Claudia Cormio1, Francesca Caporale2, Roberta Spatuzzi3, Fulvia Lagattolla2, Andrea Lisi2, Giusi Graziano2. 1. Psycho-Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II", Viale Orazio Flacco 65, 70124, Bari, BA, Italy. clacormio@gmail.com. 2. Psycho-Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II", Viale Orazio Flacco 65, 70124, Bari, BA, Italy. 3. Palliative Care Unit, San Carlo Hospital, Via Potito Petrone, 85100, Potenza, PZ, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cancer patients often suffer for psychological distress, which can compromise their quality of life. Our study aimed to recognize risk classes for the development of psychosocial distress. METHODS: Three hundred seventy-two adult cancer patients were assessed by the Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List at the National Cancer Research Centre "Giovanni Paolo II" of Bari. We also compiled a socio-medical and clinical-medical record survey ad hoc for collecting socio-demographic information and clinical variables. To examine the interplay among the different variables and distinguish internally homogeneous subgroups of patients with diverse risks of distress, the RECursive Partitioning and Amalgamation (RECPAM) technique was used. RESULTS: Most of patients were female and the most frequent diagnosis was breast cancer, followed by gastro-intestinal cancer and hematological cancer. Distress was present in 43% of the sample, with a total of 156 patients with a DT > 5. The RECPAM analysis identified three distinct and homogeneous patient subgroups (RECPAM classes) with different risks of distress: diagnosis, marital status, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status. CONCLUSION: The use of the distress thermometer allows clinicians to identify patients with certain characteristics that may increase the risk of developing psychosocial distress. This evaluation can allow timely psychological intervention and improve the patient's therapeutic program.
PURPOSE:Cancerpatients often suffer for psychological distress, which can compromise their quality of life. Our study aimed to recognize risk classes for the development of psychosocial distress. METHODS: Three hundred seventy-two adult cancerpatients were assessed by the Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List at the National Cancer Research Centre "Giovanni Paolo II" of Bari. We also compiled a socio-medical and clinical-medical record survey ad hoc for collecting socio-demographic information and clinical variables. To examine the interplay among the different variables and distinguish internally homogeneous subgroups of patients with diverse risks of distress, the RECursive Partitioning and Amalgamation (RECPAM) technique was used. RESULTS: Most of patients were female and the most frequent diagnosis was breast cancer, followed by gastro-intestinal cancer and hematological cancer. Distress was present in 43% of the sample, with a total of 156 patients with a DT > 5. The RECPAM analysis identified three distinct and homogeneous patient subgroups (RECPAM classes) with different risks of distress: diagnosis, marital status, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status. CONCLUSION: The use of the distress thermometer allows clinicians to identify patients with certain characteristics that may increase the risk of developing psychosocial distress. This evaluation can allow timely psychological intervention and improve the patient's therapeutic program.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Distress; Distress thermometer; RECPAM; Risk class
Authors: Paul B Jacobsen; Kristine A Donovan; Peter C Trask; Stewart B Fleishman; James Zabora; Frank Baker; Jimmie C Holland Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Emma M Richardson; Natalie Schüz; Kristy Sanderson; Jennifer L Scott; Benjamin Schüz Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-08-21 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Francesco Bulli; Guido Miccinesi; Alice Maruelli; Manuel Katz; Eugenio Paci Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-12-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jiayi Du; Ling Fu; Jiaxin Cui; Zifen An; Pei Fang; Lanhui Tan; Xianmei Meng; Liping Yu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Samantha J Mayo; Maryam Lustberg; Haryana M Dhillon; Zev M Nakamura; Deborah H Allen; Diane Von Ah; Michelle C Janelsins; Alexandre Chan; Karin Olson; Chia Jie Tan; Yi Long Toh; Jeong Oh; Lisa Grech; Yin Ting Cheung; Ishwaria Mohan Subbiah; Duska Petranovic; James D'Olimpio; Margherita Gobbo; Susanne Koeppen; Charles L Loprinzi; Linda Pang; Shivani Shinde; Olanipekun Ntukidem; Katherine B Peters Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Talya Salz; Jamie S Ostroff; Chandylen L Nightingale; Thomas M Atkinson; Eleanor C Davidson; Sankeerth R Jinna; Anuja Kriplani; Glenn J Lesser; Kathleen A Lynch; Deborah K Mayer; Kevin C Oeffinger; Sujata Patil; Andrew L Salner; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 2.261