M L Gregorowitsch1, H J G D van den Bongard2, D A Young-Afat2,3, J P Pignol4, C H van Gils3, A M May3, H M Verkooijen5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. m.l.gregorowitsch@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Imaging Division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is associated with an excellent prognosis; historical studies have shown similar levels of psychological distress in patients with DCIS and with early-stage invasive breast cancer (early-IBC). It is suggested that these results might have led to better patient education about prognosis after DCIS. This study reports the current levels of anxiety, depression, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in DCIS and early-IBC patients. METHODS: DCIS (n = 89) and early-IBC patients, T1-2N0, (n = 361) were selected from the UMBRELLA breast cancer cohort. Patient-reported outcomes were prospectively collected before the start of adjuvant radiotherapy (baseline) and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months thereafter. Mixed models were used to compare differences in levels of anxiety, depression, and HRQoL between DCIS and early-IBC patients. RESULTS: DCIS and early-IBC patients reported similar levels of anxiety, which were highest at baseline. Depression scores were comparable between groups, also after stratification by use of adjuvant chemotherapy. The proportion of patients reporting high-risk depression scores (i.e., Hospital Anxiety and Depression Sale score >8) was significantly higher among patients with DCIS at 6, 12 and 18 months, and this proportion increased over the first 18 months. Health-related quality of life was comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: Severe depression scores are more common in DCIS patients, despite their excellent prognosis. These results suggest that further improvement of patient education and effective patient doctor communication about the prognostic differences between patients with DCIS and invasive breast cancer is still highly needed.
PURPOSE:Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is associated with an excellent prognosis; historical studies have shown similar levels of psychological distress in patients with DCIS and with early-stage invasive breast cancer (early-IBC). It is suggested that these results might have led to better patient education about prognosis after DCIS. This study reports the current levels of anxiety, depression, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in DCIS and early-IBC patients. METHODS: DCIS (n = 89) and early-IBC patients, T1-2N0, (n = 361) were selected from the UMBRELLA breast cancer cohort. Patient-reported outcomes were prospectively collected before the start of adjuvant radiotherapy (baseline) and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months thereafter. Mixed models were used to compare differences in levels of anxiety, depression, and HRQoL between DCIS and early-IBC patients. RESULTS: DCIS and early-IBC patients reported similar levels of anxiety, which were highest at baseline. Depression scores were comparable between groups, also after stratification by use of adjuvant chemotherapy. The proportion of patients reporting high-risk depression scores (i.e., Hospital Anxiety and Depression Sale score >8) was significantly higher among patients with DCIS at 6, 12 and 18 months, and this proportion increased over the first 18 months. Health-related quality of life was comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION:Severe depression scores are more common in DCIS patients, despite their excellent prognosis. These results suggest that further improvement of patient education and effective patient doctor communication about the prognostic differences between patients with DCIS and invasive breast cancer is still highly needed.
Authors: William Pidduck; Bo Angela Wan; Liying Zhang; Eileen Rakovitch; Selina Chow; Stephanie Chan; Caitlin Yee; Leah Drost; Philomena Sousa; Donna Lewis; Henry Lam; Eric Leung; Edward Chow Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alexander Liede; Mona Cai; Tamara Fidler Crouter; Daniela Niepel; Fiona Callaghan; D Gareth Evans Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-05-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Julieta Politi; María Sala; Laia Domingo; María Vernet-Tomas; Marta Román; Francesc Macià; Xavier Castells Journal: Womens Health (Lond) Date: 2020 Jan-Dec
Authors: Dieuwke R Mink van der Molen; Claudia A Bargon; Marilot C T Batenburg; Roxanne Gal; Danny A Young-Afat; Lilianne E van Stam; Iris E van Dam; Femke van der Leij; Inge O Baas; Miranda F Ernst; Wiesje Maarse; Nieke Vermulst; Ernst J P Schoenmaeckers; Thijs van Dalen; Rhodé M Bijlsma; Annemiek Doeksen; Helena M Verkooijen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Claudia A Bargon; Marilot C T Batenburg; Lilianne E van Stam; Dieuwke R Mink van der Molen; Iris E van Dam; Femke van der Leij; Inge O Baas; Miranda F Ernst; Wiesje Maarse; Nieke Vermulst; Ernst J P Schoenmaeckers; Thijs van Dalen; Rhodé M Bijlsma; Danny A Young-Afat; Annemiek Doeksen; Helena M Verkooijen Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2020-11-05
Authors: Catharina Bartmann; Leah-Maria Fischer; Theresa Hübner; Max Müller-Reiter; Achim Wöckel; Rhiannon V McNeill; Tanja Schlaiss; Sarah Kittel-Schneider; Ulrike Kämmerer; Joachim Diessner Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 4.430