Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 22, Issue 11, pp 3071–3079 | Cite as

The individual and combined effect of colorectal cancer and diabetes on health-related quality of life and sexual functioning: results from the PROFILES registry

  • Pauline A. J. VissersEmail author
  • Melissa S. Y. Thong
  • Frans Pouwer
  • Brenda L. den Oudsten
  • Grard A. P. Nieuwenhuijzen
  • Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

This study examined the individual and combined effect of having colorectal cancer (CRC) and diabetes mellitus (DM) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and sexual functioning.

Methods

Data from questionnaires collected in 2010 among CRC patients and a sample of the general Dutch population were used. All persons older than 60 years were included in this study. DM prevalence among the CRC sample as well as the sample of the general population was self-reported. HRQoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0 (QLQ-C30), and sexual functioning was assessed with four scales from the EORTC-QLQ-CR38.

Results

In total 624 persons without CRC and DM, 78 persons with DM only, 1,731 with CRC only, and 328 with both CRC and DM were included. Having both CRC and DM did not result in lower HRQoL and sexual functioning than the sum of the individual effects of both diseases. CRC, irrespective of having DM, was associated with lower scores on most EORTC-QLQ-C30 subscales, except global health, pain, and appetite loss. CRC was also independently associated with more erection problems among males. DM, irrespective of having CRC, was associated with lower physical functioning and more symptoms of dyspnea.

Conclusions

Having both CRC and DM did not result in lower HRQoL and sexual functioning than the sum of the individual effects of both diseases. As CRC was found to be consistently associated with lower functioning and more symptoms, CRC and its treatment seem to contribute stronger to lower HRQoL and sexual functioning compared with DM.

Keywords

Cancer Diabetes Health-related quality of life Sexual functioning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all patients and their doctors for their participation in the study. Special thanks to Dr. M. van Bommel for her availability as an independent advisor and willingness to answer patients’ queries. In addition, we thank the following hospitals for their cooperation: Amphia Hospital (Breda), Bernhoven Hospital (Veghel and Oss), Catharina Hospital (Eindhoven), Elkerliek Hospital (Helmond), Jeroen Bosch Hospital (’s-Hertogenbosch), Maxima Medical Center (Eindhoven and Veldhoven), St. Anna Hospital (Geldrop), St. Elisabeth Hospital (Tilburg), Twee Steden Hospital (Tilburg and Waalwijk), and VieCuri Hospital (Venlo and Venray).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no duality of interest associated with this manuscript.

Funding

The present research is supported in part by a Social Psychology Fellowship from the Dutch Cancer Society to Melissa Thong (No. UVT2011-4960) and a Cancer Research Award from the Dutch Cancer Society (No. UVT-2009-4349) to Lonneke van de Poll-Franse. Data collection for this study was funded by the Comprehensive Cancer Centre The Netherlands, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, and the Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic diseases (CoRPS), Tilburg University, The Netherlands, and an investment subsidy (No. 480-08-009) of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (The Hague, The Netherlands). The funding sources were neither involved in the collection, interpretation, and analysis of the data nor in the decision for the writing and submission of this report for publication.

References

  1. 1.
    Parekh AK, Goodman RA, Gordon C, Koh HK (2011) Managing multiple chronic conditions: a strategic framework for improving health outcomes and quality of life. Public Health Rep 126:460–471PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization (2011) Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2005) Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 55:74–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Dam RM (2003) Review: the epidemiology of lifestyle and risk for type 2 diabetes. Eur J Epidemiol 18:1115–1126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huxley RR, Ansary-Moghaddam A, Clifton P, Czernichow S, Parr CL, Woodward M (2009) The impact of dietary and lifestyle risk factors on risk of colorectal cancer: a quantitative overview of the epidemiological evidence. Int J Cancer 125:171–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Janssen-Heijnen MLG, Houterman S, Lemmens VEPP, Louwman MWJ, Maas HAAM, Coebergh JWW (2005) Prognostic impact of increasing age and co-morbidity in cancer patients: a population-based approach. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 55:231–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stein K, Snyder C, Barone B et al (2010) Colorectal cancer outcomes, recurrence, and complications in persons with and without diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 55:1839–1851PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van de Poll-Franse LV, Houterman S, Janssen-Heijnen MLG, Dercksen MW, Coebergh JWW, Haak HR (2007) Less aggressive treatment and worse overall survival in cancer patients with diabetes: a large population based analysis. Int J Cancer 120:1986–1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jansen L, Herrmann A, Stegmaier C, Singer S, Brenner H, Arndt V (2011) Health-related quality of life during the 10 years after diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a population-based study. J Clin Oncol 29:3263–3269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Den Oudsten BL, Traa MJ, Thong MS et al (2012) Higher prevalence of sexual dysfunction in colon and rectal cancer survivors compared with the normative population: a population-based study. Eur J Cancer 48:3161–3170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Traa MJ, De Vries J, Roukema JA, Den Oudsten BL (2012) Sexual (dys)function and the quality of sexual life in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol/ESMO 23:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hendren SK, O’Connor BI, Liu M et al (2005) Prevalence of male and female sexual dysfunction is high following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 242:212–223PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubin RR, Peyrot M (1999) Quality of life and diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 15:205–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bhasin S, Enzlin P, Coviello A, Basson R (2007) Sexual dysfunction in men and women with endocrine disorders. Lancet 369:597–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bowker SL, Pohar SL, Johnson JA (2006) A cross-sectional study of health-related quality of life deficits in individuals with comorbid diabetes and cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:17PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Latini DM, Chan JM, Cowan JE et al (2006) Health-related quality of life for men with prostate cancer and diabetes: a longitudinal analysis from CaPSURE. Urology 68:1242–1247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mols F, Aquarius AE, Essink-Bot ML, Aaronson NK, Kil PJ, van de Poll-Franse LV (2008) Does diabetes mellitus as a comorbid condition affect the health-related quality of life in prostate cancer survivors? Results of a population-based observational study. BJU Int 102:1594–1600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thong MS, van de Poll-Franse LV, Hoffman RM et al (2011) Diabetes mellitus and health-related quality of life in prostate cancer: 5-year results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. BJU Int 107:1223–1231PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hershey DS, Given B, Given C, Von Eye A, You M (2012) Diabetes and cancer: impact on health-related quality of life. Oncol Nurs Forum 39:449–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mols F, Denollet J, Kaptein AA, Reemst PHM, Thong MSY (2012) The association between type d personality and illness perceptions in colorectal cancer survivors: a study from the population-based profiles registry. J Psychosom Res 73:232–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van de Poll-Franse LV, Horevoorts N, van Eenbergen M et al (2011) The patient reported outcomes following initial treatment and long term evaluation of survivorship registry: scope, rationale and design of an infrastructure for the study of physical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivorship cohorts. Eur J Cancer 47:2188–2194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coebergh JWW, Janssen-Heijnen MLG, Louwman WJ, Voogd AC (2001) Cancer incidence and survival in the south of the Netherlands, 1955–1999 & incidence in the north of Belgium, 1996–1998. [CD-ROM], Eindhoven: Comprehensive Cancer Centre South (IKZ)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van de Poll-Franse LV, Mols F, Gundy CM et al (2011) Normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-sexuality items in the general Dutch population. Eur J Cancer 47:667–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sangha O, Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN (2003) The self-administered comorbidity questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Care Res 49:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Sullivan M (1995) EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. Brussels Belg 11:1–49Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sprangers MAG, te Velde A, Aaronson NK (1999) The construction and testing of the EORTC colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). Eur J Cancer 35:238–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G, Martyn St-James M, Fayers PM, Brown JM (2011) Evidence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. J Clin Oncol 29:89–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41:582–592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Andersson T, Alfredsson L, Källberg H, Zdravkovic S, Ahlbom A (2005) Calculating measures of biological interaction. Eur J Epidemiol 20:575–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Knol MJ, van der Tweel I, Grobbee DE, Numans ME, Geerlings MI (2007) Estimating interaction on an additive scale between continuous determinants in a logistic regression model. Int J Epidemiol 36:1111–1118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Adriaanse MC, Snoek FJ, Dekker JM et al (2004) No substantial psychological impact of the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes following targeted population screening: the Hoorn Screening Study. Diabet Med 21:992–998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hussain A, Claussen B, Ramachandran A, Williams R (2007) Prevention of type 2 diabetes: a review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 76:317–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huang ES, Brown SES, Ewigman BG, Foley EC, Meltzer DO (2007) Patient perceptions of quality of life with diabetes-related complications and treatments. Diabetes Care 30:2478–2483PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pauline A. J. Vissers
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Melissa S. Y. Thong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Frans Pouwer
    • 1
  • Brenda L. den Oudsten
    • 1
  • Grard A. P. Nieuwenhuijzen
    • 3
  • Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases (CoRPS), Department of Medical and Clinical PsychologyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Eindhoven Cancer RegistryComprehensive Cancer Center The NetherlandsEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryCatharina HospitalEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations