METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal study was conducted in a cohort of 469 consecutively recruited patients (aged ≥18 years) with various cancer types within 1 month of diagnosis at a single oncology referral center. Only patients who had significant psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total cutoff score ≥16) underwent the PTSD module of the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (SCID) at at 6-months follow-up. All patients completed the SCID at the 4-year follow-up assessment regardless of their initial Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score.
RESULTS: In an analysis combining patients who had both full and subsyndromal PTSD, there was a 21.7% incidence of PTSD at the 6-month follow-up assessment (n = 44 of 203 SCID-interviewed patients), with rates dropping to 6.1% at the 4-year follow-up assessment (n = 15 of 245 SCID-interviewed patients). Patients with breast cancer (compared with those who had other types of cancer) were 3.68 times less likely to develop PTSD at 6-months, but not at 4-years follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall rates of PTSD decreased with time, but one-third of patients (34.1%) who were initially diagnosed had persistent or worsening PTSD 4 years later. There is a need for early identification of this subset of patients who have cancer with PTSD to design risk-targeted interventions. Cancer 2018;124:406-16. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
METHODS: This study is from the MyBCC cohort study. Two hundred and twenty one female breast cancer patients were included into the study. They were assessed at the time of diagnosis, 6 months and 12 month using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and distress thermometer. The information on age, ethnicity, treatment types and staging of cancer were collected.
RESULTS: 50.2%, 51.6% and 40.3% of patients had perceived high level of distress at baseline, 6 months and 1 year after diagnosis. Those with high perceived level of distress had significant higher anxiety scores even after adjusted for the underlying depressive scores (Adjusted OR at baseline = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.13-1.44; adjusted OR at 6 months = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.11-1.45; adjusted OR at 12 months = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.29-1.76). There were no significant differences in the depressive scores between the subjects with either low or high distress level. There was reduction in perceived level of distress, anxiety and depression scores at 12 months after the diagnosis. The decrease of distress was positively correlated with the reduction of anxiety scores but not the changes of depressive scores (r' = 0.25).
CONCLUSION: Anxiety is a more significant psychological state that contributed to the feeling of distress in breast cancer as compared with depression. Levels of anxiety at diagnosis in this study would justify screening for anxiety, early identification and therapy for maintaining the psychological well-being of breast cancer patients. Further studies will be needed to measure the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions.
METHODS: This hospital-based prospective cohort study will comprise patients with breast cancer (18 years and above), managed in the University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC). We aim to recruit 1000 cancer survivors over a 6-year period. Data collection will occur at baseline (within 3 months of diagnosis), 6 months, and 1, 3 and 5 years following diagnosis. The primary outcomes are disease-free survival and overall survival, and secondary outcome is QoL. Factors measured are demographic and socioeconomic factors, lifestyle factors (eg, dietary intake, physical activity), anthropometry measurements (eg, height, weight, waist, hip circumference, body fat analysis), psychosocial aspects, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) usage.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by the UMMC Ethical Committee in January 2012. All participants are required to provide written informed consent. The findings from our cohort study will be disseminated via scientific publication as well as presentation to stakeholders including the patients, clinicians, the public and policymakers, via appropriate avenues.
AIM: We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among male patients on methadone and buprenorphine treatments.
METHODS: Relevant studies published from inception until December 2012 were identified by searching PubMed, OVID, and Embase. Studies were selected using prior defined criteria. Heterogeneity, publication bias, and odds ratio were assessed thoroughly.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To examine the prevalence and odds ratio of sexual dysfunctions among the methadone and buprenorphine groups.
RESULTS: A total of 1,570 participants from 16 eligible studies were identified in this meta-analysis. The studies provided prevalence estimates for sexual dysfunction among methadone users with a meta-analytical pooled prevalence of 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.65). Only four studies compared sexual dysfunction between the two groups, with a significantly higher combined odds ratio in the methadone group (OR = 4.01, 95% CI, 1.52-10.55, P = 0.0049).
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence showed that the prevalence of sexual dysfunction was higher among the users of methadone compared with buprenorphine. Patients with sexual difficulty while on methadone treatment were advised to switch to buprenorphine.
METHODS: Data collection was carried out in 3-time points: baseline (T1), screening (T2), and post-treatment (T3). Respondents who had significant subjective cognitive impairment were randomly divided into two groups: intervention (n = 30) and waitlist (n = 30). Respondents in the intervention group received 4 sessions of 1 hour of ACT therapy.
FINDINGS: Respondents in the intervention group showed significant improvement in subjective cognitive impairment, depression, anxiety, and psychological inflexibility after the ACT intervention (p
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study where family caregivers and patients who were diagnosed of cancers within 12 months were recruited. QOL of caregivers were measured using The Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOLC). Psychological distress was measured using Hospital anxiety and depressive scale. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the related factors of QOL of caregivers.
RESULTS: A total of 458 patients/caregiver pairs were included. Symptoms of anxiety and depression reported by caregivers were 24.9% and 24.2% respectively. Caregivers of patients with solid tumors have better CQOLC score compared to those who cared for patients with hematological cancers (91.25 vs 86.75). Caregivers of non-Malay ethnicity, those caring for patients with advanced stage cancer and with hematological cancers had significantly poorer QOL. QOL of caregivers are also significantly affected when patients demonstrated anxiety symptoms.
CONCLUSION: This study provides detailed evaluation of the QOL of caregivers of cancer patients in Malaysia. The significant psychological distress and low caregiver QOL indicate the urgent need for comprehensive supports for caregivers with cancer patients, especially those caring for patients with haematological cancers.