), and treatment (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy vs. the best treatment support).RESULTS:Of the 285 non-small cell lung cancer patients, 56 patients were never-smokers. Univariate analyses indicated that the never-smoker patients were more likely to be female (68% vs. 32%) and have adenocarcinoma (70% vs. 51%). Overall median survival was 15.7 months (95% CI: 13.2 to 18.2). The never-smoker patients had a better survival rate than their counterpart, the ever-smokers. Never-smoker status, higher Karnofsky Performance Status, early staging, and treatment were independent and favorable prognostic factors for survival after adjusting for age, gender, and adenocarcinoma in multivariate analysis.CONCLUSIONS:Epidemiological differences exist between never- and ever-smokers with lung cancer. Overall survival among never-smokers was found to be higher and independent of gender and histological type.

The physical therapy modalities based on strategic manual lymphatic drainage, shoulder girdle massage, facial, tongue and neck exercises, compressive therapy at home, and patient education showed reduction of the lymphedema and pain, both of them secondary to head and neck cancer treatment.

Using NSLT criteria, a larger number of patients had positive scans (nodules), compared with previous lung cancer screening studies. However, the number of participants requiring surgical biopsy procedures and who were ultimately identified as having cancer was similar to other reports. This supports the role of screening in patient populations with a high incidence of granulomatous inflammation.

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. ResumoObjetivo: Avaliar a qualidade de vida de pacientes com câncer de pulmão e compará-la com a qualidade de vida de indivíduos sem câncer. foi aplicado em 57 pacientes com diagnóstico de câncer de pulmão provenientes do Ambulatório de Oncopneumologia do Hospital São Paulo e em um grupo controle de 57 indivíduos participantes do Grupo de Ginástica Extra Penha. O teste de Mann-Whitney foi utilizado para comparar cada domínio entre os grupos. O primeiro modelo de regressão logística foi ajustado para sexo masculino, tratamento não cirúrgico, índice de Karnofsky e tabagismo, que foram incluídos como preditores. O segundo modelo foi ajustado para cada domínio do SF-36 para identificar aumento na proporção de estádios IIIB e IV. Resultados: O grupo com câncer de pulmão e o grupo controle apresentaram, respectivamente, as seguintes pontuações médias para os domínios do 29,39 ± 36,94 e 82,89 ± 28,80; aspectos emocionais, 42,78 ± 44,78 e 86,55 ± 28,77; capacidade funcional, 56,49 ± 28,39 e 89,00 ± 13,80; vitalidade, 61,61 ± 23,82 e 79,12 ± 17,68; dor, 62,72 ± 28,72 e 81,54 ± 19,07; estado geral de saúde, 62,51 ± 25,57 e 84,47 ± 13,47; saúde mental, 68,28 ± 23,46 e 82,63 ± 17,44; e aspectos sociais, 72,87 ± 29,20 e 91,67 ± 17,44. O modelo de regressão logística demonstrou que aspectos físicos, capacidade funcional e saúde mental foram preditores de estádios IIIB e IV. Conclusões: Os pacientes com câncer de pulmão apresentaram pior qualidade de vida em relação ao grupo controle, principalmente em relação aos aspectos físicos. Métodos: O questionário Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health SurveyDescritores: Neoplasias pulmonares; Qualidade de vida; Nível de saúde.

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. of this study was to assess the reproducibility of the Brazilian Portuguese-language version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in conjunction with the QLQ-LC13 in a sample of patients with lung cancer.

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.

Objective:To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CT-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy (CT-CNB) of pulmonary nodules ≤ 2 cm, as well as to identify factors influencing the accuracy of the procedure and its morbidity. Methods:This was a retrospective, single-center study of 170 consecutive patients undergoing CT-CNB of small pulmonary nodules (of ≤ 2 cm) between January of 2010 and August of 2015. Results:A total of 156 CT-CNBs yielded a definitive diagnosis, the overall diagnostic accuracy being 92.3%. Larger lesions were associated with a higher overall accuracy (OR = 1.30; p = 0.007). Parenchymal hemorrhage occurring during the procedure led to lower accuracy rates (OR = 0.13; p = 0.022). Pneumothorax was the most common complication. A pleura-to-lesion distance > 3 cm was identified as a risk factor for pneumothorax (OR = 16.94), whereas performing a blood patch after biopsy was a protective factor for pneumothorax (OR = 0.18). Conclusions:Small nodules (of < 2 cm) represent a technical challenge for diagnosis. CT-CNB is an excellent diagnostic tool, its accuracy being high.