Advertisement

Journal of Cancer Survivorship

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 158–165 | Cite as

Physical and psychological health in rare cancer survivors

  • Nora K. Horick
  • Adoma Manful
  • Jan Lowery
  • Susan Domchek
  • Patricia Moorman
  • Constance Griffin
  • Kala Visvanathan
  • Claudine Isaacs
  • Anita Y. Kinney
  • Dianne M. FinkelsteinEmail author
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Registries provide a unique tool for tracking quality of life in rare cancer survivors, whose survivorship experience is less known than for common cancers. This paper reports on these outcomes in 321 patients enrolled in the Rare Cancer Genetics Registry diagnosed with rare gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecologic, sarcoma, head/neck, or hematologic cancers.

Methods

Four outcomes were assessed, reflecting registrants’ self-reported physical and mental health, psychological distress, and loneliness. Combining all patients into a single analysis, regression was used to evaluate the association between outcomes and socio-demographic and clinical factors.

Results

Median time since diagnosis was 3 years (range 0–9); 69 % were no longer in treatment. Poorer physical health was reported in registrants who were older at diagnosis, unmarried, and still in treatment. Poorer mental status was associated with younger diagnosis age and unmarried status. Psychological distress varied by cancer type and was higher among currently treated and unmarried registrants. Greater loneliness was reported in registrants with gynecological cancers, and those who were less educated or unmarried. The physical and mental health profile of rare cancer survivors is similar to what is reported for common cancers.

Conclusions

Unmarried participants reported poorer outcomes on all measures of quality of life. Furthermore, physical and mental health were not significantly different by cancer type after adjustment for diagnosis age, whether currently in treatment and marital status. Thus, the combined analysis performed here is a useful way to analyze outcomes in less common diseases. Our findings could be valuable in guiding evaluation and intervention for issues impacting quality of life.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Rare cancer survivors, particularly those without spousal support, should be monitored for challenges to the physical as well as psychological aspects of quality of life.

Keywords

Quality of life SF-12 Brief symptom survey Loneliness Rare cancer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Rare Cancer Genetics Registry participants and project managers, and the NIH for funding this project.

Authors’ contributions

NH, DMF data analysis, NH, AM, DMF manuscript writing, JL, SD, PM, CG, CI, AYK, DMF recruitment and development of idea and tools, KV manuscript review.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflict of interests.

Funding

NIH grants RC1 CA 144706 and R01 CA160233.

Dedication

The article is dedicated to Dr. Connie Griffin who did not live to see the importance of her contributions to the Rare Cancer Genetics Registry.

Supplementary material

11764_2016_573_MOESM1_ESM.docx (56 kb)
Supplement Table 1 (DOCX 55 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer treatment & survivorship facts & figs. 2016–2017. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thong MS, Mols F, Stein KD, Smith T, Coebergh JW, van de Poll-Franse LV. Population-based cancer registries for quality-of-life research: a work-in-progress resource for survivorship studies? Cancer. 2013;119(Suppl 11):2109–23. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28056.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(8):622–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assesment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(13):835–40. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199603283341306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ware Jr J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlson LE, Angen M, Cullum J, Goodey E, Koopmans J, Lamont L, et al. High levels of untreated distress and fatigue in cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2004;90(12):2297–304. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601887.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gao W, Bennett MI, Stark D, Murray S, Higginson IJ. Psychological distress in cancer from survivorship to end of life care: prevalence, associated factors and clinical implications. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(11):2036–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): NCPGiON. Distress Management. 2015. NCCN.org.
  9. 9.
    Roland KB, Rodriguez JL, Patterson JR, Trivers KF. A literature review of the social and psychological needs of ovarian cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2013;22(11):2408–18. doi: 10.1002/pon.3322.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gross AH, Cromwell J, Fonteyn M, Matulonis UA, Hayman LL. Hopelessness and complementary therapy use in patients with ovarian cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2013;36(4):256–64. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e31826f3bc4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware Jr J, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B. How to score version 2 of the SF-12 Health Survery Lincoln, RI. Lincoln MA: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maruish M, editor. User's manual for the SF-36v Health Survery. 3rd ed. Lincoln, MA: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2011.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Derogatis L, editor. BSI 18 brief symptom inventory 18, administration, scoring, and procedures manual. Minneapolis: NCS Pearson; 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JTA. Short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: results from two population-based studies. Res Aging. 2004;26(6):655–72. doi: 10.1177/0164027504268574.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Russell D, Peplau LA, Cutrona CE. The revised UCLA loneliness scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39(3):472–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Le Corroller-Soriano AG, Bouhnik AD, Preau M, Malavolti L, Julian-Reynier C, Auquier P, et al. Does cancer survivors’ health-related quality of life depend on cancer type? Findings from a large French national sample 2 years after cancer diagnosis. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2011;20(1):132–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2009.01160.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parker PA, Baile WF, de Moor C, Cohen L. Psychosocial and demographic predictors of quality of life in a large sample of cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2003;12(2):183–93. doi: 10.1002/pon.635.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, Crockett SD, McGowan CE, Bulsiewicz WJ, et al. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology. 2012;143(5):1179 e1–87 e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bloom JR, Petersen DM, Kang SH. Multi-dimensional quality of life among long-term (5+ years) adult cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2007;16(8):691–706. doi: 10.1002/pon.1208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Norton TR, Manne SL, Rubin S, Carlson J, Hernandez E, Edelson MI, Rosenblum N, Warshal D, Bergman C. Prevalence and predictors of psychological distress among women with ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(5):919–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Avis NE, Deimling GT. Cancer survivorship and aging. Cancer. 2008;113:3519–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nora K. Horick
    • 1
  • Adoma Manful
    • 1
  • Jan Lowery
    • 2
  • Susan Domchek
    • 3
  • Patricia Moorman
    • 4
  • Constance Griffin
    • 5
  • Kala Visvanathan
    • 6
  • Claudine Isaacs
    • 7
  • Anita Y. Kinney
    • 8
  • Dianne M. Finkelstein
    • 1
    • 9
    Email author
  1. 1.Massachusetts General Hospital Biostatistics CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.School of Public Health Department of EpidemiologyUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA
  3. 3.Department of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Duke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  5. 5.The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns HopkinsBaltimoreUSA
  6. 6.Department of EpidemiologyJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  7. 7.Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer CenterGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA
  8. 8.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  9. 9.Department of BiostatisticsHarvard TH Chan School of Public HealthBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations