Journal articles on the topic 'Partners of cancer patients'
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Partners of cancer patients.
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Partners of cancer patients.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Giuliani, Meredith Elana, Maurene McQuestion, Lorna Sampson, Lisa W. Le, Jennifer M. Jones, Terry Cheng, John N. Waldron, and Jolie Ringash. "Partner’s survivorship care needs: Multivariable analysis in head and neck cancer patients." Journal of Clinical Oncology 34, no. 3_suppl (January 20, 2016): 120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.34.3_suppl.120.
Full textAbstract:
120 Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the number and predictors of head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors’ partners unmet needs and how they correspond to the unmet needs of the survivor. Methods: This study accrued consenting partners from among 158 patients with HNC who had completed a onetime survey including demographic information and the Cancer Survivors’ Unmet Needs Measure (CaSUN) between January 2013 and May 2014. Patients’ caregivers were invited to complete the Cancer Survivors’ Partners Unmet Needs Survey (CaSPUN). The mean (± standard deviation) number and proportion of unmet needs on the CaSPUN was calculated. Multivariable analyses (MVA) were performed to determine factors associated with greater unmet needs using linear regression. Kappa co-efficient was calculated to examine the agreement between the unmet needs of patients and their partners on 22 corresponding items. Results: The CaSPUN survey was completed by 44 partners of head and neck cancer survivors. At least one unmet need was reported by 29 partners and 4 had a very high number of needs between 31 and 35. The most common unmet needs were “I need help to manage my concerns about the cancer coming back” (41%), “I need more accessible hospital parking” (34%), “ I need help to cope with others not acknowledging the impact of having a partner experience cancer has had on my own life” (30%), “ I need help dealing with changes that cancer has caused in my partner” (27%) and “I need to know all my partners doctors talk to each other to coordinate my partner’s care” (27%). Of the 5 most common items, 3 were in the Relationships domain. On MVA increasing number of unmet needs in patients was significantly associated with increased unmet needs in their partners (p < 0.01). Of the 22 paired items there was fair agreement in 12 items, moderate agreement in 8 items and good agreement in 2 items between patients and partners. Conclusions: A significant proportion of partners of cancer patients experience unmet needs which may differ from those of the patient themselves. Survivorship program should consider independent needs assessment and program development for partners.
2
Pat-Horenczyk, R., D. Machyevsky, D. Brom, I. Schwartz, M. Inbar, A. Rice, I. Wexler, and B. Corn. "Dyadic coping among breast cancer patients treated with radiotherapy." Journal of Clinical Oncology 27, no. 15_suppl (May 20, 2009): e20589-e20589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.e20589.
Full textAbstract:
e20589 Background: Cancer poses a major stressor for patients and their partners. Understanding dyad coping is useful for determining if one partner's involvement is beneficial or harmful to the other. We sought to evaluate whether dyadic coping enhances resilience in the context of other risk and protective factors for coping with serious illness. Methods: An IRB-approved questionnaire was offered to breast cancer patients and their spouses. Consent was obtained from 21 dyads who were queried prior to initiation of breast irradiation and within 2 weeks of completing treatment. The nature of dyadic coping (positive or negative), level of posttraumatic stress, functional impairment, depression, and markers of resiliency were assessed for each partner at the beginning and conclusion of therapy. Results: Depression was significantly higher in patients than in their spouses (df = 1, 13; F = 6.13; p = 0.028). Over the course of the radiotherapy, partner's depression improved while the patient's depression worsened (df=1,13; F=5.46; p=0.030). The patient's negative dyadic coping assessment before radiation therapy was positively associated with depression (β = 0.78; df = 31.3; t = 2.15; p = 0.04), as well as the partner's depression (β = 0.92; df = 31.3; t = 2.52; p = 0.017) and posttraumatic stress (β = 0.74; df = 31.7; t = 2.10; p = 0.04). Patient's pre-radiation negative dyadic coping was negatively associated with the partner's flexibility (β = -.21; df = 19; t = -2.28; p = 0.03) and self efficacy (β = 0.46; df = 21.8; t = 2.96; p = 0.007) at completion of therapy. Positive dyadic coping assessment was not associated with negative coping behaviors on the part of either the patient or partner. Conclusions: The results of this pilot study support interventions incorporating dyadic support to enhance the resilience of patients and partners. Intervention should promote flexibility and self-efficacy while providing tools for altering negative dyadic coping patterns. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
3
Sjövall, Katarina, Bo Attner, Thor Lithman, Dennis Noreen, Barbro Gunnars, Bibbi Thomé, and Håkan Olsson. "Influence on the Health of the Partner Affected by Tumor Disease in the Wife or Husband Based on a Population-Based Register Study of Cancer in Sweden." Journal of Clinical Oncology 27, no. 28 (October 1, 2009): 4781–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.21.6788.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose To examine health care use and health care costs among partners of persons with cancer. Patients and Methods Partners of patients with colon, rectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancer (N = 11,076) were identified via linked data from the Tumor Registry of Southern Sweden and Census Registry of Sweden. Health care use, total costs of health care, and diagnosis of the partner were studied before and after diagnosis of the cancer patient. Results Health care use for partners increased in terms of in-patient care after the cancer diagnosis. A significant increase was seen the second year for partners of patients with colon cancer (risk ratio [RR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.28 to 1.87) and lung cancer (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.79). Psychiatric diagnoses increased after the cancer diagnosis in the total sample, with a significant increase for partners of colon (RR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.71 to 4.22), lung (RR, 3.16; 95% CI, 2.23 to 4.57), and prostate cancer patients (RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.15). Costs of care increased more than the consumer price index the two years after the cancer diagnosis. Costs of care increased most for male partners and especially for younger male partners (age 25 to 64 years) of patients with colon, rectal, and lung cancers. Conclusion The results showed increased health care costs and an increase in psychiatric diagnoses after the cancer diagnosis among partners of cancer patients. Further research is needed to learn more about the situation of the partner and to identify persons at risk of psychiatric morbidity. Knowledge is also needed on how to support the partner in the most efficient way.
4
Carlson, Linda E., Barry D. Bultz, Michael Speca, and Mereille St. Pierre. "Partners of Cancer Patients." Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 18, no. 2 (August 18, 2000): 39–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j077v18n02_03.
Full text
5
Carlson, Linda E., Barry D. Bultz, Michael Speca, and Mireille St-Pierre. "Partners of Cancer Patients." Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 18, no. 3 (September 2000): 33–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j077v18n03_03.
Full text
6
Veenstra, Christine M., Paul Abrahamse, Arden M. Morris, and Sarah T. Hawley. "Partner engagement and patients’ receipt of colorectal cancer surveillance." Journal of Clinical Oncology 38, no. 15_suppl (May 20, 2020): e19106-e19106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.e19106.
Full textAbstract:
e19106 Background: Over 50% of survivors of colorectal cancer do not receive guideline-concordant surveillance. In light of growing recognition that members of couples influence each other’s health behaviors, we sought to describe partner engagement in surveillance and evaluate associations between partner engagement and patient receipt of surveillance. Methods: In 2019 we surveyed patients who, in 2014-18, underwent resection of Stage III colorectal cancer and were seen at a community oncology practice, an academic cancer center, or reported to Georgia SEER (current RR 46%). Patients gave a separate survey to their partner. 254 partners (68% RR) completed surveys. Using existing measures, we assessed 3 partner-reported elements of engagement: 1) informed about surveillance; 2) involved (extent of and satisfaction with) in surveillance; 3) aware of patients’ values/preferences. Each measure was scored on a continuous scale with higher scores indicating greater engagement. We assessed patient receipt of surveillance by patient-report of receipt of CEA blood test, imaging, and colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy (all y/n response). We performed multivariable regression analyses to assess associations between each element of partner engagement and patient receipt of surveillance, controlling for important partner- and patient-level variables. Results: Most partners (85%) were > age 50, female (64%), and white (86%). 27% had <high school education. Most patients (60%) had colon primary (vs rectal), received chemotherapy (95%), and were 3-4 years out from diagnosis (62%). Female partners and those with <high school education were more likely to report a greater extent of involvement; Partners < age 50 were more likely to report greater satisfaction with involvement. Female partners, those with <high school education, and partners of patients who received chemotherapy were more likely to report greater awareness (all p < 0.05). Being informed did not vary by partner or patient factors. Having a more aware partner was associated with greater patient receipt of surveillance colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy (p = 0.01). Receipt of surveillance CEA or imaging did not vary by partner engagement. Conclusions: Partner engagement in patients’ surveillance varied by partner age, gender and education. Partner awareness of patient preferences was associated with patient receipt of surveillance colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy. Our findings suggest that interventions to engage partners in patients’ surveillance may improve receipt of guideline-concordant care for survivors of colorectal cancer.
7
D'Souza, Gypsyamber, Neil D. Gross, Sara I. Pai, Robert Haddad, Karen S. Anderson, Shirani Rajan, Jennifer Gerber, Maura L. Gillison, and Marshall R. Posner. "Oral Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infection in HPV-Positive Patients With Oropharyngeal Cancer and Their Partners." Journal of Clinical Oncology 32, no. 23 (August 10, 2014): 2408–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.55.1341.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose To better understand oral human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cancer risk among long-term sexual partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC). Patients and Methods An oral rinse sample, risk factor survey, cancer history, and oral examination (partners only) were collected from patients with HPV-OPC and their partners. Oral rinse samples were evaluated for 36 types of HPV DNA using PGMY 09/11 primers and line-blot hybridization and HPV16 copy number using quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Oral HPV prevalence was compared with infection among those age 45 to 65 years using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2009-2010. Results A total of 164 patients with HPV-OPC and 93 of their partners were enrolled. Patients were primarily men (90%), were never-smokers (51%), and had performed oral sex (97%), with a median age of 56 years; they had a high prevalence of oncogenic oral HPV DNA (61%) and oral HPV16 DNA (54%) at enrollment. Female partners had comparable oncogenic oral HPV prevalence compared with members of the general population of the same age (1.2% v 1.3%). Among the six male partners, no oncogenic oral HPV infections were detected. No precancers or cancers were identified during partner oral cancer screening examinations. However, a history of cervical disease was reported by nine partners (10.3%) and two female patients (11.8%), and three patients (2.0%) reported a previous partner who developed invasive cervical cancer. Conclusion Oral HPV16 DNA is commonly detected among patients with HPV-OPC at diagnosis, but not among their partners. Partners of patients with HPV-OPC do not seem to have elevated oral HPV infection compared with the general population.
8
McGillivray, Hannah M. K., Elisabetta E. L. Piccolo, and Richard J. Wassersug. "“Partner”, “Caregiver”, or “Co-Survivor”—Might the Label We Give the Partners of Cancer Patients Affect the Health Outcome of the Patients and Their Partners?" Current Oncology 29, no. 1 (December 27, 2021): 122–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29010010.
Full textAbstract:
Having a life partner significantly extends survival for most cancer patients. The label given to the partners of cancer patients may, however, influence the health of not just the patients but their partners. “Caregiver” is an increasingly common label for the partners of patients, but it carries an implicit burden. Referring to partners as “caregivers” may be detrimental to the partnerships, as it implies that the individuals are no longer able to be co-supportive. Recognizing this, there has been some effort to relabel cancer dyads as “co-survivors”. However, many cancer patients are not comfortable being called a “survivor”, and the same may apply to their partners. Cancer survivorship, we argue, could be enhanced by helping keep the bond between patients and their partners strong. This includes educating patients and partners about diverse coping strategies that individuals use when facing challenges to their health and wellbeing. We suggest that preemptive couples’ counselling in cancer centers may benefit both patients and their partners.
9
Veenstra, Christine M., Paul Abrahamse, Arden M. Morris, and Sarah T. Hawley. "Long-term financial outcomes and quality of life in partners of colorectal cancer survivors." Journal of Clinical Oncology 38, no. 15_suppl (May 20, 2020): 7048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.7048.
Full textAbstract:
7048 Background: Many patients with colorectal cancer face financial toxicity, but little is known about financial outcomes among their partners. Moreover, virtually nothing is known about associations between partners’ quality of life and their financial outcomes. Methods: In 2019 we surveyed patients who, in 2014-18, underwent resection of Stage III colorectal cancer and were seen at a community oncology practice, an academic cancer center, or reported to Georgia SEER (current RR 46%). Patients gave a separate survey to their partner. 254 partners (68% RR) completed surveys. Partners were asked about financial impacts of the patient’s cancer. Partners’ quality of life (QOL) was measured with the PROMIS global health scale. Multivariable regression analyses of 3 partner-reported outcomes (1. Perception that their financial status is worse off, 2. Substantial worry about finances, 3. Debt related to patients’ cancer) were generated to assess associations between each outcome and key partner and patient variables, and associations between partners’ QOL and financial outcomes. Results: Among partners, 55% were < age 65, 64% female, 86% white, and 27% had < high school education. 61% were employed at time of patient’s diagnosis; 38% of those missed 7-30 days work and 13% missed > 1 month work due to the patient’s cancer. 66% patients were employed at diagnosis. Among those, 34% were no longer working at the time of survey. In 14% dyads only the patient was working at diagnosis and among those, 50% were no longer working at the time of survey. 32% partners reported their financial status is worse off, 36% reported substantial worry about finances, and 28% reported current debt, all due to the patient’s cancer. After adjustment for partner and patient variables, partners of patients further out from diagnosis and partners of patients who were working at diagnosis were more likely to report substantial worry. Partners < age 50, with <high school education, with >1 comorbid condition, and partners of patients who were working at diagnosis were more likely to report debt (all p < 0.05). Endorsing each of the 3 financial outcomes was associated with lower QOL among partners, after adjustment for partner and patient variables (all p < 0.01). Conclusions: Nearly 1/3 of partners of survivors of colorectal cancer reported long-term adverse financial outcomes due to the patient’s cancer. Partners of patients working at the time of diagnosis were more likely to report substantial worry and debt, perhaps because many patients who were working at diagnosis are no longer working in the survivorship period.
10
Basu, Anirban, William Dale, Arthur Elstein, and David Meltzer. "A Time Tradeoff Method for Eliciting Partner’s Quality of Life due to Patient’s Health States in Prostate Cancer." Medical Decision Making 30, no. 3 (March 12, 2010): 355–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989x09349959.
Full textAbstract:
Background. Cost-effectiveness analyses may better reflect the full costs and benefits of medical interventions if they incorporate the effects of patients’ health on their family members. Objective. To develop and apply a time tradeoff (TTO) technique to measure the impact of potential prostate cancer—related health states of the patients on the quality of life (QOL) of their partners. Methods. We developed modified TTO questions and applied them in a pilot study in which we asked the partner of the patient to tradeoff his or her own life in order to reduce the burden that he himself or she herself expects to experience if the patient developed one of the prostate cancer—related health states. We reviewed the theoretical justification for this question and carefully framed the question so as to reduce measurement error and also to avoid possible double counting with the effect on the partner’s health. Results. We collected data from 26 partners about their preferences for their own health, which is influenced by the patient’s health condition. The mean QOL weights for the partners when the patients are the following states are healthy, 0.81; impotent, 0.66; incontinent, 0.68; have metastatic disease, 0.50; and dead, 0.28. Partners’ responses varied by how close they felt to the patients. Low correlations between partners’ and patients’ QOL ratings (n = 15) suggest that the partners were not responding as proxies for the patient. Conclusions. A new TTO method is proposed to measure a partner’s QOL due to a patient’s health. Preliminary test results of validity were promising.
11
Hedden, Lindsay, Richard J. Wassersug, Sarah Mahovlich, Phil Pollock, Monita Sundar, Robert H. Bell, Larry Goldenberg, and Celestia S. Higano. "Evaluating an educational intervention to alleviate distress among men with newly-diagnosed prostate cancer and their partners." Journal of Clinical Oncology 35, no. 5_suppl (February 10, 2017): 194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.35.5_suppl.194.
Full textAbstract:
194 Background: Diagnoses of cancer distress both patients and their partners. Providing accurate information about diagnosis and treatment options promotes active and informed decision-making and can decrease distress and anxiety. We sought to determine whether an education session alleviated distress for both prostate cancer (PC) patients and their partners, and whether their partner’s attendance at the session, as well as specific disease, treatment, and socio-demographic characteristics affect changes in distress levels. Methods: The session consists of a 90-minute didactic presentation, followed by an 8- to 10-minute private session with a urologist and radiation oncologist. We assessed distress using the Distress Thermometer (DT) and compared pre- and post-session distress, and change in distress between patients and partners using matched and unmatched t-tests. We also assessed before-the-session anxiety using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder measure (GAD), and decisional certainty using the Decisional Conflict Scale. Results: 71 patients and 48 partners participated in the study. Attending the session led to a significant reduction in median DT score for both patients (4.0 to 3.0, p = 0.0009) and partners (5.0 vs. 4.0, p = 0.0176). Partners reported higher distress both before and after the session compared to patients (4.9 vs. 3.8, p = 0.025 pre-session and 4.2 vs. 3.1, p = 0.032 post-session). The presence of a partner at the session did not appear to affect patients’ pre- or post-session distress nor the success of the session at alleviating distress. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics had little effect on distress levels. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that an interdisciplinary education session is equally effective at alleviating distress for both PC patients and their partners. These results can be used to guide the development of supportive care programs more broadly in terms of their ability to address the physiological and psychological needs of PC patients and their families.
12
Boucher, J., B. Piperdi, and D. Lundquist. "Quality of life during rehabilitation: Rectal cancer patient and partner experiences with altered bowel function." Journal of Clinical Oncology 29, no. 4_suppl (February 1, 2011): 468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.29.4_suppl.468.
Full textAbstract:
468 Background: In 2010, the American Cancer Society has estimated rectal cancer affects over 39,670 adult patients in the United States. Five-year disease-free survival for rectal cancer patients with stage II/III disease ranges from 60-70%. Current gaps exist regarding long-term effects after treatment including altered bowel function and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) concerns from rectal cancer patient and partners' perspectives both individually and together during rehabilitation and as cancer survivors. The purpose of this study was to: (1) describe the experiences of adult rectal cancer patients and their partners during rehabilitation from cancer treatment, including long- term effects; (2) examine health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) issues for rectal cancer patients and their partners including well-being and coping during their rehabilitation and as survivors. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study for a planned sample of 20 adult rectal cancer patients, stage II/III, and their partners from an academic health science hospital and cancer center has been conducted. Twelve patients and their partners have currently completed face to face semi-structured interviews. Patient participants were at least 6 months to 5 years post treatment. Qualitative descriptive design used purposive sampling to obtain broad information on rectal cancer patients' and partners' perspectives for content analysis. Results: Preliminary findings have revealed unexpected difficulties; chronic bowel function alterations; symptom unpredictability; nutrition intolerances; patient/partner adjustments; social concerns in going places, reactions by friends, work and financial strains; and, acceptance in living with it or chronic life changes as survivors. Partners acknowledged their own needs for information and support to assist their spouse or significant other. Further rich, thick descriptions will be presented in presentation of findings for 20 patient and partner responses. Conclusions: Survivorship follow-up regarding these concerns should be emphasized for rectal cancer patients and their partners to formalize interventions for study to enhance HR-QOL well-being. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
13
Veenstra, Christine M., Thomas Braun, Chandler McLeod, Daniela Wittmann, and Sarah T. Hawley. "A dyadic study of employment outcomes and quality of life in patients with breast cancer and their support persons." Journal of Clinical Oncology 37, no. 27_suppl (September 20, 2019): 176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2019.37.27_suppl.176.
Full textAbstract:
176 Background: Many women with breast cancer face job loss related to their diagnosis, but little is known about employment outcomes among their partners and other supporters. Moreover, virtually nothing is known about associations between patients’ quality of life and supporters’ employment outcomes. Methods: Breast cancer patients reported to Georgia and LA SEER registries in 2014-15 (N = 2,502, 68% RR) and their key decision support person (DSP) were surveyed separately. 1234 DSPs responded (71% RR). Patients and DSPs were asked about employment impacts of the patient’s breast cancer. Patients’ quality of life (QOL) was measured with the PROMIS scale for global health. Descriptive analyses of employment outcomes (job loss, missed days due to cancer) were generated for patients and DSPs. Associations between patients’ QOL and employment outcomes of patients and their DSPs were assessed using linear mixed model regression analyses stratified by dyad type (partner vs. non-partner DSP). Results: Among DSPs, 43% were partners. 57% were non-partners (daughters, other family, friends). 67% were employed at time of patient’s diagnosis. Among these, 11% were no longer employed at survey completion. 39% missed >30 days work. Non-partner DSPs were as likely as partners to lose their job or miss work because of the patient’s cancer. 65% patients were employed at diagnosis. Compared to patients whose DSP was a partner, patients with non-partner DSP were more likely to lose their job (39% vs. 24%; p<0.01) or miss >30 days work (55% vs. 45%; p<0.01). For patients with partner and non-partner DSPs, having an employed DSP at diagnosis and having an employed DSP who stays employed were associated with improved patient QOL after adjustment for DSP sociodemographic and patient clinical variables. Conclusions: Both non-partner and partner DSPs faced negative employment impacts related to patients’ breast cancer. Job loss and >30 days of missed work were more likely among patients with non-partner DSPs. Having an employed DSP and having an employed DSP who stays employed positively contributed to patients’ QOL.
14
Veenstra, Christine M., Daniela Wittmann, Chandler McLeod, Thomas Braun, and Sarah T. Hawley. "Employment outcomes and quality of life in patients with early breast cancer and their support persons: A dyadic study." Journal of Clinical Oncology 37, no. 15_suppl (May 20, 2019): e18241-e18241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.e18241.
Full textAbstract:
e18241 Background: Many women with breast cancer face job loss related to their diagnosis, but little is known about employment outcomes among their partners and other supporters. Moreover, virtually nothing is known about associations between patients’ quality of life and supporters’ employment status. Methods: Breast cancer patients reported to Georgia and LA SEER registries in 2014-15 (N = 2,502, 68% RR) and their key decision support person (DSP) were surveyed separately. 1234 DSPs responded (71% RR). Patients and DSPs were asked about employment impacts of the patient’s breast cancer. Patients’ quality of life (QOL) was measured with the PROMIS scale for global health. Descriptive analyses of employment outcomes (job loss, missed days due to cancer) were generated for patients and DSPs. Associations between patients’ QOL and employment status of patients and their DSPs were assessed using linear mixed model regression analyses stratified by dyad type (partner vs. non-partner DSP). Results: Among DSPs, 43% were partners. 57% were non-partners (daughters, other family, friends). 67% were employed at time of patient’s diagnosis. Among these, 11% were no longer employed at survey completion. 39% missed > 30 days work. Non-partner DSPs were as likely as partners to lose their job or miss work because of the patient’s cancer. 65% patients were employed at diagnosis. Compared to patients whose DSP was a partner, patients with non-partner DSP were more likely to lose their job (39% vs. 24%; p < 0.01) or miss > 30 days work (55% vs. 45%; p < 0.01). For patients with a partner DSP, both patient and DSP employment at diagnosis were associated with improved patient QOL (each associated with a QOL score 24% of 1 standard deviation higher; each p < 0.05). For patients with non-partner DSPs, only patient employment at diagnosis was associated with improved patient QOL (QOL score 51% of 1 standard deviation higher; p < 0.01). Conclusions: Both non-partner and partner DSPs faced negative employment impacts related to patients’ breast cancer. Job loss and > 30 days of missed work were more likely among patients with non-partner DSPs. Only the employment of partner DSPs at diagnosis positively contributed to patients’ QOL.
15
Veenstra, Christine M., Paul Abrahamse, Arden M. Morris, and Sarah T. Hawley. "Missed work, lost income, and job loss in survivors of colorectal cancer and their partners: A dyadic study." Journal of Clinical Oncology 38, no. 29_suppl (October 10, 2020): 145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.38.29_suppl.145.
Full textAbstract:
145 Background: Many survivors of colorectal cancer face long-term job loss stemming from their diagnosis. However, little is known about employment outcomes among their partners and virtually nothing is known about employment impacts among survivor-partner dyads. Methods: In 2019-20 we surveyed 1150 patients who, in 2014-18, underwent resection of Stage III colorectal cancer and were seen at a community oncology practice, academic cancer center, or reported to Georgia SEER (51% RR). Patients gave a separate survey to their partner. 299 partners (73% RR) completed surveys. Patients and partners were asked about employment consequences of the patient’s cancer. Availability of job support benefits and prevalence of adverse employment outcomes were described among partners. Descriptive statistics were generated to identify trends in job loss within dyads. Results: Among partners, 56% were <age 65, 63% female, 86% white, 27% had < high school education. 61% were employed at time of patient’s diagnosis. Among these, 15% had no job support benefits. 33% had paid sick leave, 47% had flexible work schedule, 28% had unpaid time off. Due to the patient’s cancer, 43% missed 7-30 days work and 13% missed >1 month. Due to the patient’s cancer, 18% lost $2000-$10,000 in income and 11% lost >$10,000. 27% were no longer working at the time of survey. In 47% of dyads, both patient and partner were working before patient’s diagnosis. Among those, in 29% only 1 member of dyad was still working at time of survey and in 11% neither member of dyad was still working. In 15% of dyads, only the partner was working before patient’s diagnosis. Among those, in 50% the partner was no longer working at time of survey. In 16% of dyads, only the patient was working before diagnosis. Among those, in 48% the patient was no longer working at time of survey. Job loss in dyads was associated with older age, lower annual income, and lack of flexible work schedule. Conclusions: Missed work and loss of income are common among partners of patients with colorectal cancer. Job loss affects nearly half of dyads in the survivorship period. Employer accommodations such as flexible scheduling may help mitigate job loss among survivors and their partners. [Table: see text]
16
Yoshikawa, Ayumi, Shinya Saito, Makiko Kondo, Yuko Tsuyumu, Naruto Taira, Tadahiko Shien, and Hiroyoshi Doihara. "The sexual lives of breast cancer patients: Coping with changes associated with treatment." Clinical Nursing Studies 6, no. 1 (November 23, 2017): 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/cns.v6n1p61.
Full textAbstract:
Objective: To clarify how breast cancer patients undergoing post-surgical hormone therapy cope with changes in their sexual lives and support themselves and their partners during these changes.Methods: Participants were 37 breast cancer patients undergoing post-surgical hormone therapy and attending mammary outpatient clinics. In-depth interviews and grounded theory were used to collect and analyze data, respectively.Results: First, sexual life was divided into four groups: “No complaint” regarding sexual activity, “Slight discord”, “Handicapped in meeting a life partner” and “Uninterested” in sexual activity. Sexual life during surgical-hormone therapy did not change significantly from sexual life before breast cancer. Second, meanings of sexual activity for breast cancer patients were divided into five, “Regaining femininity”, “Confirming love”, “Sharing pleasure”, “Response to partner’s higher desire” and “Procreation”. They differed by group. Third, coping strategies were divided into six, “Virtuous cycle to confirm love and regain lost femininity”, “Struggle to avoid relationship crisis”, “Reconfirmation of partner’s affection by his abstinence”, “Attempt to recover the sexual activity they hope for”, “Pursuing children or assuaging partner’s desire by other means” and “Difficulty making a partner continue to have sexual activity”.Conclusions: Nurses should screen breast cancer patients for changes in their sexual lives and to ascertain what sexual activity means to patients, and support them in selecting appropriate coping methods.
17
Lopez, Gabriel, Kathrin Milbury, Yisheng Li, Minxing Chen, Casey Dutton, Yousra Hashmi, Eduardo Bruera, and Lorenzo Cohen. "Couples symptom burden in oncology care: Perception of self and the other." Journal of Clinical Oncology 35, no. 5_suppl (February 10, 2017): 213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.35.5_suppl.213.
Full textAbstract:
213 Background: Cancer survivors and their caregivers have symptoms that wax and wane over time and are interrelated. We report on the results of a communication survey exploring symptom burden in couples presenting for care in an integrative oncology (IO) clinic. Methods: Couples were approached for participation while waiting for an IO service (Physician Consultation, Massage, Acupuncture, Physical Therapy, Nutrition). 50 patients and their partner completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS; 0-10, 10 worst). Patient and partner each completed two ESAS forms: one for themselves and one for their perception of the other’s symptoms. Each also completed a Global Health scale (PROMIS 10). ESAS distress subscales analyzed included Psychological (PSS) and Physical (PHS). Paired t-tests were used to examine all measures. Results: Patients (58% female) had most frequent cancer diagnoses of breast (22%) and gastrointestinal (18%). Patients rated their own physical symptoms of Fatigue (p = 0.002), Nausea (p < 0.001), Drowsiness (p = 0.032), Appetite (p = 0.008), and Shortness of Breath (p = 0.001) significantly higher than their partner’s rating of their symptoms. Patient self-rating for psychosocial symptoms of anxiety and depression was not significantly different from partner rating of patient symptoms. Partners were more accurate rating psychological symptoms (ESAS PSS, patient 3.89 vs partner 3.72, p = 0.836) and less accurate interpreting physical symptoms (ESAS PHS, patient 16.43 vs partner 9.94, p < 0.001). Except for Sleep, Financial Distress, and Spiritual Pain, partners rated all their own symptoms significantly lower compared to patient’s rating of them (all p’s < 0.001). Patients reported significantly lower global health (36.9 vs 42.9, p < 0.001) and physical health (16.6 vs 20.2, p < 0.001); no differences were observed for mental health for patients vs caregivers (14.2 vs 15.12, p = 0.1). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that partners may better perceive psychological stressors expressed by patients but may be less sensitive to physical symptoms. Interventions aimed at assisting caregivers in better understanding patient physical symptom burden are warranted.
18
Büel-Drabe, Natalie, Hans Steinert, Hanspeter Moergeli, Steffi Weidt, Annina Seiler, and Josef Jenewein. "Thyroid cancer has a small impact on patient–partner relationships and their frequency of sexual activity." Palliative and Supportive Care 16, no. 3 (May 31, 2017): 335–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1478951517000384.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTObjective:This cross-sectional survey examined changes in perceived relationships and sexual activity in a sample of thyroid cancer patients and their partners, taking into account sociodemographic and disease-related variables, as well as such outcome measures as anxiety, depression, fatigue, and quality of life (QoL).Method:A total of 38 patients with thyroid cancer who were being treated at the department of nuclear medicine in Zürich or Lucerne over the preceding seven years, as well as their partners, completed questionnaires about the quality of their relationships (RQ), about perceptions of changes in their relationships, and about their frequency of sexual activity. They also filled out prevalidated questionnaires related to anxiety, depression, fatigue, and QoL.Results:Some 17 patients (44.7%) and 16 partners (42.1 %) reported that the cancer diagnosis had changed their relationships. Of these, 10 (26.3%) patients and 9 (23.7%) partners reported positive changes only, while 7 patients (18.4%) and 7 partners (18.4%) reported mixed or negative changes. A perceived mixed/negative relationship change was associated with increased depression and lower RQ in patients and partners, as well as with increased anxiety in patients. While the frequency of sexual activity only changed in roughly half of patients and partners (16 patients [42.1%] and 20 partners [52.6%]), increased sexual activity was associated with lower physical QoL scores and a higher depression score than in counterparts who reported no change.Significance of Results:Compared to other cancer sites, in our sample thyroid cancer had a relatively small impact on patient–partner relationships and levels of intimacy. We found that screening patients and their partners with a simple question—“Did the diagnosis of cancer change your relationship?”—can lead to early detection of couples who are potentially at risk for perceived negative relationship changes and can facilitate timely psychosocial referral for couple's therapy.
19
Aufill, Jennifer, Jennifer L. Wolff, Diane Echavarria, JaAlah-Ai Heughan, Kimberley T. Lee, Elissa Thorner Bantug, Howard Levy, Sydney M. Dy, and Antonio C. Wolff. "Engaging care partners in breast cancer care and communication." Journal of Clinical Oncology 37, no. 15_suppl (May 20, 2019): 11614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.11614.
Full textAbstract:
11614 Background: Family is often overlooked in cancer care. Little is known about the patient preferences for involving family in communication, whether preferences may be elicited and supported at the point of care, and impact on care quality. Methods: We conducted a two-group pilot randomized controlled trial (NCT03283553) of patients on active treatment for breast cancer and the “care partner” who accompanies them to routine visits (n = 132 dyads). Intervention dyads (n = 69) completed a self-administered checklist to clarify the care partner role, establish a shared visit agenda, and facilitate access to the electronic health record (MyChart) patient portal. Control dyads (n = 63) received usual care. Intervention acceptability and short-term effects were assessed from post-visit surveys and MyChart utilization at 6 weeks. Results: At baseline, most patients (89.4%) but few care partners (1.5%) were registered for MyChart. Most patients (79.4%) wanted their care partner to have access to their records and 39.4% of care partners reported accessing it in the past year using the patient’s account login/password. In completing the checklist, intervention patients and care partners identified an active communication role for the care partner and similar issues for the visit agenda: topics most frequently selected were treatment goals/expectations (75.4% & 66.7%, respectively), symptoms/side effects (73.9% & 62.3%) and chances of cancer recurrence/spread (49.3% & 44.9%). More than 90% of intervention participants reported that completing the checklist was easy, useful, and recommended it to others. At 6 weeks, intervention (vs control) care partners were more likely to be registered for MyChart (75.4 % vs 1.6%; p < 0.001), to have logged in (43.5% vs 0%; p < 0.001) and viewed clinical visit notes (30.4% vs 0%; p < 0.001), but no more likely to have exchanged direct messages with the clinical team (1.5% vs 0%; p = 0.175). No difference in patient MyChart registration, use, or messaging was found at 6 weeks, but intervention patients more often viewed clinical visit notes (50.7% vs 9.5%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: A self-administered patient-family communication intervention affected online practices of patients and cancer care partners. Follow-up continues. Clinical trial information: NCT03283553.
20
Köhle, Nadine, Constance HC Drossaert, Suzan Oosterik, Karlein MG Schreurs, Mariët Hagedoorn, Cornelia F. van Uden-Kraan, Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw, and Ernst T. Bohlmeijer. "Needs and Preferences of Partners of Cancer Patients Regarding a Web-Based Psychological Intervention: A Qualitative Study." JMIR Cancer 1, no. 2 (December 29, 2015): e13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/cancer.4631.
Full text
21
Yang, Sheng, Fuyu Gong, Guoqiang Wang, and Xiaohui He. "Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) partners identified by next-generation sequencing in Chinese patients with solid tumors." Journal of Clinical Oncology 38, no. 15_suppl (May 20, 2020): 3555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.3555.
Full textAbstract:
3555 Background: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement is a validated therapeutic driver gene in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). More than 30 different fusion partner genes of ALK in NSCLC have been reportedand most of these ALK fusions respond well to ALK inhibitors crizotinib. With the development of next-generation sequencing (NGS), more novel partners for ALK rearrangement have been identified. Here, we aimed to report the landscape of ALK rearrangement in Chinese patients with solid tumors. Methods: Tissue or blood samples were subjected to NGS in a College of American Pathologists-certified and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-accredited lab for ALK arrangement. Results: In total, we profiled more than 40,000 patients, among which 72 cases with 52 ALK fusion partner, harboring 17 reported partners and 35 novel partners. The average ALK rearrangement patients' age was 53 years (range, 17-76 years). Among all the ALK fusion cases (n = 72), lung cancer were the largest proportion with 77.8% (n = 56), colorectal cancer accounted for, 5.5% (n = 4), liver cancer accounted for 4.2% (n = 3), biliary cancer, melanoma, carcinosarcoma and inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor accounted for 2.8% (n = 2) respectively, and only one case (n = 1) was malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. The most common ALK fusion partners were KIF5B (n = 6), DCTN1 (n = 5) and STRN (n = 5). In 38 cases, 35 novel ALK fusion partners were discovered. The novel CLIP4-ALK, EHBP1-ALK, PLB1-ALK occurred twice in 6 patients, which were two lung cancer patients with CLIP4-ALK fusion, two lung cancer patients with PLB1-ALK fusion, one hepatic cellular cancer patients with EHBP1-ALK, and one melanoma patients with EHBP1-ALK. There were two special lung cancer cases with two ALK fusions. One case detected the novel LRIG1-ALK fusion and novel PLB1-ALK fusion, the other case detected novel GLI3-ALK fusion and reported HIP1-ALK fusion. Conclusions: Novel ALK fusions are detected in patients with not only NSCLC but also other solid tumors. NGS fusion assay is an optional method for screening novel fusions.
22
Rabin, E. G., A. F. Ferreira Filho, D. L. Da Silva, and M. P. De Almeida Fleck. "Do male partners of breast cancer patients perceive the quality of life of their mates?" Journal of Clinical Oncology 24, no. 18_suppl (June 20, 2006): 18502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.24.18_suppl.18502.
Full textAbstract:
18502 Background: Scant scientific data exists regarding the quality of life (QOL) of female breast cancer patients as perceived by their male partners. Methods: We evaluated the QOL of 73 breast cancer patients and their partners perception using the abbreviated and Portuguese (from Brazil) validated questionnaires forms of the World Health Organization Quality of life (WHOQOL-bref) and WHOQOL-bref adapted for the third person, respectively. The breast cancer patients were also evaluated by the Beck Depression Scale (BDS) and were considered depressed if they had a score equal or greater than 10. The inclusion criteria for this study were: female breast cancer patients with stage I to III, cohabitation with a male partner for at least one year, age from 18 to 65 years old, being able to understand the questionnaires and sign an informed consent term. In order to compare the the scores of the WHOQOL-bref of breast cancer patients and the scores of the adapted WHOQOL-bref of their partners, we used the Pearson correlation index, Student’s t test and variation analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided, and P < .05 was used to indicate statistical significance. Results: In the analysis of all 73 patients, we found no difference between the perceptions of QOL and its domains between the breast cancer patients and their partners (see table ). However, in the subgroups of patients who had a mastectomy (n = 32) or were depressed (n = 35) as measured by the BDS scale, we found differences as their partners rated them higher on the physical domain and psychological domain (P = 0.003 and P = 0.009), respectively. Conclusions: Male partners of breast cancer patients have an accurate perception of their mates’ QOL. The only exceptions we found were in subgroup analysis of women who had a mastectomy and/or were depressed. Our findings suggest that the male partners of breast cancer patients can be seen as reliable surrogates of their QOL. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.
23
이인정 and HANINYOUNG. "Care burden among partners of cancer patients." Korean Journal of Family Social Work ll, no. 30 (December 2010): 197–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.16975/kjfsw.2010..30.007.
Full text
24
Nijboer, C., R. Tempelaar, A. H. M. Triemstra, R. Sanderman, and G. A. M. van den Bos. "Caregiver burden among partners of cancer patients." European Journal of Cancer 33 (September 1997): S74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(97)84722-3.
Full text
25
Veenstra, Christine M., Lauren P. Wallner, Reshma Jagsi, Paul Abrahamse, Jennifer J. Griggs, Cathy J. Bradley, and Sarah T. Hawley. "Long-Term Economic and Employment Outcomes Among Partners of Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer." Journal of Oncology Practice 13, no. 11 (November 2017): e916-e926. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jop.2017.023606.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose: Work loss is one of many personal costs for patients with cancer and their families. Many women with breast cancer face long-term job loss that stems from their diagnoses. However, little is known about the economic and employment outcomes of partners of women with breast cancer. Methods: Women with nonmetastatic breast cancer identified by the Detroit and Los Angeles SEER registries between June 2005 and February 2007 were surveyed at both 9 months and 4 years after diagnosis. Partners were surveyed 4 years after patients’ diagnoses. Nonretired partners were asked about employment and financial consequences that stemmed from the patients’ breast cancer diagnoses and treatments. Results: A total of 517 (67%) of 774 eligible partners completed the survey; 32% reported worsened financial status attributed to patients’ breast cancers. Two hundred forty nonretired partners worked during the year after the patients’ diagnoses; 90% were still working 4 years postdiagnosis. A total of 32% of partners decreased their work hours as a result of patients’ breast cancer diagnoses and treatments; 64% of partners reported that, as a result of patients’ breast cancer diagnoses and treatments, it was very/extremely important to keep working to keep health insurance. Overall, 51% of partners reported that it was very/extremely important to avoid changing jobs, because they were worried about loss of health insurance. Conclusion: Nearly one third of partners reported that their financial status was worse because of the patient’s breast cancer, although most remained working 4 years after a diagnosis. Partners may continue to work longer than desired to compensate for a loss of financial resources in the family.
26
Conen, Katrin Lisa, Regula Schüpbach, Barbara Handschin, Diana Zwahlen, Martin Voss, Günter Eisele, Katharina Rentsch, et al. "Prospective evaluation of stress in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and in a close partner (TOGETHER-study)." Journal of Clinical Oncology 35, no. 15_suppl (May 20, 2017): e13524-e13524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.e13524.
Full textAbstract:
e13524 Background: Diagnosis and treatment of glioblastoma (GBM), the most common and aggressive malignant brain tumor in adults, impose profound chronic distress on patients and their partners. In order to assess how distress in patients and partners affects GBM outcome, we describe in a first step the level of distress – both biological and psychological – in patients and partners before and during standard radiochemotherapy -as measured by different assessment tools. Methods: Stress, measured by salivary cortisol levels (diurnal cortisol slope (DCS), cortisol awakening response (CAR)), copeptin serum level and distress thermometer (DT), perceived stress scale (PSS), anxiety/depression (HADS) and quality of life (FACT-G) was assessed prospectively in all patients with newly diagnosed GBM and their partners at 3 participating centers. The baseline measurements (T1), reported here, were taken immediately before start of standard first-line radiochemotherapy. Further follow-up is ongoing. The TOGETHER-Study with the primary aim to describe the impact of distress and exercise behavior on progression-free survival in GBM in patients and in a close partner was closed prematurely due to poor recruitment. Results: 12 patients and 11 partners were included. Pts were newly diagnosed with histologically confirmed GBM and immediately prior to starting radiochemotherapy with temozolomide. Age of pts in years (median = 62.5, range = 34-70), partners (median = 58, range = 47-79); sex (pts = all male/ partners = all female). Conclusions: Results from our small cohort lead to the hypothesis, that shortly after diagnosis and before start of radiochemotherapy partners of GBM patients seem to be more distressed than patients themselves -as assessed by DT and CAR. Clinical trial information: NCT02129335. [Table: see text]
27
Summers, Barbara L., Heidi Wied Albright, LaToi Shanel Tatum, Elizabeth Bassett, and Thomas W. Feeley. "Patients as partners in defining outcomes." Journal of Clinical Oncology 31, no. 31_suppl (November 1, 2013): 148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.31.31_suppl.148.
Full textAbstract:
148 Background: The aim of this project was to develop an understanding of how patients conceptualize the term “outcomes” as it relates to their cancer experience and to determine patient preference for receiving and using outcomes-related information. When asked to rank cancer outcomes, most health care professionals suggest survival is the most significant outcome metric. We sought to determine if patients felt the same way. Methods: Focus group methodology was used in cancer patients with one of five major disease sites: breast, colon, lung, prostate, and head and neck. Participants were diverse with respect to age, ethnicity, income level, education level, and gender. Participants received semi-structured questions intended to elicit the patient’s personal conceptualization and use of outcomes information during their cancer continuum. Results: Patients identified a range of phenomena as their preferred definition of outcome and were sometimes confused by the term. Participants reported finding it difficult to interpret survival data without a basis for comparison or medical knowledge. Results of the focus groups will be presented and will address the wide variety of outcome definitions defined by patient participants. Conclusions: We found a large disconnect between what providers consider important and what patients consider important. We are continuing to evaluate patient perceptions of outcomes information by conducting further focus groups, and these qualitative findings will be used to develop a rigorous survey tool that can be administered to a greater number and wider variety of patients. Ultimately, the finding from these focus groups will allow for the creation of useful tools that educate patients and empower them to be full partners in their care.
28
Bishop, Michelle M., Jennifer L. Beaumont, Elizabeth A. Hahn, David Cella, Michael A. Andrykowski, Marianne J. Brady, Mary M. Horowitz, Kathleen A. Sobocinski, J. Douglas Rizzo, and John R. Wingard. "Late Effects of Cancer and Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation on Spouses or Partners Compared With Survivors and Survivor-Matched Controls." Journal of Clinical Oncology 25, no. 11 (April 10, 2007): 1403–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.07.5705.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose Little is known about the long-term effects of cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HCT) on spouses or partners. The purpose of this study was to examine the health-related quality of life and post-traumatic growth (PTG) of spouses/partners compared with survivors and controls and to identify factors associated with those outcomes. Patients and Methods HCT survivor/partner pairs (n = 177), coupled continuously since HCT, were drawn from 40 North American transplantation centers. Married peer-nominated acquaintances (of survivors) served as controls (n = 133). Outcomes were measured a mean of 6.7 years after HCT (range, 1.9 to 19.4 years). Results As expected, self-reported partner physical health was similar to controls and better than survivors (P < .001). However, partners reported more fatigue and cognitive dysfunction than controls (P < .001 for both), although less than survivors. Partners and survivors reported more depressive symptoms and sleep and sexual problems than controls (P < .001, P < .01, and P < .01, respectively). Odds of partner depression were nearly 3.5 times that of controls (P < .002). Depressed partners were less likely than depressed survivors to receive mental health treatment (P < .04). Partners reported less social support (P < .001), dyadic satisfaction (P < .05), and spiritual well-being (P < .05) and more loneliness (P < .05) than both survivors and controls. In contrast to survivors, partners reported little PTG (P < .001). Factors associated with partner outcomes included partner health problems, coping, female sex, social constraint, survivor depression, optimism, multiple life changes, and social support. Conclusion Spouses/partners experience similar emotional and greater social long-term costs of cancer and HCT than survivors without the potential compensatory benefits of PTG. Some of the factors associated with partner outcomes are amenable to intervention.
29
Mortimer, Joanne, James Waisman, Yuan, Sayeh Lavasani, Daphne Stewart, Mina Sedrak, Niki Patel, et al. "Abstract P4-11-12: Integrating the patient and partner distress and perceptions about prognosis in women with metastatic breast cancer guides the medical oncology consultation." Cancer Research 82, no. 4_Supplement (February 15, 2022): P4–11–12—P4–11–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-p4-11-12.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Methods: Women with metastatic breast cancer and their partners completed couples’ tailored biopsychosocial screening and alignment in perception of prognosis immediately before consultation with a Medical Oncologist. In addition, couples were offered a standardized couples’ session before the medical consultation, individual couples’ counseling, and a strengths-based group intervention. As a component of biopsychosocial screening, each patient and her partner were asked individually their understanding of prognosis. They were asked their perception of likelihood of cure with supporting text and percentages provided: 76-100%; 51-75%; 26-50%, or 0-25%. Results: To date 254 women were considered eligible for this program. Complete data for both partners is available on 205. All the patients had metastatic breast cancer prior to their Medical Oncology appointment. The average age of the patient was 54 years (Range 25-84) and 55 years (Range 26-84) for the partner. In the perception of prognosis, 48.7% of patients and their partner were aligned and 51.3% were misaligned. The patient was more likely to have considered their prognosis worse in 59% and the partner 41%. The most commonly endorsed distress items for the patient were: Worry about the future 61%; Side effects of treatment 60%; Fatigue 59%; How my family will cope 58%; and Sleeping 49%. Distress for the partner included: Feeling anxious or fearful 49%; Wanting to best help my partner 37% and Sleeping 37%. Both the patient and partner sought assistance with Understanding treatment options 73.6%; Feeling anxious or fearful 62.5%, Worry about the future 57.3% Fatigue 56.3%, and Pain 56.3%- Partner practical distress was significantly higher for those couples who were not in alignment, p<.05. Conclusions: It is possible to openly ask patients and their partners about prognosis. In women with metastatic breast cancer, lack of alignment with understanding prognosis was common with the patient being more likely to have realistic expectations than their partner. A better understanding of the patient/partner’s expectations about treatment outcome has the potential to guide the Medical Oncologist to individualize communications including discussion about goals of care. Citation Format: Joanne Mortimer, James Waisman, Yuan, Sayeh Lavasani, Daphne Stewart, Mina Sedrak, Niki Patel, Courtney Bitz, Karen Clark, Marianne Razavi, Matthew J Loscalzo. Integrating the patient and partner distress and perceptions about prognosis in women with metastatic breast cancer guides the medical oncology consultation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-11-12.
30
Singareeka Raghavendra, Akshara, Hala F. Alameddine, Clark R. Andersen, Jesse C. Selber, Abenaa M. Brewster, Carlos H. Barcenas, Abigail S. Caudle, Banu K. Arun, Debu Tripathy, and Nuhad K. Ibrahim. "Influencers of the Decision to Undergo Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy among Women with Unilateral Breast Cancer." Cancers 13, no. 9 (April 23, 2021): 2050. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092050.
Full textAbstract:
(1) Background: The relatively high rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among women with early stage unilateral breast cancer (BC) has raised concerns. We sought to assess the influence of partners, physicians, and the media on the decision of women with unilateral BC to undergo CPM and identify clinicopathological variables associated with the decision to undergo CPM. (2) Patients and Methods: Women with stage 0 to III unilateral BC who underwent CPM between January 2010 and December 2017. Patients were surveyed regarding factors influencing their self-determined decision to undergo CPM. Partner, physician, and media influence factors were modeled by logistic regressions with adjustments for a family history of breast cancer and pathological stage. (3) Results: 397 (29.6%) patients completed the survey and were included in the study. Partners, physicians, and the media significantly influenced patients’ decision to undergo CPM. The logistic regression models showed that, compared to self-determination alone, overall influence on the CPM decision was significantly higher for physicians (p = 0.0006) and significantly lower for partners and the media (p < 0.0001 for both). Fifty-nine percent of patients’ decisions were influenced by physicians, 28% were influenced by partners, and only 17% were influenced by the media. The model also showed that patients with a family history of BC had significantly higher odds of being influenced by a partner than did those without a family history of BC (p = 0.015). (4) Conclusions: Compared to self-determination, physicians had a greater influence and partners and the media had a lower influence on the decision of women with unilateral BC to undergo CPM. Strong family history was significantly associated with a patient’s decision to undergo CPM.
31
Veenstra, Christine Marie, Lauren P. Wallner, Cathy Bradley, and Sarah T. Hawley. "Long-term employment outcomes among partners of patients with early-stage breast cancer." Journal of Clinical Oncology 34, no. 7_suppl (March 1, 2016): 12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.34.7_suppl.12.
Full textAbstract:
12 Background: Undesired work loss comprises one of the many personal costs faced by cancer patients and their families. Multiple studies have described the long-term employment outcomes among patients with early-stage breast cancer, and show that a significant proportion of women face long-term job loss as a result of their cancer diagnosis and treatment. However, little is known about the employment outcomes of partners of breast cancer patients. Methods: Women with non-metastatic breast cancer identified by the Detroit and Los Angeles SEER registries between 6/05-2/07 were surveyed at 9 months (Time 1) and 4 years (Time 2) after diagnosis. Latina and black women were oversampled. Partners were surveyed at Time 2. We performed descriptive analyses of those partners who were not retired at the time they completed the survey. As part of a larger survey assessing the experiences of partners of breast cancer patients, partners were queried regarding the impact of the patient’s breast cancer diagnosis and treatment on their own employment and finances. Results: Of 774 eligible partners, 517 (67%) completed the survey. We included 280 non-retired partners in our analyses. 54% were white, 31% were Latino, and 10% were black. The majority of partners (86%) worked during the year following the patient’s diagnosis and 219 (90%) were working at the time of survey 4 years post-diagnosis. 50% of partners reported that work was a welcome source of support; 32% decreased their work hours as a result of the patient’s breast cancer. In order to maintain health insurance, 64% reported it was very/extremely important to keep their jobs and 51% reported it was very/extremely important to avoid changing jobs. 32% of partners reported their financial status was worse off because of the patient’s breast cancer; 20% were worse off regarding health insurance, and 19% were worse off regarding employment status. Conclusions: In contrast to breast cancer patients, most partners reported long-term job retention. Many partners kept working or avoided changing jobs in order to maintain health insurance. Nearly one-third of partners reported that their financial status was worse off because of the patient’s breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.
32
Langenberg, Simone M. C. H., Marlies E. W. J. Peters, Winette T. A. van der Graaf, Anke N. Machteld Wymenga, Judith B. Prins, and Carla M. L. van Herpen. "How did partners experience cancer patients' participation in a phase I study? An observational study after a patient's death." Palliative and Supportive Care 14, no. 3 (December 17, 2015): 241–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1478951515000887.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractObjective:It can be assumed that patients' participation in a phase I study will have an important impact on their partners' life. However, evaluation of partners' experiences while patients are undergoing experimental treatment and of their well-being after the patient's death is lacking. We aimed to explore partners' experience of patients' participation in phase I studies and to investigate their well-being after a patient's death.Method:This was an observational study conducted after the patient's death. Partners of deceased patients who had participated in a phase I study completed a questionnaire designed by us for experience evaluation and the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Inventory of Traumatic Grief, and the RAND-36 Health Survey.Results:The median age of the 58 participating partners was 58 years (range: 51–65), and 67% was female. Partners reported negative effects on patients' quality of life, but only 5% of partners regretted patients' participation. Approximately two years after the patients' death, 19% of partners scored for depression, 36% for psychological distress, and 46% for complicated grief, and partners generally scored significantly lower on social and mental functioning compared to normative comparators.Significance of Results:Although partners reported negative consequences on patients' quality of life, most did not regret patients' participation in the phase I studies. Prevalence of depression, psychological distress, and complicated grief seemed important problems after a patient's death, and these must be considered when shaping further support for partners of patients participating in phase I trials.
33
Angus, Rev Drew. "Sexual Wellness for Cancer Patients and Their Partners." Home Healthcare Now 34, no. 5 (May 2016): 285–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/nhh.0000000000000389.
Full text
34
Pitceathly, C., and P. Maguire. "Preventing affective disorder amongst partners of cancer patients." European Journal of Cancer 33 (September 1997): S74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(97)84724-7.
Full text
35
Hodgson, Tracey. "Oesophageal cancer: experiences of patients and their partners." British Journal of Nursing 15, no. 21 (November 2006): 1157–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2006.15.21.22372.
Full text
36
Hoellen, Friederike, Julian Frederik Wagner, Dörte W. Lüdders, Achim Rody, and Constanze Banz-Jansen. "Anxiety in caregiving partners of breast cancer patients." Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 300, no. 4 (July 23, 2019): 993–1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05253-2.
Full text
37
Sapir, Eli, Benjamin W. Corn, Lior Hasid, Irad Deutsch, and Daniel A. Vorobiof. "Evaluating the dyadic management of sexuality-related parameters in women with early breast cancer (EBC): The emergence of “partner reported outcome measurements” (pROMs)." Journal of Clinical Oncology 39, no. 15_suppl (May 20, 2021): e24118-e24118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e24118.
Full textAbstract:
e24118 Background: Patient-centered healthcare has focused on incorporating the values of patients (Pts) during clinical decision-making. Accordingly, assessments are often executed with patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs). In the context of tumors located in a sexual organ, life quality may be predicated on the perception of the patient’s partner when such a relational dyad exists. Therefore, we created a “partner” reported outcome measurements (pROMs). Accordingly, we sought to query the interconnection of PROMs and pROMs in the setting of early breast cancer (EBC) by using a digital health technology application. Methods: In this ongoing study, 93 EBC Pts and 18 partners, active members of Belong.life, a social engagement platform for cancer Pts and caregivers, replied anonymously and voluntarily to a targeted survey related to sexuality and intimacy parameters in the Pts and their partners. 72% of the partners were 50-69 years of age (yoa), 61% were Caucasian. 70% of the Pts were 50-69 yoa and 72% Caucasian. 72% of the Pts and 78% of the partners had college and university degrees. At diagnosis 78% of the Pts had Stages 1-2, 44% had breast conserving surgery, and most (78%) received chemotherapy. Results: We report the interim results of the first 14 patients-partner dyads. At the time of diagnosis, 86% of partners and 50% of Pts were very or extremely concerned about the patient’s health. Of note, 43% of Pts were not concerned at all or slightly concerned about their own health. With the passage of time, the concern about the patient’s health had decreased to 50% among the partners and 28% among the Pts. Regarding intimacy and sexuality issues prior to the EBC diagnosis, 64% of the Pts didn’t have any complaints but it changed dramatically after diagnosis with 50% mentioning less sex drive and 40% less intimacy. In the partners group 67% didn’t have complaints before the diagnosis but 28% voiced complaints after the diagnosis. Only half of Pts and partners felt they could speak freely about their mutual feelings. Only 23% of Pts and 11% of partners indicated they would agree to seek professional help for issues related to sexuality and intimacy. Ultimately, 71% of Pts and 79% of partners felt happy with each other. Conclusions: Partners were very concerned about the health of Pts; however, the dyad was not always synchronized. Notwithstanding it, the dyad adjusted their concerns during the course of treatment. Body changes had modest effect on the relationship. While dissatisfaction of sexual activity was evident it did not significantly affect the feelings of patients and partners towards each other. The development of pROMs could re-synchronize the dyad thereby creating a more meaningful cancer journey.
38
Dorval, Michel, Stéphane Guay, Myrto Mondor, Benoît Mâsse, Maurice Falardeau, André Robidoux, Luc Deschênes, and Elizabeth Maunsell. "Couples Who Get Closer After Breast Cancer: Frequency and Predictors in a Prospective Investigation." Journal of Clinical Oncology 23, no. 15 (May 20, 2005): 3588–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.01.628.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose Although some couples report an improved relationship since coping with breast cancer together, little quantitative information exists about this phenomenon. We assessed extent to which both couple members report that breast cancer brought them closer and characteristics that predicted this. Patients and Methods This prospective study was based on all women with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic disease first treated during recruitment in four Quebec hospitals, in addition to their spouses. Participation was 87% among eligible patients and 91% among spouses of participating patients. Both couple partners were interviewed individually about quality of life at 2 weeks and 3 and 12 months after treatment start. At 12 months, each was asked whether the disease had brought them closer, distanced them, or had no effect. Results Overall, 42% of the 282 couples said breast cancer brought them closer, 6% had one or other partner reporting feeling distanced, and less than 1% of couples had both partners reporting feeling distanced. Characteristics assessed explained 31% of variance in the proportion of couples getting closer (P < .0001). After taking into account partners' prediagnosis characteristics and the woman's treatment, the spouse reporting the patient as confidant (P = .003), getting advice from her in the first 2 weeks about coping with breast cancer (P = .03), accompanying her to surgery (P = .057), the patient's reporting more affection from her spouse at 3 months since diagnosis (P = .003) predicted both partners saying the disease brought them closer. Conclusion Breast cancer can be a growth experience for couples under certain conditions. This information may help reassure patients and their spouses confronting this disease.
39
Tierney, Meghan, and Cynthia Peden-McAlpine. "QOLP-06. PHENOMENOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF QUALITY OF LIFE FOR PATIENTS WITH GLIOBLASTOMA AND THEIR PRIMARY CARE PARTNERS." Neuro-Oncology 22, Supplement_2 (November 2020): ii175—ii176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noaa215.731.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract INTRODUCTION Quality of life (QOL) should be included among the important outcomes of brain tumor treatment. QOL is often reduced to a measure of treatment tolerability, resulting in a lack of understanding of how patients experience this phenomenon. There is also limited knowledge surrounding the meaning of QOL for family care partners. The research (in progress) aims to explore the meaning of lived experience of QOL during treatment for glioblastoma (GBM) for both patients and their primary care partners. It will also examine similarities and differences in QOL perceptions within patient-care partner dyads. METHODS Using a phenomenological approach, this study is recruiting patients receiving treatment for GBM and their care partners. Participants complete a timeline depicting significant events impacting QOL from the time of the patient’s diagnosis to the present. They then complete an individual, unstructured interview describing their experience of QOL. Interviews are recorded and transcribed. The research team reviews and completes a thematic analysis on transcripts. RESULTS Numerous themes are emerging from the data. One theme among patients is: Feeling Uncertain About the Future. Patients discussed feeling uncertain about their prognosis during their course of treatment. They talked about the need to adjust to multiple changes in their lives over time. This uncertainty extended to concern for their QOL in the future. One theme among care partners is: Challenges in Relationship with Spouse. Care partners reported relationship conflict stemming from both personality changes in their spouse and role changes resulting in increased responsibilities for the care partner. CONCLUSION This study is providing insight into the meaning and experience of QOL for patients undergoing treatment for GBM, along with meaning and experience of QOL for their care partners. The findings will have implications for clinical practice and generate insights for future research.
40
Zhang, Xuhui, Dongsheng Chen, Qin Zhang, Qianqian Duan, Qing WANG, Si Li, and Mingzhe Xiao. "Characterization of NTRK gene fusion events in solid tumors among Chinese patients." Journal of Clinical Oncology 39, no. 15_suppl (May 20, 2021): e15040-e15040. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e15040.
Full textAbstract:
e15040 Background: NTRK fusions are actionable genomic alterations detected across tumor types. NTRK gene fusions involving either NTRK1, NTRK2 or NTRK3 (encoding the neurotrophin receptors TRKA, TRKB and TRKC, respectively) are oncogenic drivers of various adult and paediatric tumour types. Here, we update the detection of NTRK gene fusions across tumor types and further describe fusion partner characteristics among Chinese patients. Methods: Samples submitted for clinical molecular profiling were retrospectively analyzed for NTRK fusion events. Method for identifying NTRK fusions was DNA-based next-generation sequencing that tumour DNA is extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. All NTRK fusion partners were identified for intact functional domains, domain prediction, breakpoints, frame retention and co-occurring alterations. Results: A total of 64 NTRK fusion events (0.26% of 24,451) were identified. NTRK fusions are characteristic in a few rare types of cancer, such as melanoma, glioma and carcinomas of the thyroid, lung and colon, but they are also infrequently seen in some uncommon cancers, such as secretory carcinoma of the breast or salivary gland and infantile fibrosarcoma. Among the fusions, NTRK1 (0.08% of 24,430), NTRK2 (0.02% of 24,445), NTRK3 (0.15% of 24,414) were identified. Twenty-six unique fusion partners were identified, the most common in NTRK1 fusion being TPM3 (23.8%), NTRK2 fusion being AGTPBP1 (33.3%), and NTRK3 fusion being TFG (13.5%). Almost 53.8 % (14 of 26) of all fusion events are expected to include the transmembrane domain contributed by the NTRK fusion partner. The most commonly identified breakpoints occur in exon 14 and exon 17 and in exon 15 and exon 20, in NTRK1, NTRK3, respectively. Conclusions: NTRK fusion products are diverse across tumor types, but the significance of these variations is not clear. The biological and clinical implications of retaining certain domains of NTRK and of fusion partners warrants further investigation.
41
Ginter, Amanda C., and Bonnie Braun. "Social support needs of breast cancer patients without partners." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36, no. 1 (July 12, 2017): 43–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407517718390.
Full textAbstract:
This qualitative study investigated how women without partners navigate social support challenges following their breast cancer diagnoses. In-depth interviews were used for collection. Twenty women without partners discussed the supportive and unsupportive roles their relatives, peers, and colleagues played during diagnoses and treatment. Family systems theory guided the construction of interview questions. Thematic analysis uncovered the following themes: reactions to diagnosis, managing social networks, negotiating appropriate forms of social support with loved ones, and expanding social networks postdiagnosis. Participants discussed the personal challenge of unexpectedly unsupportive friends and family and how they established boundaries with these individuals. Participants also discussed needing age-relevant and cancer stage-specific breast cancer support groups. These findings are relevant to oncology care providers and therapists. Additional implications of these findings for patients, practice, and research are discussed.
42
Salmi, Liz, Shirley Otis-Green, Adam Hayden, Lynne Taylor, and Bethany Kwan. "INNV-05. SOCIAL MEDIA AND “TWEET CHAT ANALYSES” TO INFORM QOL AND PALLIATIVE CARE NEEDS IN PATIENTS WITH PRIMARY BRAIN TUMORS." Neuro-Oncology 21, Supplement_6 (November 2019): vi131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noz175.548.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract BACKGROUND Despite a standard of care protocol for the treatment of brain cancer, patients often suffer motor and cognitive deficits and chronic exposure to stress and anxiety, detrimental to patient quality of life (QOL). Palliative care addresses patient and care partner (caregiver) QOL needs as a complement to curative treatment, using a team-based, multidisciplinary approach. Elements of palliative care that are highest priority for patients with brain cancer are not known. METHODS A multi-stakeholder group including clinicians, researchers, patients, and care partners convened (hereafter: “stakeholders”), led jointly by a brain cancer patient and health services researcher. The stakeholders identified QOL needs for patients with brain cancer and their care partners, and mapped these needs onto a brain cancer-specific palliative care model. In 2018, patients, researchers, and clinicians participated in two moderated “tweet chats” to test and further inform QOL definitions and palliative care needs (n=79). RESULTS Thematic analysis of tweet chat transcripts revealed patients and care partners were most concerned by: challenging behaviors resulting from tumor and resulting treatment; depression and anxiety; changes in sexuality/intimacy loss; grief over the loss of identity and things one previously enjoyed/was able to do; financial toxicity; changes in close relationships; and dependence on a broader social network. The stakeholders used this work to inform a set of QOL needs and corresponding palliative care elements. Each need was mapped onto a corresponding element for development of a palliative care model. Further research questions were identified to inform further research in this area. CONCLUSIONS Patients with brain cancer have complex QOL needs beyond symptom management. A palliative care model for brain cancer should include a multidisciplinary care team including care partner support and education. In addition to the palliative care physician, additional disciplines may include a social worker, chaplain, mental health professional, and rehabilitative services therapists.
43
Milbury, Kathrin, Chanyi Yang, Zhongxing X. Liao, Anne S. Tsao, and Eduardo Bruera. "Relationship processes and symptom burden in couples coping with metastatic lung cancer." Journal of Clinical Oncology 36, no. 34_suppl (December 1, 2018): 169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2018.36.34_suppl.169.
Full textAbstract:
169 Background: Attachment style is a complex behavioral control system rooted in neurophysiological processes which guides a person’s ability to elicit and respond to emotional closeness in an intimate relationship. Patients with high attachment anxiety and/or avoidance may engage in interpersonal behaviors that exacerbate their stress response and perhaps symptom burden. We hypothesized that, while patients’ insecure attachment is associated with increased symptom burden, partners’ positive relationship behaviors may protect against this association. Methods: Patients with metastatic NSCLC and their partners completed cross-sectional surveys assessing attachment (ECR) and emotional closeness during cancer-related discusssions (PAIR). Patients completed the MDASI to measure cancer-related symptoms. We used multi-level modeling for the dyadic analyses. Results: 54 patients (51% female; 80% White; µ age = 65 yrs) and their partners (51% female; 68% White; µ age = 64 years; µ relationship length = 27 years) participated. Patients with high attachment avoidance reported significantly higher cancer symptoms compared to those with secure attachment (MDASI µ’s: 2.14 vs .21, respectively; P<.05). Cancer symptoms were also significantly higher for patients whose partners reported low compared to high closeness during cancer-related discussions (MDASI µ’s: 1.08 vs .42, respectively; P<.05). In fact, there was a significant interaction between partners’ perceptions of closeness and patients’ attachment avoidance (P<.01) so that only patients with high avoidance reported significantly greater symptom burden if their partners reported low closeness (high avoidance and low closeness: MDASI µ = 2.73; high avoidance and high closeness: MDASI µ = 1.32). Conclusions: Patients’ attachment avoidance is significantly associated with their symptom burden. Partners who are able to maintain closeness during cancer-related discussions may protect patients with high attachment avoidance from experiencing increased symptom burden. Teaching partners of patients with insecure attachment to stay emotionally connected during cancer-related discussions may be an important target for psychosocial interventions.
44
Magnus, Anne, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Victoria Brown, and Rob Carter. "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utility Values of Patients and Partners Between 2007 and 2016." MDM Policy & Practice 4, no. 1 (January 2019): 238146831985233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468319852332.
Full textAbstract:
Background. There is widespread agreement that both the length and quality of life matter when assessing new technologies and/or models of care in the treatment for cancer patients. Quality of life for partners/carers also matters, particularly for prostate cancer. Purpose. This systematic review aims to provide up-to-date utility values along the prostate cancer care continuum (i.e., from prescreening through to palliative care) for use where future trial-based or modelled economic evaluations cannot collect primary data from men and/or partners. Data Sources. A protocol was developed and registered on the international register of systematic reviews—PROSPERO. Databases searched included EBSCO Information Services (CINAHL, EconLit, Global Health, HEED, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Embase. Study Selection. Study selection terms included health-related quality of life, prostate cancer, and partners or carers. Data Extraction. The authors identified articles published between 2007 and 2016 that provided health state utility values, with statistical uncertainty, for men with or at risk of prostate cancer and/or their partner/carers. Data Synthesis and Results. Study quality and generalizability of utilities was evaluated and meta-analysis conducted against prespecified criteria. From 906 original articles, 29 recent primary studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. We tabulate all the utility values with uncertainty, along with considerable methodological detail and patient population characteristics. Limitations. Utility values pertaining to carers/partners were limited to one study. Conclusions. Studies varied in design, measurement instruments utilized, quality, and generalizability. There is sufficient qualitative and quantitative detail for the reported utility values to be readily incorporated into economic evaluations. More research is needed with carers/partners and with newly developing prostate cancer-specific quality of life tools.
45
D'Souza, Gypsyamber, Neil D. Gross, Sara I. Pai, Robert I. Haddad, Maura L. Gillison, and Marshall R. Posner. "Oral HPV infection in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer cases and their spouses." Journal of Clinical Oncology 31, no. 18_suppl (June 20, 2013): CRA6031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.31.18_suppl.cra6031.
Full textAbstract:
CRA6031 Background: Incidence of human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC) is increasing, and spouses of these patients have high anxiety about their own HPV-related cancer risk. Methods: Partner study of 149 HPV-OPC and 81 of their spouse/long-term partners. Data collection included a 30-second rinse and gargle (at diagnosis and again 1 year later for 103 cases and 46 partners), computer-assisted risk factor survey, tumor collection (cases), and visual oral examination (spouses). Oral rinse samples were tested for 36 types of HPV DNA using PGMY09/11 primers and line-blot amplification, and HPV16 copy-number using real-time PCR. Results: Cases were primarily male (89%), white non-Hispanic (92%), had performed oral sex (94%), and never-smokers (51%) with a median age of 56 years. Twelve-month survival was high among never- and ever-smoking HPV-OPC (100% vs 93%, p=0.18). The 81 spouses of HPV-OPC were primarily female (81%), white non-Hispanic (92%), never-smokers (54%), with a median age of 53 years. Spouses were significantly less likely than cases to have >10 lifetime oral sex partners (11% vs 39%, p<0.001). Prevalence of any oral HPV (65%) and oral HPV16 (52%) was high among HPV-OPC at diagnosis. Four (7.7%) of 52 HPV-OPC with HPV16 DNA detectable before therapy, had HPV16 persistently detected one year after diagnosis/therapy. Prevalence of any oral HPV DNA among partners was significantly lower than among HPV-OPC (7.3% vs 65%, p<0.001). Oral HPV prevalence was significantly higher among the 7 male partners than the 74 female partners (29% vs 5%, p=0.025). Oral HPV infections among partners included HPV16 (n=2), HPV62 (n=2), HPV 83 and 51 (1 each). Both partners with oral HPV16 infections were female and no longer had oral HPV16 detected at the one year follow-up. 64% of spouses had a visual oral exam, and no pre-cancers or cancers were identified. However, two (2.5%) enrolled spouses reported a personal history of cervical cancer, and 6 HPV-HNC cases (4.0%) reported a previous spouse who developed cervical or vaginal cancer. Conclusions: Oral HPV16 DNA is common among HPV-OPC, but not among their spouses. Spouses of HPV-OPC may have an elevated risk or history of cervical cancer.
46
Rivest, Jacynthe, Véronique Desbaumes Jodoin, Irène Leboeuf, Nathalie Folch, Joé Martineau, Geneviève Beaudet-Hillman, and Claudine Tremblay. "Les patients-partenaires dans les soins du cancer : Une stratégie novatrice dans le dépistage de la détresse?" Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal 30, no. 3 (July 16, 2020): 186–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.5737/23688076303186192.
Full text
47
Offerman, M. P. J., J. F. A. Pruyn, M. F. de Boer, J. J. V. Busschbach, and R. J. Baatenburg de Jong. "Psychosocial consequences for partners of patients after total laryngectomy and for the relationship between patients and partners." Oral Oncology 51, no. 4 (April 2015): 389–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.12.008.
Full text
48
Bergerot, Cristiane Decat, Karen L. Clark, Paulo Gustavo Bergerot, Renata Nunes Pedras, Maria Fernanda Manhaes, Courtney Bitz, Matthew J. Loscalzo, and Sumanta K. Pal. "Differences in the way patient and partner experience the metastatic disease." Journal of Clinical Oncology 36, no. 34_suppl (December 1, 2018): 115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2018.36.34_suppl.115.
Full textAbstract:
115 Background: In Brazil, 60.5% of patients are diagnosed with an advanced stage of cancer. Patients with incurable cancer and their partners experience high rates of distress. This study aimed to assess problem-related distress among patients with stage IV cancer and their partners. Methods: A descriptive study was conducted at a large public hospital. Patients and their partners completed the 33-item SupportScreen-Couples Distress, on a five Likert scale, which contains questions related to emotional and physical symptoms, relationship issues and concerns around diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and end-of-life. The McNemar’s test was used to compare rates of problem-related distress between patients and their partners. Results: A total of 64 patients (median 56 yrs old; 57.8% male; 51.6% white; 87.5% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group < 2) and 64 partners (median 56 yrs old; 53.1% white; 93.8% primary caregiver) were enrolled. Couples were married for a median of 27.3 yrs. Patients reported higher levels of distress related to fatigue (42.1% vs 29.7%; P = 0.02), worry about the future (28.1% vs 20.3%; P = 0.08), sleep problems (28.1% vs 20.3%; P = 0.07) and feeling depressed (26.6% vs 15.6%; P = 0.03) compared to their associated partners. Partners reported more anxiety (37.5% vs 28.1%) and financial concerns (25.1% vs 17.2%) compared to associated patients (P < 0.01 for both). Patients and partners had a similar understanding that curative treatment is unlikely and that the goal of treatment was disease control (51.6% and 56.2%, respectively). Patients (versus their partners) were generally more worried about how their family was coping with their cancer diagnosis (42.2% vs 15.6%) and demonstrated hesitancy in talking about fears related to the end of life (60.9% vs 14.1%) (P < 0.001 for both). Conclusions: We identify key differences in psychosocial issues experience by patients and their partners. Furthermore, patients and partners demonstrate unique concerns related to the spectrum of oncology care. Our findings can be used to tailor unique supportive care interventions for patients and partners.
49
Nijboer, Chris, Mattanja Triemstra, Reike Tempelaar, Mirjam Mulder, Robbert Sanderman, and Geertrudis A. M. van den Bos. "Patterns of Caregiver Experiences Among Partners of Cancer Patients." Gerontologist 40, no. 6 (December 1, 2000): 738–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/40.6.738.
Full text
50
Redwood, Erin, Kathy Vu, Meaghan Wright, Colleen Fox, Noor Ahmad, Vicky Simanovski, Leonard Kaizer, and Monika K. Krzyzanowska. "Patients as partners in managing cancer treatment-related toxicity." Journal of Clinical Oncology 34, no. 7_suppl (March 1, 2016): 215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.34.7_suppl.215.
Full textAbstract:
215 Background: Cancer Care Ontario is the government agency responsible for improving cancer services across Ontario’s 14 regions. To promote advances in best practices related to systemic treatment, Cancer Care Ontario hosts annual Systemic Treatment Safety Symposia, which serve as a platform to discuss quality and safety issues and results of quality improvement (QI) initiatives in alignment with the Systemic Treatment Provincial Plan. For the first time, the 2015 Symposium brought together patients and providers to discuss gaps and opportunities for improvement in relation to toxicity management (TM) during chemotherapy. The main goal of the event was to define improvement priorities. Methods: The Symposium presents a valuable engagement opportunity with regional stakeholders including medical oncologists, nurses, pharmacists, administrators and patient and family advisors. An interactive agenda was designed to elicit direction from these stakeholders. At the event attendees identified and prioritized improvement opportunities using a simulated investment scenario, where marked bills were given to participants to finance the solutions they felt would best address the challenges posed by current TM. The mock money was counted and analyzed based on the role of the ‘investors’ and the prioritized theme. Results: The Symposium had 92 attendees including 17 patients and caregivers. Themes that emerged are presented in the Table below. Endorsement varied depending on stakeholder group. For example, Access was the top improvement priority for patients, whereas Communication was highest for providers. Conclusions: A one day engagement event that brings together patients and providers can be successful in identifying priority areas for quality improvement. Based on the outcomes of the prioritization exercise, improving access to oncology providers for TM 24/7 was identified as a focus area for provincial and regional QI initiatives. [Table: see text]