GOALS OF WORK: We report on the routine use of the NCCN Distress Thermometer and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain (FACT-Br) to assess patient distress and quality of life in GBM patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between patient quality of life and distress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 50 GBM patients presenting to a neuro-oncology clinic were evaluated. Descriptive statistics and correlations between the distress score and the FACT-Br subscale scores were generated. MAIN RESULTS: The mean distress score was 2.15 (std 2.66), and 28.9% of brain tumor patients identified a distress score of 4 or above. The mean FACT-Br total was 127.34 (std 21.29), with patients scoring lowest in the EWB (18.95 std 4.4) and FWB (15.06 std 6.80) subscales. No differences between demographic groups were identified with regard to distress or quality of life. Statistically significant correlations were identified between the distress score and the SWB (R = -0.46, P = 0.001) and EWB (R = -0.56, P = 0.001) subscales of the FACT-Br. Fifty percent of participants who did not complete the FACT-Br reported clinically significant distress, but this did not differ significantly from participants who completed it. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of distress in brain tumor patients provides clinically relevant information and suggests interventions that may support quality of life. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between distress and quality of life. Current approaches to measuring quality of life in brain tumor patients may systematically undersample patients with advanced illness or significant psychosocial distress.
GOALS OF WORK: We report on the routine use of the NCCN Distress Thermometer and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain (FACT-Br) to assess patient distress and quality of life in GBMpatients. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between patient quality of life and distress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 50 GBMpatients presenting to a neuro-oncology clinic were evaluated. Descriptive statistics and correlations between the distress score and the FACT-Br subscale scores were generated. MAIN RESULTS: The mean distress score was 2.15 (std 2.66), and 28.9% of brain tumorpatients identified a distress score of 4 or above. The mean FACT-Br total was 127.34 (std 21.29), with patients scoring lowest in the EWB (18.95 std 4.4) and FWB (15.06 std 6.80) subscales. No differences between demographic groups were identified with regard to distress or quality of life. Statistically significant correlations were identified between the distress score and the SWB (R = -0.46, P = 0.001) and EWB (R = -0.56, P = 0.001) subscales of the FACT-Br. Fifty percent of participants who did not complete the FACT-Br reported clinically significant distress, but this did not differ significantly from participants who completed it. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of distress in brain tumorpatients provides clinically relevant information and suggests interventions that may support quality of life. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between distress and quality of life. Current approaches to measuring quality of life in brain tumorpatients may systematically undersample patients with advanced illness or significant psychosocial distress.
Authors: Nadia N Laack; Paul D Brown; Robert J Ivnik; Alfred F Furth; Karla V Ballman; Julie E Hammack; Robert M Arusell; Edward G Shaw; Jan C Buckner Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Paul D Brown; Karla V Ballman; Teresa A Rummans; Matthew J Maurer; Jeff A Sloan; Bradley F Boeve; Lalit Gupta; David F Tang-Wai; Robert M Arusell; Matthew M Clark; Jan C Buckner Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Lee W Jones; Bebe Guill; Stephen T Keir; Karen Carter; Henry S Friedman; Darell D Bigner; David A Reardon Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: R K Portenoy; H T Thaler; A B Kornblith; J M Lepore; H Friedlander-Klar; E Kiyasu; K Sobel; N Coyle; N Kemeny; L Norton Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1994 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Dona E C Locke; Paul A Decker; Jeff A Sloan; Paul D Brown; James F Malec; Matthew M Clark; Teresa A Rummans; Karla V Ballman; Paul L Schaefer; Jan C Buckner Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-08-20 Impact factor: 3.612
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: Mohammad Keilani; Christoph Krall; Christine Marosi; Birgit Flechl; Karin Dieckmann; Georg Widhalm; Maximilian Marhold; Richard Crevenna Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: L B Nabors; J G Supko; M Rosenfeld; M Chamberlain; S Phuphanich; T Batchelor; S Desideri; X Ye; J Wright; S Gujar; S A Grossman Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: C Lucchiari; A Botturi; A Silvani; E Lamperti; P Gaviani; A Innocenti; C Y Finocchiaro; M Masiero; G Pravettoni Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 3.603
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