Patricia I Jewett1,2, Deanna Teoh1, Sue Petzel1, Heewon Lee1, Audrey Messelt1, Jeffrey Kendall3, Dorothy Hatsukami3, Susan A Everson-Rose4, Anne H Blaes2, Rachel I Vogel1. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women's Health, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 3. University of Minnesota Cancer Care, Minneapolis, MN. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, and Program in Health Disparities Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Distress Thermometer (DT) includes a measure of cancer-related distress and a list of self-reported problems. This study evaluated the utility of the DT problem list in identifying concerns most associated with distress and poorer quality of life (QOL) in survivors of gynecologic cancer. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, psychosocial functioning, and DT data were described among 355 women participating in a gynecologic cancer cohort. Problems from the DT list were ranked by prevalence, distress, and QOL. Logistic regression models explored factors associated with problems that were common (≥ 25% prevalence) and associated with distress and QOL. RESULTS: The average age of participants was 59.9 years (standard deviation [SD], 10.8 years). Most participants were non-Hispanic white (97%) and had ovarian (44%) or uterine (42%) cancer. The mean DT score was 2.7 (SD, 2.7); participants reported a mean of 7.3 problems (SD, 5.9 problems). The most common problems were fatigue (53.6%), worry (49.9%), and tingling (46.3%); least common problems were childcare (2.1%), fevers (2.1%), and substance abuse (1.1%). Report of some common problems, including tingling, sleep, memory, skin issues, and appearance, was not associated with large differences in distress or QOL. In contrast, some rarer problems such as childcare, treatment decisions, eating, housing, nausea, and bathing/dressing were associated with worse distress or QOL. Younger age, lower income, and chemotherapy were risk factors across common problems that were associated with worse distress or QOL (fatigue, nervousness, sadness, fears, and pain). CONCLUSION: The DT problem list did not easily identify concerns most associated with distress and low QOL in patients with gynecologic cancer. Adaptations that enable patients to report their most distressing concerns would enhance clinical utility of this commonly used tool.
PURPOSE: The Distress Thermometer (DT) includes a measure of cancer-related distress and a list of self-reported problems. This study evaluated the utility of the DT problem list in identifying concerns most associated with distress and poorer quality of life (QOL) in survivors of gynecologic cancer. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, psychosocial functioning, and DT data were described among 355 women participating in a gynecologic cancer cohort. Problems from the DT list were ranked by prevalence, distress, and QOL. Logistic regression models explored factors associated with problems that were common (≥ 25% prevalence) and associated with distress and QOL. RESULTS: The average age of participants was 59.9 years (standard deviation [SD], 10.8 years). Most participants were non-Hispanic white (97%) and had ovarian (44%) or uterine (42%) cancer. The mean DT score was 2.7 (SD, 2.7); participants reported a mean of 7.3 problems (SD, 5.9 problems). The most common problems were fatigue (53.6%), worry (49.9%), and tingling (46.3%); least common problems were childcare (2.1%), fevers (2.1%), and substance abuse (1.1%). Report of some common problems, including tingling, sleep, memory, skin issues, and appearance, was not associated with large differences in distress or QOL. In contrast, some rarer problems such as childcare, treatment decisions, eating, housing, nausea, and bathing/dressing were associated with worse distress or QOL. Younger age, lower income, and chemotherapy were risk factors across common problems that were associated with worse distress or QOL (fatigue, nervousness, sadness, fears, and pain). CONCLUSION: The DT problem list did not easily identify concerns most associated with distress and low QOL in patients with gynecologic cancer. Adaptations that enable patients to report their most distressing concerns would enhance clinical utility of this commonly used tool.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Cristiane Decat Bergerot; Hannah-Rose Mitchell; Kimlin Tam Ashing; Youngmee Kim Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jonas A de Souza; Bonnie J Yap; Fay J Hlubocky; Kristen Wroblewski; Mark J Ratain; David Cella; Christopher K Daugherty Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Cristiane Decat Bergerot; Paulo Gustavo Bergerot; Errol J Philip; Edvane Birelo Lopes De Domenico; Maria Fernanda Marcusso Manhaes; Renata Nunes Pedras; Meghan M Salgia; Nazli Dizman; Kimlin Tam Ashing; Min Li; William Dale; Sumanta K Pal Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: B Thewes; B Meiser; A Taylor; K A Phillips; S Pendlebury; A Capp; D Dalley; D Goldstein; R Baber; M L Friedlander Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anna C Muriel; Cynthia W Moore; Lee Baer; Elyse R Park; Alice B Kornblith; William Pirl; Holly Prigerson; Jennifer Ing; Paula K Rauch Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jenny W Y Pang; Debra L Friedman; John A Whitton; Marilyn Stovall; Ann C Mertens; Leslie L Robison; Noel S Weiss Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 3.838
Authors: Hadley W Reid; Gloria Broadwater; Mary Katherine Montes de Oca; Bharathi Selvan; Oluwadamilola Fayanju; Laura J Havrilesky; Brittany A Davidson Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Audrey Messelt; Lauren Thomaier; Patricia I Jewett; Heewon Lee; Deanna Teoh; Susan A Everson-Rose; Anne H Blaes; Rachel I Vogel Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-12-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Alexandra Schefter; Lauren Thomaier; Patricia Jewett; Katherine Brown; Ashley E Stenzel; Anne Blaes; Deanna Teoh; Rachel I Vogel Journal: Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Date: 2021-05-31