PURPOSE: Distress is prevalent in breast cancer patients and can be detrimental to quality of life, performance status, treatment adherence, and satisfaction with medical care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network developed the distress thermometer (DT) as a self-assessment tool for screening distress in cancer patients. Given time and financial constraints, it is important to refine screening criteria to identify patients with elevated risk for distress. In this study, we identify clinical and epidemiological factors that are associated with an increased likelihood of elevated DT scores (≥ 4 and ≥ 7). METHODS: We assessed 229 female patients with the DT at their initial consultation for breast cancer at the Huntsman Cancer Hospital between September 2007 and December 2008. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to analyze DT and patient data. RESULTS: Patients undergoing their initial distress thermometer screening within 30 days of receiving a diagnosis of breast cancer had the highest likelihood of scoring ≥ 4 and ≥ 7 on the DT screening tool. Emotional and physical concerns were associated with scores ≥ 4 and scores ≥ 7. Spiritual concerns became significant in patients reporting scores ≥ 7. Patients who were non-Caucasian, unemployed, had a prior history of depression, presented for recurrent disease, or who had been recently diagnosed had a higher likelihood of scores ≥ 4 and scores ≥ 7. CONCLUSIONS: Four groups of patients should be targeted for aggressive screening; patients with a prior diagnosis of depression, patients presenting with recurrent disease, unemployed patients, and non-Caucasian patients. Interventions should address physical, emotional, and spiritual concerns.
PURPOSE: Distress is prevalent in breast cancerpatients and can be detrimental to quality of life, performance status, treatment adherence, and satisfaction with medical care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network developed the distress thermometer (DT) as a self-assessment tool for screening distress in cancerpatients. Given time and financial constraints, it is important to refine screening criteria to identify patients with elevated risk for distress. In this study, we identify clinical and epidemiological factors that are associated with an increased likelihood of elevated DT scores (≥ 4 and ≥ 7). METHODS: We assessed 229 female patients with the DT at their initial consultation for breast cancer at the Huntsman Cancer Hospital between September 2007 and December 2008. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to analyze DT and patient data. RESULTS:Patients undergoing their initial distress thermometer screening within 30 days of receiving a diagnosis of breast cancer had the highest likelihood of scoring ≥ 4 and ≥ 7 on the DT screening tool. Emotional and physical concerns were associated with scores ≥ 4 and scores ≥ 7. Spiritual concerns became significant in patients reporting scores ≥ 7. Patients who were non-Caucasian, unemployed, had a prior history of depression, presented for recurrent disease, or who had been recently diagnosed had a higher likelihood of scores ≥ 4 and scores ≥ 7. CONCLUSIONS: Four groups of patients should be targeted for aggressive screening; patients with a prior diagnosis of depression, patients presenting with recurrent disease, unemployed patients, and non-Caucasian patients. Interventions should address physical, emotional, and spiritual concerns.
Authors: Jimmie C Holland; Barbara Andersen; William S Breitbart; Bruce Compas; Moreen M Dudley; Stewart Fleishman; Caryl D Fulcher; Donna B Greenberg; Carl B Greiner; George F Handzo; Laura Hoofring; Paul B Jacobsen; Sara J Knight; Kate Learson; Michael H Levy; Matthew J Loscalzo; Sharon Manne; Randi McAllister-Black; Michelle B Riba; Kristin Roper; Alan D Valentine; Lynne I Wagner; Michael A Zevon Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Mark T Hegel; Caroline P Moore; E Dale Collins; Stephen Kearing; Karen L Gillock; Raine L Riggs; Kate F Clay; Tim A Ahles Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jesse R Fann; Anne M Thomas-Rich; Wayne J Katon; Deborah Cowley; Mary Pepping; Bonnie A McGregor; Julie Gralow Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Lauren Z Davis; Michaela Cuneo; Premal H Thaker; Michael J Goodheart; David Bender; Susan K Lutgendorf Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Karine Yenokyan; Yi Ren; Benjamin A Goldstein; Ilona Stashko; Steve Power; Madeline J Thornton; P Kelly Marcom; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Joanne Lester; Kara Crosthwaite; Robin Stout; Rachel N Jones; Christopher Holloman; Charles Shapiro; Barbara L Andersen Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Marta Linares-Moya; Janet Rodríguez-Torres; Alejandro Heredia-Ciuró; María Granados-Santiago; Laura López-López; Florencio Quero-Valenzuela; Marie Carmen Valenza Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Deborah N N Lo-Fo-Wong; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Neil K Aaronson; Doris L van Abbema; Mathilda D den Boer; Marjan van Hezewijk; Marcelle Immink; Ad A Kaptein; Marian B E Menke-Pluijmers; Anna K L Reyners; Nicola S Russell; Manon Schriek; Sieta Sijtsema; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Mirjam A G Sprangers Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Angelo Braga Mendonça; Eliane Ramos Pereira; Carinne Magnago; Pedro Gilson da Silva; Diva Cristina Morett Leão; Rose Mary Costa Rosa Andrade Silva; Karina Cardoso Meira Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 3.390