Literature DB >> 31897762

Relationship between psychological distress and health-related quality of life at each point of the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Yu Ohkura1,2,3, Kanako Ichikura4,5, Junichi Shindoh6,7, Masaki Ueno6,7, Harushi Udagawa7,8, Eisuke Matsushima4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with esophageal cancer often feel depression or fear of death influenced by multiple clinical factors. This study sought to investigate the clinical factors associated with psychological distress, focusing on the influence of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for better psychological management of patients with esophageal cancer.
METHODS: In total, 102 of 152 consecutive patients surgically treated at Toranomon Hospital met the eligibility criteria for analysis. Questionnaires designed to identify psychological distress and QOL (EORTC QLQ C-30/OES18) were administered at five time points during the treatment course. Degree of psychological distress was assessed by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).
RESULTS: Patients with HADS score ≥ 11 at each visit showed significantly higher level of symptoms or problems measured by the score of EORTC QLQ C-30/OES18 compared with those with HADS score ≤ 10. Emotional status was a significant factor associated with psychological distress at all times. Although functional scales including global health status or QOL status and symptom scales associated with esophageal cancer were strongly associated with psychological distress before treatment, scales associated with changes in habitus after esophagectomy showed significant correlation with psychological distress after surgery. No significant correlation was observed between psychological distress and individual baseline characteristics, apart from history of surgery and pathological staging.
CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress during treatment course of esophageal cancer is significantly associated with HRQOL influenced by esophagectomy. The current results may warrant prospective intervention through enhanced recovery after surgery to better manage patients undergoing highly invasive procedures for esophageal cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anxiety; Depression; Esophageal cancer; Psychological distress; QOL

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31897762     DOI: 10.1007/s10388-019-00710-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Esophagus        ISSN: 1612-9059            Impact factor:   4.230


  6 in total

1.  Financial toxicity and psychological distress in adults with cancer: A treatment-based analysis.

Authors:  Huihui Yu; Hui Li; Tingting Zuo; Li Cao; Xue Bi; Haiyang Xing; Lijuan Cai; Jianmin Sun; Yunyong Liu
Journal:  Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2022-04-20

Review 2.  Multidisciplinary treatment of esophageal cancer: The role of active surveillance after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Authors:  Tania Triantafyllou; Bas Wijnhoven
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2020-07-25

3.  Perioperative risk factors of psychological distress in patients undergoing treatment for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Yu Ohkura; Junichi Shindoh; Kanako Ichikura; Harushi Udagawa; Masaki Ueno; Eisuke Matsushima
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 2.754

4.  Psychological distress and health-related quality of life up to 2 years after oesophageal cancer surgery: nationwide population-based study.

Authors:  Y J Liu; A Schandl; S Markar; A Johar; P Lagergren
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2021-01-08

5.  The impact of chemotherapy-induced inner ear damage on quality of life in cancer survivors: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Stephanie E Pearson; Charlotte Caimino; Maryam Shabbir; David M Baguley
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2021-08-16       Impact factor: 4.062

6.  Association between psychological distress of each points of the treatment of esophageal cancer and stress coping strategy.

Authors:  Yu Ohkura; Kanako Ichikura; Junichi Shindoh; Masaki Ueno; Harushi Udagawa; Eisuke Matsushima
Journal:  BMC Psychol       Date:  2022-09-06
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.