Association between preoperative EQ-5D visual analogue scale score and recurrence-free survival after lung cancer resection.

Authors

Hideo Ichimura, Keisuke Kobayashi, Masahiko Gosho, Kenji Minagi, Tomoyuki Kawamura, Shuntaro Kawabata, Hisashi Suzuki, Shinsuke Kitazawa, Naohiro Kobayashi, Yukinobu Goto, Yukio Sato

Published in

Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery. Sep 30, 2026. Epub Sep 30, 2026.

Abstract

To investigate the prognostic impact of preoperative self-reported global health status, assessed with the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS), on recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients undergoing resection for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
This retrospective study included 200 patients from a single-center quality-of-life assessment cohort who underwent complete resection for clinical stage I NSCLC between January 2015 and April 2018. Preoperative QOL was assessed with the EQ-5D-5L. RFS was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model. Competing risk analysis was performed to distinguish recurrence from mortality due to other causes.
The median follow-up was 6.0 years and the 5-year RFS rate was 82.2% (42 events). On univariable Cox analysis for RFS, the hazard ratio (HR) per 1-unit decrease in EQ-5D VAS scores was 1.020(95% CI 1.002-1.039). An EQ-5D VAS score ≤55 was also associated with worse RFS (HR 2.762, 95% CI 1.271-6.005; p = 0.010). On competing risk analysis adjusting for Performance Status, and modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, the recurrence risk of lung cancer was significantly higher in the VAS ≤55 group (adjusted HR 3.45, 95% CI 1.09-10.96), whereas mortality from other causes was comparable between the 2 VAS groups.
Lower preoperative EQ-5D VAS scores were associated with poorer recurrence-free survival in patients with clinical stage I NSCLC, driven primarily by increased recurrence rather than by other-cause mortality.

PMID:
42813973
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 30 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.