PURPOSE: To determine the predictors of distress in older patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients age >or= 65 years with a solid tumor or lymphoma completed a questionnaire that addressed these geriatric assessment domains: functional status, comorbidity, psychological state, nutritional status, and social support. Patients self-rated their level of distress on a scale of zero to 10 using a validated screening tool called the Distress Thermometer. The relationship between distress and geriatric assessment scores was examined. RESULTS: The geriatric assessment questionnaire was completed by 245 patients (mean age, 76 years; standard deviation [SD], 7 years; range, 65 to 95 years) with cancer (36% stage IV; 71% female). Of these, 87% also completed the Distress Thermometer, with 41% (n = 87) reporting a distress score of >or= 4 on a scale of zero to 10 (mean score, 3; SD, 3; range, zero to 10). Bivariate analyses demonstrated an association between higher distress (>or= 4) and poorer physical function, increased comorbid medical conditions, poor eyesight, inability to complete the questionnaire alone, and requiring more time to complete the questionnaire. In a multivariate regression model based on the significant bivariate findings, poorer physical function (increased need for assistance with instrumental activities of daily living [P = .015] and lower physical function score on the Medical Outcomes Survey [P = .018]) correlated significantly with a higher distress score. CONCLUSION: Significant distress was identified in 41% of older patients with cancer. Poorer physical function was the best predictor of distress. Further studies are needed to determine whether interventions that improve or assist with physical functioning can help to decrease distress in older adults with cancer.
PURPOSE: To determine the predictors of distress in older patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients age >or= 65 years with a solid tumor or lymphoma completed a questionnaire that addressed these geriatric assessment domains: functional status, comorbidity, psychological state, nutritional status, and social support. Patients self-rated their level of distress on a scale of zero to 10 using a validated screening tool called the Distress Thermometer. The relationship between distress and geriatric assessment scores was examined. RESULTS: The geriatric assessment questionnaire was completed by 245 patients (mean age, 76 years; standard deviation [SD], 7 years; range, 65 to 95 years) with cancer (36% stage IV; 71% female). Of these, 87% also completed the Distress Thermometer, with 41% (n = 87) reporting a distress score of >or= 4 on a scale of zero to 10 (mean score, 3; SD, 3; range, zero to 10). Bivariate analyses demonstrated an association between higher distress (>or= 4) and poorer physical function, increased comorbid medical conditions, poor eyesight, inability to complete the questionnaire alone, and requiring more time to complete the questionnaire. In a multivariate regression model based on the significant bivariate findings, poorer physical function (increased need for assistance with instrumental activities of daily living [P = .015] and lower physical function score on the Medical Outcomes Survey [P = .018]) correlated significantly with a higher distress score. CONCLUSION: Significant distress was identified in 41% of older patients with cancer. Poorer physical function was the best predictor of distress. Further studies are needed to determine whether interventions that improve or assist with physical functioning can help to decrease distress in older adults with cancer.
Authors: G Frasci; V Lorusso; N Panza; P Comella; G Nicolella; A Bianco; G De Cataldis; A Iannelli; D Bilancia; M Belli; B Massidda; F Piantedosi; G Comella; M De Lena Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Francesco Bulli; Guido Miccinesi; Alice Maruelli; Manuel Katz; Eugenio Paci Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-12-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: W D Dewys; C Begg; P T Lavin; P R Band; J M Bennett; J R Bertino; M H Cohen; H O Douglass; P F Engstrom; E Z Ezdinli; J Horton; G J Johnson; C G Moertel; M M Oken; C Perlia; C Rosenbaum; M N Silverstein; R T Skeel; R W Sponzo; D C Tormey Journal: Am J Med Date: 1980-10 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Arti Hurria; Ilene S Browner; Harvey Jay Cohen; Crystal S Denlinger; Mollie deShazo; Martine Extermann; Apar Kishor P Ganti; Jimmie C Holland; Holly M Holmes; Mohana B Karlekar; Nancy L Keating; June McKoy; Bruno C Medeiros; Ewa Mrozek; Tracey O'Connor; Stephen H Petersdorf; Hope S Rugo; Rebecca A Silliman; William P Tew; Louise C Walter; Alva B Weir; Tanya Wildes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Richard A Taylor; Aras Acemgil; Xuelin Li; Maria Pisu; Kelly Kenzik; Bradford E Jackson; Karina I Halilova; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Karen Meneses; Yufeng Li; Michelle Y Martin; Carol Chambless; Nedra Lisovicz; Mona Fouad; Edward E Partridge; Elizabeth A Kvale Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Kelly M Trevino; Charlotte Healy; Peter Martin; Beverly Canin; Karl Pillemer; Jo Anne Sirey; M Cary Reid Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Talia R Weiss Wiesel; Christian J Nelson; William P Tew; Molly Hardt; Supriya Gupta Mohile; Cynthia Owusu; Heidi D Klepin; Cary P Gross; Ajeet Gajra; Stuart M Lichtman; Rupal Ramani; Vani Katheria; Laura Zavala; Arti Hurria Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 3.894
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
Authors: Supriya G Mohile; Charles Heckler; Lin Fan; Karen Mustian; Pascal Jean-Pierre; Kenneth Usuki; Lisa Sprod; Michelle Janelsins; Jason Purnell; Luke Peppone; Oxana Palesh; Katie A Devine; Gary Morrow Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.599