PURPOSE: Previous research has demonstrated relationships of social support with disease-related biomarkers in patients with ovarian cancer. However, the clinical relevance of these findings to patient outcomes has not been established. This prospective study examined how social support relates to long-term survival among consecutive patients with ovarian cancer. We focused on two types of social support: social attachment, a type of emotional social support reflecting connections with others, and instrumental social support reflecting the availability of tangible assistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were prospectively recruited during a presurgical clinic visit and completed surveys before surgery. One hundred sixty-eight patients with histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian cancer were observed from the date of surgery until death or December 2010. Clinical information was obtained from medical records. RESULTS: In a Cox regression model, adjusting for disease stage, grade, histology, residual disease, and age, greater social attachment was associated with a lower likelihood of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.98; P = .018). The median survival time for patients with low social attachment categorized on a median split of 15 was 3.35 years (95% CI, 2.56 to 4.15 years). In contrast, by study completion, 59% of patients with high social attachment were still alive after 4.70 years. No significant association was found between instrumental social support and survival, even after adjustment for covariates. CONCLUSION: Social attachment is associated with a survival advantage for patients with ovarian cancer. Clinical implications include the importance of screening for deficits in the social environment and consideration of support activities during adjuvant treatment.
PURPOSE: Previous research has demonstrated relationships of social support with disease-related biomarkers in patients with ovarian cancer. However, the clinical relevance of these findings to patient outcomes has not been established. This prospective study examined how social support relates to long-term survival among consecutive patients with ovarian cancer. We focused on two types of social support: social attachment, a type of emotional social support reflecting connections with others, and instrumental social support reflecting the availability of tangible assistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were prospectively recruited during a presurgical clinic visit and completed surveys before surgery. One hundred sixty-eight patients with histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian cancer were observed from the date of surgery until death or December 2010. Clinical information was obtained from medical records. RESULTS: In a Cox regression model, adjusting for disease stage, grade, histology, residual disease, and age, greater social attachment was associated with a lower likelihood of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.98; P = .018). The median survival time for patients with low social attachment categorized on a median split of 15 was 3.35 years (95% CI, 2.56 to 4.15 years). In contrast, by study completion, 59% of patients with high social attachment were still alive after 4.70 years. No significant association was found between instrumental social support and survival, even after adjustment for covariates. CONCLUSION: Social attachment is associated with a survival advantage for patients with ovarian cancer. Clinical implications include the importance of screening for deficits in the social environment and consideration of support activities during adjuvant treatment.
Authors: Anil K Sood; Guillermo N Armaiz-Pena; Jyotsnabaran Halder; Alpa M Nick; Rebecca L Stone; Wei Hu; Amy R Carroll; Whitney A Spannuth; Michael T Deavers; Julie K Allen; Liz Y Han; Aparna A Kamat; Mian M K Shahzad; Bradley W McIntyre; Claudia M Diaz-Montero; Nicholas B Jennings; Yvonne G Lin; William M Merritt; Koen DeGeest; Pablo E Vivas-Mejia; Gabriel Lopez-Berestein; Michael D Schaller; Steven W Cole; Susan K Lutgendorf Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2010-04-12 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Eric V Yang; Seung-jae Kim; Elise L Donovan; Min Chen; Amy C Gross; Jeanette I Webster Marketon; Sanford H Barsky; Ronald Glaser Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2008-10-21 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Susan K Lutgendorf; Donald M Lamkin; Nicholas B Jennings; Jesusa M G Arevalo; Frank Penedo; Koen DeGeest; Robert R Langley; Joseph A Lucci; Steve W Cole; David M Lubaroff; Anil K Sood Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-11-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Susan K Lutgendorf; Koen DeGeest; Caroline Y Sung; Jesusa M Arevalo; Frank Penedo; Joseph Lucci; Michael Goodheart; David Lubaroff; Donna M Farley; Anil K Sood; Steve W Cole Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2008-06-11 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Michaela G Cuneo; Andrew Schrepf; George M Slavich; Premal H Thaker; Michael Goodheart; David Bender; Steve W Cole; Anil K Sood; Susan K Lutgendorf Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Sujanitha Umamaheswaran; Santosh K Dasari; Peiying Yang; Susan K Lutgendorf; Anil K Sood Journal: Cancer Metastasis Rev Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 9.264
Authors: Keely A Muscatell; Naomi I Eisenberger; Janine M Dutcher; Steven W Cole; Julienne E Bower Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Susan K Lutgendorf; George M Slavich; Koenraad Degeest; Michael Goodheart; David Bender; Premal H Thaker; Frank Penedo; Bridget Zimmerman; Joseph Lucci; Luis Mendez; Katherine Collins; Anil K Sood Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Susan K Lutgendorf; Premal H Thaker; Jesusa M Arevalo; Michael J Goodheart; George M Slavich; Anil K Sood; Steve W Cole Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 6.860