OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective multicenter study was to obtain insight into the severity and burden of hair loss among cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, we described the effectiveness and burden of scalp cooling and the satisfaction with wigs, with hair regrowth, and with body image. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast cancer patients treated with (n = 98) and without (n = 168) scalp cooling completed questionnaires before chemotherapy and 3 weeks and 6 months after completion of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Scalp cooling was effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced hair loss in 32 of 62 available patients (52%). Even though patients knew hair loss was temporary, it was a burden to 54% of them (n = 100). Scalp cooling was a burden for only 17 out of 51 patients (33%). Most patients who used a wig or head cover were satisfied with it (82%, n = 126). Patients were moderately satisfied with the regrowth of their hair after chemotherapy (mean 11.6; SD 2.53; range 0-20). Successfully cooled patients rated their hair as less important for their body image compared to patients who did experience hair loss (p = 0.014). DISCUSSION: Chemotherapy-induced hair loss is perceived as burdensome. It may be prevented by offering scalp cooling which is often an effective method to prevent this form of hair loss and is tolerated well by patients. However, if possible, scalp-cooling techniques should be improved and their effectiveness should be increased because if scalp cooling is unsuccessful, patients' rate their hair loss as more burdensome compared to noncooled patients.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective multicenter study was to obtain insight into the severity and burden of hair loss among cancerpatients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, we described the effectiveness and burden of scalp cooling and the satisfaction with wigs, with hair regrowth, and with body image. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Breast cancerpatients treated with (n = 98) and without (n = 168) scalp cooling completed questionnaires before chemotherapy and 3 weeks and 6 months after completion of chemotherapy. RESULTS:Scalp cooling was effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced hair loss in 32 of 62 available patients (52%). Even though patients knew hair loss was temporary, it was a burden to 54% of them (n = 100). Scalp cooling was a burden for only 17 out of 51 patients (33%). Most patients who used a wig or head cover were satisfied with it (82%, n = 126). Patients were moderately satisfied with the regrowth of their hair after chemotherapy (mean 11.6; SD 2.53; range 0-20). Successfully cooled patients rated their hair as less important for their body image compared to patients who did experience hair loss (p = 0.014). DISCUSSION: Chemotherapy-induced hair loss is perceived as burdensome. It may be prevented by offering scalp cooling which is often an effective method to prevent this form of hair loss and is tolerated well by patients. However, if possible, scalp-cooling techniques should be improved and their effectiveness should be increased because if scalp cooling is unsuccessful, patients' rate their hair loss as more burdensome compared to noncooled patients.
Authors: C S Carver; C Pozo-Kaderman; A A Price; V Noriega; S D Harris; R P Derhagopian; D S Robinson; F L Moffat Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 1998 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Brandon J Baird; Jennifer S Dickey; Asako J Nakamura; Christophe E Redon; Palak Parekh; Yuri V Griko; Khaled Aziz; Alexandros G Georgakilas; William M Bonner; Olga A Martin Journal: Mutat Res Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 2.433
Authors: Manon M C Komen; Corina J G van den Hurk; Johan W R Nortier; Tjeerd van der Ploeg; P Nieboer; Jacobus J M van der Hoeven; Carolien H Smorenburg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Vincent Sibaud; Nicole R Lebœuf; Henri Roche; Viswanath R Belum; Laurence Gladieff; Marion Deslandres; Marion Montastruc; Audrey Eche; Emmanuelle Vigarios; Florence Dalenc; Mario E Lacouture Journal: Eur J Dermatol Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 3.328
Authors: C Paterson; M Kozlovskaia; M Turner; K Strickland; C Roberts; R Ogilvie; G Pranavan; P Craft Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2020-07-18 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Joanne M Shaw; Jane O'Brien; Susan Chua; Richard De Boer; Rachel Dear; Nicholas Murray; Fran Boyle Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rowena E Vleut; Joyce E A M van Poppel; Marcus W Dercksen; Mijke Peerbooms; Saskia Houterman; Wim P M Breed Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Manon M C Komen; Wim P M Breed; Carolien H Smorenburg; Tjeerd van der Ploeg; S H Goey; Jacobus J M van der Hoeven; Johan W R Nortier; Corina J G van den Hurk Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 3.603