Objectives: Lung cancer (LC) accounts for the largest number of cancer deaths worldwide, with smoking being the leading cause for its development. While quality of life (QoL) is a crucial factor in the treatment of patients with LC, the impact of smoking status on QoL remains unclear. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of available evidence on the relationship between smoking status and QoL among patients with LC.
Methods: A systematic search of Embase, Medline and Web of Science was conducted. Studies reporting the impact of smoking status on QoL among patients with LC were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of studies, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme appraisal tool for cohort studies. A descriptive synthesis was performed due to the heterogeneity of the studies.
Results: A total of 23 studies met the inclusion criteria (17 studies providing cross-sectional and 6 longitudinal data). The studies included a total of 10 251 participants. The results suggested a tendency towards lower QoL among smokers compared with non-smokers. The effect of smoking cessation on QoL was insufficiently investigated in the included studies and therefore remains inconclusive.
Conclusions: The findings of this review suggest that current smokers may experience worse QoL than former and never smokers. The results of this systematic review should, however, be viewed in the context of the difficulty of data collection in this patient group given the low survival rates and low performance status, among other factors and in light of the large variety of different QoL measures used. Future research requires uniform QoL measures, a holistic representation of all patients with LC as well as a comprehensive consideration of all potential determinants of QoL. The potential benefits of smoking cessation on QoL among patients with LC require investigation.
Keywords: lung; quality of life.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.