Fay J Hlubocky1,2, Christopher K Daugherty1, Jeffery Peppercorn3, Karen Young4, Kristen E Wroblewski5, Seiko Diane Yamada2, Nita K Lee2. 1. Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology/Oncology, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, Cancer Research Center, Supportive Oncology Program, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL. 2. Department of Gynecology/Obstetrics, Section of Gynecologic Oncology, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL. 3. Division of Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, Dana Farber Partners, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 4. Illinois Chapter of the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition (NOCC), Chicago, IL. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Novel distress screening approaches using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measurements are critical for the provision of comprehensive quality community cancer care. Using an ePRO platform, the prevalence of psychosocial factors (distress, post-traumatic growth, resilience, and financial stress) affecting quality of life in ovarian cancer survivors (OCSs) was examined. METHODS: A cross-sectional OCS sample from the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition-Illinois Chapter completed web-based clinical, sociodemographic, and psychosocial assessment using well-validated measures: Hospital Anxiety/Depression Scale-anxiety/depression, Post-traumatic Growth Inventory, Brief Resilience Scale, comprehensive score for financial toxicity, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian (FACT-O/health-related quality of life [HRQOL]). Correlational analyses between variables were conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent (174 of 300) of OCS completed virtual assessment: median age 59 (range 32-83) years, 94.2% White, 60.3% married/in domestic partnership, 59.6% stage III-IV, 48.8% employed full-time/part-time, 55.2% had college/postgraduate education, 71.9% completed primary treatment, and median disease duration 6 (range < 1-34) years. On average, OCS endorsed normal levels of anxiety (mean ± standard deviation = 6.9 ± 3.8), depression (4.1 ± 3.6), mild total distress (10.9 ± 8.9), high post-traumatic growth (72.6 ± 21.5), normal resilience (3.7 ± 0.72), good FACT-O-HRQOL (112.6 ± 22.8), and mild financial stress (26 ± 10). Poor FACT-O emotional well-being was associated with greater participant distress (P < .001). Partial correlational analyses revealed negative correlations between FACT-O-HRQOL and anxiety (r = -0.65, P < .001), depression (r = -0.76, P < .001), and total distress (r = -0.92, P < .001). Yet, high FACT-O-HRQOL was positively correlated with post-traumatic coping (r = 0.27; P = .006) and resilience (r = 0.63; P < .001). CONCLUSION: ePRO assessment is feasible for identification of unique psychosocial factors, for example, financial toxicity and resilience, affecting HRQOL for OCS. Future investigation should explore large-scale, longitudinal ePRO assessment of the OCS psychosocial experience using innovative measures and community-based advocacy populations.
PURPOSE: Novel distress screening approaches using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measurements are critical for the provision of comprehensive quality community cancer care. Using an ePRO platform, the prevalence of psychosocial factors (distress, post-traumatic growth, resilience, and financial stress) affecting quality of life in ovarian cancer survivors (OCSs) was examined. METHODS: A cross-sectional OCS sample from the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition-Illinois Chapter completed web-based clinical, sociodemographic, and psychosocial assessment using well-validated measures: Hospital Anxiety/Depression Scale-anxiety/depression, Post-traumatic Growth Inventory, Brief Resilience Scale, comprehensive score for financial toxicity, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian (FACT-O/health-related quality of life [HRQOL]). Correlational analyses between variables were conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent (174 of 300) of OCS completed virtual assessment: median age 59 (range 32-83) years, 94.2% White, 60.3% married/in domestic partnership, 59.6% stage III-IV, 48.8% employed full-time/part-time, 55.2% had college/postgraduate education, 71.9% completed primary treatment, and median disease duration 6 (range < 1-34) years. On average, OCS endorsed normal levels of anxiety (mean ± standard deviation = 6.9 ± 3.8), depression (4.1 ± 3.6), mild total distress (10.9 ± 8.9), high post-traumatic growth (72.6 ± 21.5), normal resilience (3.7 ± 0.72), good FACT-O-HRQOL (112.6 ± 22.8), and mild financial stress (26 ± 10). Poor FACT-O emotional well-being was associated with greater participant distress (P < .001). Partial correlational analyses revealed negative correlations between FACT-O-HRQOL and anxiety (r = -0.65, P < .001), depression (r = -0.76, P < .001), and total distress (r = -0.92, P < .001). Yet, high FACT-O-HRQOL was positively correlated with post-traumatic coping (r = 0.27; P = .006) and resilience (r = 0.63; P < .001). CONCLUSION: ePRO assessment is feasible for identification of unique psychosocial factors, for example, financial toxicity and resilience, affecting HRQOL for OCS. Future investigation should explore large-scale, longitudinal ePRO assessment of the OCS psychosocial experience using innovative measures and community-based advocacy populations.
Authors: Frank J Penedo; Laura B Oswald; Joshua P Kronenfeld; Sofia F Garcia; David Cella; Betina Yanez Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Margaret I Liang; Maria Pisu; Sarah S Summerlin; Teresa K L Boitano; Christina T Blanchard; Smita Bhatia; Warner K Huh Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-11-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Allison Dvaladze; Darya A Kizub; Anna Cabanes; Gertrude Nakigudde; Bertha Aguilar; Jo Anne Zujewski; Catherine Duggan; Benjamin O Anderson; R K Pritam Singh; Julie R Gralow Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: K Basen-Engquist; D Bodurka-Bevers; M A Fitzgerald; K Webster; D Cella; S Hu; D M Gershenson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeannine M Salamone; Wanda Lucas; Shelley B Brundage; Jamie N Holloway; Sherri M Stahl; Nora E Carbine; Margery London; Naomi Greenwood; Rosa Goyes; Deborah Charles Chisholm; Erin Price; Roberta Carlin; Susan Winarsky; Kirsten B Baker; Julia Maues; Ayesha N Shajahan-Haq Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: S Singer; S Kuhnt; H Götze; J Hauss; A Hinz; A Liebmann; O Krauss; A Lehmann; R Schwarz Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jonas A de Souza; Bonnie J Yap; Kristen Wroblewski; Victoria Blinder; Fabiana S Araújo; Fay J Hlubocky; Lauren H Nicholas; Jeremy M O'Connor; Bruce Brockstein; Mark J Ratain; Christopher K Daugherty; David Cella Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 6.860