Francesco Bulli1, Guido Miccinesi, Alice Maruelli, Manuel Katz, Eugenio Paci. 1. Clinical and Descriptive Epidemiology Unit ISPO, Cancer Prevention and Research Institute, Epidemiologia Clinica e Descrittiva, ISPO, Istituto Scientifico della Regione Toscana, Via S. Salvi 12, 50135, Florence, Italy. f.bulli@ispo.toscana.it
Abstract
GOALS OF WORK: Distress in cancer patients is common. In the last years, several studies have used the single-item Distress Thermometer (DT) as a screening tool for psychological distress in cancer patients. The primary objective of this study was to determine the optimal cutoff score on the DT for detecting psychological distress in cancer patients attending a rehabilitation center, by comparing the DT's scores with those of the Psychological Distress Inventory (PDI). The second aim was to explore the effectiveness of the DT as a screening tool for psychological distress in rehabilitative oncological setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The sample study totaled 290 patients who were recruited from patients attending the Oncological Rehabilitation Center of Florence for the first time between January and December 2007. Patients were administered the DT along with the Problem List (PL) and the PDI as the gold standard against which the DT was compared. MAIN RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.84 [95%CI 0.80-0.89]. The optimal DT cutoff score for identifying distressed cancer patients would be at or above 7 (sensitivity = 0.73; specificity = 0.82). Patients whose DT score was 7 or above were more likely to report problems in all issues on the PL. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of DT and PL could be a practicable screening instrument for assessing the extent and the kind of distress also in rehabilitative oncological patients. On the other hand, the choice of the DT should be evaluated by clinicians.
GOALS OF WORK: Distress in cancerpatients is common. In the last years, several studies have used the single-item Distress Thermometer (DT) as a screening tool for psychological distress in cancerpatients. The primary objective of this study was to determine the optimal cutoff score on the DT for detecting psychological distress in cancerpatients attending a rehabilitation center, by comparing the DT's scores with those of the Psychological Distress Inventory (PDI). The second aim was to explore the effectiveness of the DT as a screening tool for psychological distress in rehabilitative oncological setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The sample study totaled 290 patients who were recruited from patients attending the Oncological Rehabilitation Center of Florence for the first time between January and December 2007. Patients were administered the DT along with the Problem List (PL) and the PDI as the gold standard against which the DT was compared. MAIN RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.84 [95%CI 0.80-0.89]. The optimal DT cutoff score for identifying distressed cancerpatients would be at or above 7 (sensitivity = 0.73; specificity = 0.82). Patients whose DT score was 7 or above were more likely to report problems in all issues on the PL. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of DT and PL could be a practicable screening instrument for assessing the extent and the kind of distress also in rehabilitative oncological patients. On the other hand, the choice of the DT should be evaluated by clinicians.
Authors: Julia M Hormes; Leslie A Lytle; Cynthia R Gross; Rehana L Ahmed; Andrea B Troxel; Kathryn H Schmitz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L E Carlson; M Angen; J Cullum; E Goodey; J Koopmans; L Lamont; J H MacRae; M Martin; G Pelletier; J Robinson; J S A Simpson; M Speca; L Tillotson; B D Bultz Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2004-06-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Xuelei Ma; Jing Zhang; Wuning Zhong; Chi Shu; Fengtian Wang; Jianing Wen; Min Zhou; Yaxiong Sang; Yu Jiang; Lei Liu Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Claudia Cormio; Francesca Caporale; Roberta Spatuzzi; Fulvia Lagattolla; Andrea Lisi; Giusi Graziano Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Arti Hurria; Daneng Li; Kurt Hansen; Sujata Patil; Ravi Gupta; Christian Nelson; Stuart M Lichtman; William P Tew; Paul Hamlin; Enid Zuckerman; Jonathan Gardes; Sewanti Limaye; Mark Lachs; Eva Kelly Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Giovanna Franchi; Francesco Bulli; Maria Grazia Muraca; Alice Maruelli; Elisa Grechi; Guido Miccinesi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-04-07 Impact factor: 3.603