INTRODUCTION: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and aggressive type of primary brain tumor. The prognosis for GBM patients is extremely poor with an estimated median survival of 12 months. Despite this statistic, a number of GBM patients are living longer than in the past as new detection and treatment approaches are used. However, little is known about the psychological correlates of this disease. To address this issue we investigated distress and its sources in long-term survivors (LTS) of this disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were asked to complete the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's (NCCN) Distress Thermometer, a single-item rapid screening tool for distress. Participants were also asked to designate sources of distress from a 34-item list developed by the NCCN. Distress scores and sources of distress for long-term GBM survivors (>18 months) were compared to patients diagnosed within the last 18 months (<18 months). RESULTS: Eight-three brain tumor patients participated in this study. Fifty-nine percent of LTS met the > or = 4 cut-off score for distress (M = 4.61, SD 3.12) as compared to 49% of patients diagnosed less than 18 months (M = 3.93, SD = 2.21; x(2) = 0.406, NS), LTS reported fewer items of concern while more LTS reported being distressed. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that LTS of GBM report experiencing distress at similar levels to other brain tumor patients. Level of distress for LTS is directly related to the total number of concerns in both emotional and physical domains. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Regardless of LTS status, distress continues to be a part of the disease trajectory for many GBM patients. As such, attention to distress in these survivors of a major life threatening disease is warranted in follow up surveillance visits.
INTRODUCTION:Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and aggressive type of primary brain tumor. The prognosis for GBM patients is extremely poor with an estimated median survival of 12 months. Despite this statistic, a number of GBM patients are living longer than in the past as new detection and treatment approaches are used. However, little is known about the psychological correlates of this disease. To address this issue we investigated distress and its sources in long-term survivors (LTS) of this disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Participants were asked to complete the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's (NCCN) Distress Thermometer, a single-item rapid screening tool for distress. Participants were also asked to designate sources of distress from a 34-item list developed by the NCCN. Distress scores and sources of distress for long-term GBM survivors (>18 months) were compared to patients diagnosed within the last 18 months (<18 months). RESULTS: Eight-three brain tumorpatients participated in this study. Fifty-nine percent of LTS met the > or = 4 cut-off score for distress (M = 4.61, SD 3.12) as compared to 49% of patients diagnosed less than 18 months (M = 3.93, SD = 2.21; x(2) = 0.406, NS), LTS reported fewer items of concern while more LTS reported being distressed. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that LTS of GBM report experiencing distress at similar levels to other brain tumorpatients. Level of distress for LTS is directly related to the total number of concerns in both emotional and physical domains. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Regardless of LTS status, distress continues to be a part of the disease trajectory for many GBM patients. As such, attention to distress in these survivors of a major life threatening disease is warranted in follow up surveillance visits.
Authors: Ingeborg Bosma; Maaike J Vos; Jan J Heimans; Martin J B Taphoorn; Neil K Aaronson; Tjeerd J Postma; Henk M van der Ploeg; Martin Muller; W Peter Vandertop; Ben J Slotman; Martin Klein Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2006-10-03 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Robert F Ozols; Roy S Herbst; Yolonda L Colson; Julie Gralow; James Bonner; Walter J Curran; Burton L Eisenberg; Patricia A Ganz; Barnett S Kramer; Mark G Kris; Maurie Markman; Robert J Mayer; Derek Raghavan; Gregory H Reaman; Raymond Sawaya; Richard L Schilsky; Lynn M Schuchter; John W Sweetenham; Linda T Vahdat; Rodger J Winn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dietmar Krex; Barbara Klink; Christian Hartmann; Andreas von Deimling; Torsten Pietsch; Matthias Simon; Michael Sabel; Joachim P Steinbach; Oliver Heese; Guido Reifenberger; Michael Weller; Gabriele Schackert Journal: Brain Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Carol Smigal; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Stephen T Keir; Roberta D Calhoun-Eagan; Jonas J Swartz; Oussama A Saleh; Henry S Friedman Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: P C Trask; A Paterson; M Riba; B Brines; K Griffith; P Parker; J Weick; P Steele; K Kyro; J Ferrara Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Bethany Russell; Anna Collins; Michael Dally; Anthony Dowling; Michelle Gold; Michael Murphy; Jennifer Philip Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Christiane Menke; Sebastian Lohmann; Andrea Baehr; Oliver Grauer; Markus Holling; Benjamin Brokinkel; Michael Schwake; Walter Stummer; Stephanie Schipmann Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2021-10-11
Authors: B Russell; A Collins; A Dowling; M Dally; M Gold; M Murphy; J Burchell; J Philip Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-04-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alasdair Grant Rooney; Shanne McNamara; Mairi Mackinnon; Mary Fraser; Roy Rampling; Alan Carson; Robin Grant Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 12.300