Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Open Access 23-04-2024 | Cervical Cancer | Gynecologic Oncology

Predictors of significant distress in cervical cancer patients: a cross sectional study

Authors: Friederike Schmitt, Laila Najjari, Tomas Kupec, Elmar Stickeler, Ivo Meinhold-Heerlein, Julia Wittenborn

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

This cross-sectional study aims to investigate parameters that predict relevant levels of distress in women in a perioperative setting undergoing treatment for cervical cancer.

Materials and methods

Data from 495 patients with cervical cancer that were treated at the university hospital Aachen between 2010 and 2022 were analysed based on their respective National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer score (DT) and Problem List (PL) and their clinical history. 105 patients were enrolled in the study. 18 medical and demographic variables were analysed using multivariate logistic regression.

Results

Three variables contributed significantly to the prediction of a DT score ≥ 5. Significant distress was defined as a DT score of ≥ 5, which was observed in 70.5% of the participants (mean: 5.58 ± 2.892). Women who chose to receive psycho-oncological counselling were more likely to have a DT score ≥ 5 (Odds Ratio(OR) = 3.323; Confidence Interval (CI95%): 1.241–8.900; p-value: 0.017). In addition, women who did not receive chemoradiation had significantly higher DT scores (OR = 3.807; CI 95%:1.185–12.236; p-value: 0.025), as did women whose Distress Thermometer was assessed in the first month after their initial diagnosis (OR = 3.967; CI 95%:1.167–13.486; p-value: 0.027).

Conclusion

Increased distress in women with cervical cancer is common especially in the first month after diagnosis, in patients who do not receive chemoradiation and in patients who seek psycho-oncological counselling. Surgical factors do not play a major role in patient distress.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Jentschke M et al (2020) Psychological distress in cervical cancer screening: results from a German online survey. Arch Gynecol Obstet 302(3):699–705PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Herzog TJ, Wright JD (2007) The impact of cervical cancer on quality of life–the components and means for management. Gynecol Oncol 107(3):572–577PubMedCrossRef
5.
Herschbach P et al (2004) Psychological problems of cancer patients: a cancer distress screening with a cancer-specific questionnaire. Br J Cancer 91(3):504–511PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Johnson RL, Gold MA, Wyche KF (2010) Distress in women with gynecologic cancer. Psychooncology 19(6):665–668PubMedCrossRef
7.
Mehnert A et al (2018) One in two cancer patients is significantly distressed: Prevalence and indicators of distress. Psychooncology 27(1):75–82PubMedCrossRef
8.
Wittenborn J et al (2022) Anxiety in women referred for colposcopy: a prospective observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 305(3):625–630PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
Riba MB et al (2023) NCCN guidelines(R) insights: distress management, version 2.2023. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 21(5):450–457PubMedCrossRef
11.
Ma X et al (2014) The diagnostic role of a short screening tool–the distress thermometer: a meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer 22(7):1741–1755PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
Ramirez PT et al (2018) Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 379(20):1895–1904PubMedCrossRef
14.
Schell JT et al (2018) Distress thermometer for preoperative screening of patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 46(7):1111–1116PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zabora J et al (2001) The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site. Psychooncology 10(1):19–28PubMedCrossRef
16.
Chida Y et al (2008) Do stress-related psychosocial factors contribute to cancer incidence and survival? Nat Clin Pract Oncol 5(8):466–475PubMedCrossRef
17.
Lutgendorf SK, Andersen BL (2015) Biobehavioral approaches to cancer progression and survival: mechanisms and interventions. Am Psychol 70(2):186–197PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Mausbach BT, Schwab RB, Irwin SA (2015) Depression as a predictor of adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) in women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 152(2):239–246PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Wells KB et al (1989) The functioning and well-being of depressed patients. Results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA 262(7):914–919PubMedCrossRef
20.
Bultz BD, Carlson LE (2006) Emotional distress: the sixth vital sign–future directions in cancer care. Psychooncology 15(2):93–95PubMedCrossRef
21.
Carlson LE, Bultz BD (2004) Efficacy and medical cost offset of psychosocial interventions in cancer care: making the case for economic analyses. Psychooncology 13(12):837–849PubMedCrossRef
22.
Nipp RD et al (2017) The relationship between physical and psychological symptoms and health care utilization in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Cancer 123(23):4720–4727PubMedCrossRef
23.
Braeken AP et al (2013) Does routine psychosocial screening improve referral to psychosocial care providers and patient-radiotherapist communication? a cluster randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 93(2):289–297PubMedCrossRef
24.
Roth AJ et al (1998) Rapid screening for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: a pilot study. Cancer 82(10):1904–1908PubMedCrossRef
25.
Vitek L, Rosenzweig MQ, Stollings S (2007) Distress in patients with cancer: definition, assessment, and suggested interventions. Clin J Oncol Nurs 11(3):413–418PubMedCrossRef
26.
Mehnert A et al (2006) Die deutsche version des NCCN distress-thermometers. Z Psychiatr Psychol Psychother 54(3):213–223
27.
Donovan KA et al (2014) Validation of the distress thermometer worldwide: state of the science. Psychooncology 23(3):241–250PubMedCrossRef
28.
Gessler S et al (2008) Screening for distress in cancer patients: is the distress thermometer a valid measure in the UK and does it measure change over time? A prospective validation study Psychooncology 17(6):538–547PubMed
29.
Mehnert A et al (2006) Assessment of psychosocial distress and resources in oncology–a literature review about screening measures and current developments. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 56(12):462–479PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
32.
Backhaus K, Erichson B, Plinke W, Weiber R (2008) Multivariate analysemethoden: eine anwendungsorientierte einführung. Springer, Berlin, pp 244–287
33.
Nagelkerke NJD (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78(3):691–692CrossRef
34.
Lazenby M et al (2014) Comparing the distress thermometer (DT) with the patient health questionnaire (PHQ)-2 for screening for possible cases of depression among patients newly diagnosed with advanced cancer. Palliat Support Care 12(1):63–68PubMedCrossRef
35.
Graves KD et al (2007) Distress screening in a multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic: prevalence and predictors of clinically significant distress. Lung Cancer 55(2):215–224PubMedCrossRef
36.
37.
Jacobsen PB et al (2005) Screening for psychologic distress in ambulatory cancer patients. Cancer 103(7):1494–1502PubMedCrossRef
38.
Kurz K et al (2014) Gender differences in mental distress of patients with lung cancer and their partners. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 64(11):431–438PubMed
39.
Krakauer EL et al (2021) Cervical cancer-associated suffering: estimating the palliative care needs of a highly vulnerable population. JCO Glob Oncol 7:862–872PubMedCrossRef
40.
Sevil U et al (2006) The loneliness level of patients with gynecological cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16(Suppl 1):472–477PubMedCrossRef
41.
Jensen PT et al (2004) Early-stage cervical carcinoma, radical hysterectomy, and sexual function. A longitudinal study. Cancer 100(1):97–106PubMedCrossRef
42.
Huffman LB et al (2016) Maintaining sexual health throughout gynecologic cancer survivorship: a comprehensive review and clinical guide. Gynecol Oncol 140(2):359–368PubMedCrossRef
43.
Carlson LE et al (2012) Online screening for distress, the 6th vital sign, in newly diagnosed oncology outpatients: randomised controlled trial of computerised vs personalised triage. Br J Cancer 107(4):617–625PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Jewett PI et al (2020) Cancer-related distress: revisiting the utility of the national comprehensive cancer network distress thermometer problem list in women with gynecologic cancers. JCO Oncol Pract 16(8):e649–e659PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
46.
Hwang JH et al (2012) Urologic complications of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy. Int Urogynecol J 23(11):1605–1611PubMedCrossRef
47.
Wenzel HHB et al (2020) Short-term surgical complications after radical hysterectomy-a nationwide cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 99(7):925–932PubMedCrossRef
48.
Pinar G et al (2012) The effects of hysterectomy on body image, self-esteem, and marital adjustment in Turkish women with gynecologic cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs 16(3):E99-104PubMedCrossRef
49.
Frumovitz M et al (2007) Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 110(1):96–102PubMedCrossRef
50.
Donovan KA, Jacobsen PB (2013) Progress in the implementation of NCCN guidelines for distress management by member institutions. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11(2):223–226PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Predictors of significant distress in cervical cancer patients: a cross sectional study
Authors
Friederike Schmitt
Laila Najjari
Tomas Kupec
Elmar Stickeler
Ivo Meinhold-Heerlein
Julia Wittenborn
Publication date
23-04-2024
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07505-2