OBJECTIVE: We compared long-term survivors of invasive and noninvasive cervical cancer (1) to determine if there are differences in the quality of life (QOL) and (2) to assess the association between self-esteem and QOL. METHODS: A sample of cervical cancer survivors diagnosed with invasive and noninvasive cervical cancer during 1995-1996 was drawn from the metropolitan Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry. There were 145 participating survivors, 42 with invasive and 103 with noninvasive cervical cancer. Data were collected using a structured interview, conducted primarily over the telephone. The outcome measures were the QOL (measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 [SF-36]) summary scales, the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score and the Mental Component Summary (MCS) score. Differences in MCS and PCS between women with invasive and noninvasive cancer were determined using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Multivariate analysis was performed to determine the association between self-esteem and MCS and PCS. RESULTS: There were no differences in either PCS or MCS scores between long-term survivors of invasive and noninvasive cervical cancer. Self-esteem was associated with MCS but not with PCS in women with invasive cancer as well as in women with noninvasive cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The distinctive association of self-esteem with MCS but not PCS indicates that interventions for supporting and improving self-esteem may be more effective by promoting psychological well-being rather than physical well-being. Moreover, women with noninvasive cervical cancer, a group often neglected in cervical cancer studies, should also be targeted for these interventions.
OBJECTIVE: We compared long-term survivors of invasive and noninvasive cervical cancer (1) to determine if there are differences in the quality of life (QOL) and (2) to assess the association between self-esteem and QOL. METHODS: A sample of cervical cancer survivors diagnosed with invasive and noninvasive cervical cancer during 1995-1996 was drawn from the metropolitan Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry. There were 145 participating survivors, 42 with invasive and 103 with noninvasive cervical cancer. Data were collected using a structured interview, conducted primarily over the telephone. The outcome measures were the QOL (measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 [SF-36]) summary scales, the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score and the Mental Component Summary (MCS) score. Differences in MCS and PCS between women with invasive and noninvasive cancer were determined using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Multivariate analysis was performed to determine the association between self-esteem and MCS and PCS. RESULTS: There were no differences in either PCS or MCS scores between long-term survivors of invasive and noninvasive cervical cancer. Self-esteem was associated with MCS but not with PCS in women with invasive cancer as well as in women with noninvasive cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The distinctive association of self-esteem with MCS but not PCS indicates that interventions for supporting and improving self-esteem may be more effective by promoting psychological well-being rather than physical well-being. Moreover, women with noninvasive cervical cancer, a group often neglected in cervical cancer studies, should also be targeted for these interventions.
Authors: Carol Sweeney; Kathryn H Schmitz; DeAnn Lazovich; Beth A Virnig; Robert B Wallace; Aaron R Folsom Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-04-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kirsten K Ness; Melanie M Wall; J Michael Oakes; Leslie L Robison; James G Gurney Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Lari Wenzel; Israel DeAlba; Rana Habbal; Brenda Coffey Kluhsman; Diane Fairclough; Linda U Krebs; Hoda Anton-Culver; Ross Berkowitz; Noreen Aziz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Michael Frumovitz; Charlotte C Sun; Leslie R Schover; Mark F Munsell; Anuja Jhingran; J Taylor Wharton; Patricia Eifel; Therese B Bevers; Charles F Levenback; David M Gershenson; Diane C Bodurka Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rebecca Anne Miksad; Kuan-Chi Lai; Thomas Benton Dodson; Sook-Bin Woo; Nathaniel Simon Treister; Omosalewa Akinyemi; Marian Bihrle; Guy Maytal; Meredith August; G Scott Gazelle; J Shannon Swan Journal: Oncologist Date: 2011-01-06
Authors: Howard P Greenwald; Ruth McCorkle; Kathy Baumgartner; Carolyn Gotay; Anne Victoria Neale Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2014-04-05 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Veerle Marieke Wintraecken; Sophie Vulik; Sabine de Wild; Carmen Dirksen; Linetta B Koppert; Jolanda de Vries; Marjolein L Smidt Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: I-Chan Huang; Joy L Lee; Pavinarmatha Ketheeswaran; Conor M Jones; Dennis A Revicki; Albert W Wu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mark de Mol; Sabine Visser; Joachim G J V Aerts; Paul Lodder; Jolanda de Vries; Brenda L den Oudsten Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Mehrnoosh Akhtari-Zavare; Sherina Mohd-Sidik; Ummavathy Periasamy; Lekhraj Rampal; Siti Irma Fadhilah; Rozi Mahmud Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 3.186