Oluwadamilola M Fayanju1,2,3, Karine Yenokyan4, Yi Ren4,5, Benjamin A Goldstein4, Ilona Stashko4,5, Steve Power6, Madeline J Thornton1, P Kelly Marcom2,7, E Shelley Hwang1,2. 1. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Women's Cancer Program, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Surgery, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Biostatistics Shared Resource, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Department of Quality and Outcomes, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 7. Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer (DT) uses a 10-point scale (in which 0 indicates no distress and 10 indicates extreme distress) to measure patient-reported distress. In the current study, the authors sought to examine the relationship between treatment and NCCN DT scores in patients with breast cancer over time. METHODS: The authors included women aged ≥18 years who were diagnosed with stage 0 to stage IV breast cancer (according to the seventh edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer staging system) at a 3-hospital health system from January 2014 to July 2016. Linear mixed effects models adjusted for covariates including stage of disease, race/ethnicity, insurance, and treatment sequence (neoadjuvant vs adjuvant) were used to estimate adjusted mean changes in the DT score (MSCs) per week for patients undergoing lumpectomy, mastectomy only, and mastectomy with reconstruction (MR). RESULTS: The authors analyzed 12,569 encounters for 1029 unique patients (median score, 4; median follow-up, 67 weeks). Patients treated with MR (118 patients) were younger and more likely to be married, white, and privately insured compared with patients undergoing lumpectomy (620 patients) and mastectomy only (291 patients) (all P < .01). After adjusting for covariates, distress scores were found to decline significantly across all 3 surgical cohorts, with patients undergoing MR found to have both the most preoperative distress and the greatest decline in distress prior to surgery (MSC/week: -0.073 for MR vs -0.031 for lumpectomy vs -0.033 for mastectomy only; P = .001). Neoadjuvant therapy was associated with a longitudinal decline in distress for patients treated with lumpectomy (-1.023) and mastectomy only (-0.964). Over time, ductal carcinoma in situ (-0.503) and black race (-1.198) were found to be associated with declining distress among patients treated with lumpectomy and MR, respectively, whereas divorced patients who were treated with mastectomy only (0.948) and single patients treated with lumpectomy (0.476) experienced increased distress (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: When examined longitudinally in consecutive patients, the NCCN DT can provide patient-reported data to inform expectations and guide targeted support for patients with breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer (DT) uses a 10-point scale (in which 0 indicates no distress and 10 indicates extreme distress) to measure patient-reported distress. In the current study, the authors sought to examine the relationship between treatment and NCCN DT scores in patients with breast cancer over time. METHODS: The authors included women aged ≥18 years who were diagnosed with stage 0 to stage IV breast cancer (according to the seventh edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer staging system) at a 3-hospital health system from January 2014 to July 2016. Linear mixed effects models adjusted for covariates including stage of disease, race/ethnicity, insurance, and treatment sequence (neoadjuvant vs adjuvant) were used to estimate adjusted mean changes in the DT score (MSCs) per week for patients undergoing lumpectomy, mastectomy only, and mastectomy with reconstruction (MR). RESULTS: The authors analyzed 12,569 encounters for 1029 unique patients (median score, 4; median follow-up, 67 weeks). Patients treated with MR (118 patients) were younger and more likely to be married, white, and privately insured compared with patients undergoing lumpectomy (620 patients) and mastectomy only (291 patients) (all P < .01). After adjusting for covariates, distress scores were found to decline significantly across all 3 surgical cohorts, with patients undergoing MR found to have both the most preoperative distress and the greatest decline in distress prior to surgery (MSC/week: -0.073 for MR vs -0.031 for lumpectomy vs -0.033 for mastectomy only; P = .001). Neoadjuvant therapy was associated with a longitudinal decline in distress for patients treated with lumpectomy (-1.023) and mastectomy only (-0.964). Over time, ductal carcinoma in situ (-0.503) and black race (-1.198) were found to be associated with declining distress among patients treated with lumpectomy and MR, respectively, whereas divorced patients who were treated with mastectomy only (0.948) and single patients treated with lumpectomy (0.476) experienced increased distress (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: When examined longitudinally in consecutive patients, the NCCN DT can provide patient-reported data to inform expectations and guide targeted support for patients with breast cancer.
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: Francisco Gil; Luigi Grassi; Luzia Travado; Michele Tomamichel; Juan Ramón Gonzalez Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2005-03-11 Impact factor: 3.603
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: Kristi D Graves; Susanne M Arnold; Celia L Love; Kenneth L Kirsh; Pamela G Moore; Steven D Passik Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2006-11-03 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: John H Stewart; Alain G Bertoni; Jennifer L Staten; Edward A Levine; Cary P Gross Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-08-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mark T Hegel; E Dale Collins; Stephen Kearing; Karen L Gillock; Caroline P Moore; Tim A Ahles Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Paolo Taurisano; Chiara Abbatantuono; Veronica Verri; Ilaria Pepe; Luigia S Stucci; Alessandro Taurino; Marco Moschetta; Maria F De Caro; Linda A Antonucci Journal: BMC Psychol Date: 2022-01-03
Authors: Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Yi Ren; Ilona Stashko; Steve Power; Madeline J Thornton; P Kelly Marcom; Terry Hyslop; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 6.860