OBJECTIVES: One of the most common acute side effects of breast cancer radiotherapy is treatment-induced skin changes, referred to as skin toxicity. Yet no research to date has focused expressly on skin toxicity-related quality of life (QOL) in breast cancer radiotherapy patients. Therefore, our aim was to use qualitative approaches to better understand the impact of skin toxicity on QOL. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 women (Stage 0-III breast cancer), during their last week of external beam radiotherapy. Each interview was transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Three themes were identified based on the interview responses: First, skin changes affect multiple dimensions of QOL. They cause physical discomfort, body image disturbance, emotional distress, and impair both day-to-day functioning and satisfaction with radiation treatment. Second, individual differences affect women's experiences. Generally African American women, younger women, women who are not currently in a relationship, women who are being treated during the summer, and women who are more invested in their appearance are more distressed by skin toxicity. Third, women use a variety of symptom management strategies including self-medication, complementary/alternative medicine approaches, and psychological strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Implications of results are as follows: (1) skin toxicity affects numerous dimensions of QOL, and assessment approaches and psychosocial interventions should address this; (2) individual differences may affect the experience of skin toxicity and should be considered in treatment and education approaches; and (3) participants' own creativity and problem-solving should be used to improve the treatment experience.
OBJECTIVES: One of the most common acute side effects of breast cancer radiotherapy is treatment-induced skin changes, referred to as skin toxicity. Yet no research to date has focused expressly on skin toxicity-related quality of life (QOL) in breast cancer radiotherapy patients. Therefore, our aim was to use qualitative approaches to better understand the impact of skin toxicity on QOL. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 women (Stage 0-III breast cancer), during their last week of external beam radiotherapy. Each interview was transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Three themes were identified based on the interview responses: First, skin changes affect multiple dimensions of QOL. They cause physical discomfort, body image disturbance, emotional distress, and impair both day-to-day functioning and satisfaction with radiation treatment. Second, individual differences affect women's experiences. Generally African American women, younger women, women who are not currently in a relationship, women who are being treated during the summer, and women who are more invested in their appearance are more distressed by skin toxicity. Third, women use a variety of symptom management strategies including self-medication, complementary/alternative medicine approaches, and psychological strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Implications of results are as follows: (1) skin toxicity affects numerous dimensions of QOL, and assessment approaches and psychosocial interventions should address this; (2) individual differences may affect the experience of skin toxicity and should be considered in treatment and education approaches; and (3) participants' own creativity and problem-solving should be used to improve the treatment experience.
Authors: Pat Fobair; Susan L Stewart; Subo Chang; Carol D'Onofrio; Priscilla J Banks; Joan R Bloom Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: C S Carver; C Pozo-Kaderman; A A Price; V Noriega; S D Harris; R P Derhagopian; D S Robinson; F L Moffat Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 1998 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Eric Berthelet; Pauline T Truong; Karin Musso; Vickie Grant; Winkle Kwan; Veronika Moravan; Kelly Patterson; Ivo A Olivotto Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Brett D Thombs; Lisa D Notes; John W Lawrence; Gina Magyar-Russell; Melissa G Bresnick; James A Fauerbach Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Julie B Schnur; Joshua Graff Zivin; David M K Mattson; Sheryl Green; Lina H Jandorf; A Gabriella Wernicke; Guy H Montgomery Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-03-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Nancy K Janz; Sarah T Hawley; Mahasin S Mujahid; Jennifer J Griggs; Amy Alderman; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Reshma Jagsi; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stacy Tessler Lindau; Emily M Abramsohn; Shirley R Baron; Judith Florendo; Hope K Haefner; Anuja Jhingran; Vanessa Kennedy; Mukta K Krane; David M Kushner; Jennifer McComb; Diane F Merritt; Julie E Park; Amy Siston; Margaret Straub; Lauren Streicher Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Julie B Schnur; Bianca Love; Bari L Scheckner; Sheryl Green; A Gabriella Wernicke; A Gabriella; Guy H Montgomery Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Carly L Paterson; Cecile A Lengacher; Kristine A Donovan; Kevin E Kip; Cindy S Tofthagen Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Virginia P Henderson; Ann O Massion; Lynn Clemow; Thomas G Hurley; Susan Druker; James R Hébert Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Sandrine Censabella; Stefan Claes; Jolien Robijns; Paul Bulens; Jeroen Mebis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 3.603