Cécile Charles1,2, Darius Razavi3, Catherine Bungener4, Christine Mateus5, Emilie Lanoy6, Michèle Verschoore7, Sarah Dauchy8, Caroline Robert5. 1. Psycho-Oncology Unit, Gustave Roussy, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, 94805, Villejuif Cedex, France. cecile.charles@gustaveroussy.fr. 2. Laboratory of Psychopathology and Health processes, EA 4057, Psychology Institute, Paris Descartes University-Sorbonne Paris Cité, Boulogne-Billancourt, France. cecile.charles@gustaveroussy.fr. 3. Psychosomatic and Psycho-Oncology Research Unit, University of Brussels-Psycho-Oncology Clinic, Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Laboratory of Psychopathology and Health processes, EA 4057, Psychology Institute, Paris Descartes University-Sorbonne Paris Cité, Boulogne-Billancourt, France. 5. Dermatology Service, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand-Paris-Sud Villejuif, Villejuif, France. 6. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. 7. Department of Research and Innovation, L'Oreal, Paris, France. 8. Psycho-Oncology Unit, Gustave Roussy, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, 94805, Villejuif Cedex, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Body-image issues associated with dermatological side effects induced by anticancer-targeted therapies have not been specifically explored until now despite growing literature about their impact on quality of life. Prospective and longitudinal investigations were needed. The aim of our study was to describe body-image changes occurring with cutaneous toxicities and their psychosocial impact on patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients were evaluated four times during the first 3 months of targeted therapy in terms of body satisfaction, physical attitudes and depression with validated and ad hoc questionnaires. The NCI-CTCAE V4.0 was used to grade adverse dermatological events. Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted with SPSS 14.0 software. RESULTS: Ninety-four per cent of the patients developed skin toxicities. Body satisfaction remained stable and slightly better than average over this period. About one-third of the patients reported body-image issues at baseline. Body satisfaction and depression levels at baseline appeared to be significantly associated with body-image issues after 3 months of therapy. CONCLUSION: In the framework of regular dermatological monitoring, skin toxicities did not appear to be associated with body-image issues. Body satisfaction and depressive symptoms at the beginning of targeted therapy emerged as critical factors that practitioners should consider in order to prevent deterioration of body image that could impact on quality of life and compromise compliance.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Body-image issues associated with dermatological side effects induced by anticancer-targeted therapies have not been specifically explored until now despite growing literature about their impact on quality of life. Prospective and longitudinal investigations were needed. The aim of our study was to describe body-image changes occurring with cutaneous toxicities and their psychosocial impact on patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients were evaluated four times during the first 3 months of targeted therapy in terms of body satisfaction, physical attitudes and depression with validated and ad hoc questionnaires. The NCI-CTCAE V4.0 was used to grade adverse dermatological events. Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted with SPSS 14.0 software. RESULTS: Ninety-four per cent of the patients developed skin toxicities. Body satisfaction remained stable and slightly better than average over this period. About one-third of the patients reported body-image issues at baseline. Body satisfaction and depression levels at baseline appeared to be significantly associated with body-image issues after 3 months of therapy. CONCLUSION: In the framework of regular dermatological monitoring, skin toxicities did not appear to be associated with body-image issues. Body satisfaction and depressive symptoms at the beginning of targeted therapy emerged as critical factors that practitioners should consider in order to prevent deterioration of body image that could impact on quality of life and compromise compliance.
Authors: Edward J Stepanski; Carolina Reyes; Mark S Walker; Sacha Satram-Hoang; Larry Leon; Slawomir Wojtowicz-Praga; Paul J E Miller; Arthur C Houts; Lee S Schwartzberg Journal: Pancreas Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Lynne I Wagner; Sara R Berg; Mona Gandhi; Fay J Hlubocky; Kimberly Webster; Monika Aneja; David Cella; Mario E Lacouture Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 3.603