Quality-of-Life Assessment After Palliative Interventions to Manage Malignant Ureteral Obstruction
- First Online:
- 386 Downloads
Malignancies may cause urinary tract obstruction, which is often relieved with placement of a percutaneous nephrostomy tube, an internal double J nephro-ureteric stent (double J), or an internal external nephroureteral stent (NUS). We evaluated the affect of these palliative interventions on quality of life (QoL) using previously validated surveys.
Forty-six patients with malignancy related ureteral obstruction received nephrostomy tubes (n = 16), double J stents (n = 15), or NUS (n = 15) as determined by a multidisciplinary team. QoL surveys were administered at 7, 30, and 90 days after the palliative procedure to evaluate symptoms and physical, social, functional, and emotional well-being. Number of related procedures, fluoroscopy time, and complications were documented. Kruskal–Wallis and Friedman’s test were used to compare patients at 7, 30, and 90 days. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used to assess correlations between clinical outcomes/symptoms and QoL.
Responses to QoL surveys were not significantly different for patients receiving nephrostomies, double J stents, or NUS at 7, 30, or 90 days. At 30 and 90 days there were significantly higher reported urinary symptoms and pain in those receiving double J stents compared with nephrostomies (P = 0.0035 and P = 0.0189, respectively). Significantly greater fluoroscopy time was needed for double J stent–related procedures (P = 0.0054). Nephrostomy tubes were associated with more frequent minor complications requiring additional changes.
QoL was not significantly different. However, a greater incidence of pain in those receiving double J stents and more frequent tube changes in those with nephrostomy tubes should be considered when choosing palliative approaches.
KeywordsQuality of life Nephrostomy Nephroureteral stent Ureteral obstruction
- 3.Watson G (1998) Double J (JJ) versus nephrostomy tube drainage. In: Yachia D (ed) Stenting the urinary system. Isis Medical Media, Oxford, pp 109–119Google Scholar
- 4.Feeney D, Labelle R, Torrance G (1990) Integrating economic evaluations and quality of life assessments. In: Spiker B (ed) Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. Raven, New York, NY, pp 71–82Google Scholar
- 11.Guyatt G, Bombardier C, Tugwell P (1986) Measuring diseases-specific quality of life in clinical trials. Can Med Assoc J 134:889–895Google Scholar
- 15.Friedman MA (1939) The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc 34:109Google Scholar
- 19.Wang YB, Chen MH, Yan K, Yang W, Dai Y, Yin SS (2007) Quality of life after radiofrequency ablation combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization alone. Qual Life Res 16(3):389–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Monsky WL, Yoneda KY, MacMillan J, Deutsch LS, Dong P, Hourigan H, Schwartz Y, Magee S, Duffield C, Boak T, Cernilia J (2009) Peritoneal and pleural ports for management of refractory ascites and pleural effusions: assessment of impact on patient quality of life and hospice/home nursing care. J Palliat Med 12(9):811–817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Meyer AM, Carpenter WR, Abernethy AP, Stürmer T, Kosorok MR (2012) Data for cancer comparative effectiveness research: past, present, and future potential. Cancer. doi:10.1002/cncr.27552