Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 4/2005

01-04-2005 | Original Article

Rankings and symptom assessments of side effects from chemotherapy: insights from experienced patients with ovarian cancer

Authors: Charlotte C. Sun, Diane C. Bodurka, Candice B. Weaver, Rafia Rasu, Judith K. Wolf, Michael W. Bevers, Judith A. Smith, J. Taylor Wharton, Edward B. Rubenstein

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 4/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Goals of work

Although many patients with ovarian cancer achieve favorable responses to primary chemotherapy, the majority of women will experience recurrence of their cancer. Selection of second- or third-line chemotherapy ultimately depends on patient preferences for different side effects. To better understand this process, we evaluated preferences and symptom distress in patients with ovarian cancer.

Patients and methods

A total of 70 women with ovarian cancer who had previously received at least three cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and currently undergoing chemotherapy for newly diagnosed or recurrent disease were interviewed in an outpatient chemotherapy clinic. The patients were asked to rank order 27 health states using a modified visual analog scale and to complete the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS).

Main results

Most favorable health states included perfect health, clinical remission and complete control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Least favorable health states included more severe CINV health states and death. Patients on first-line chemotherapy had less symptom distress, and rated sexual dysfunction, fatigue and memory loss more favorably than patients on second- or third-line chemotherapy (P<0.05). Married patients generally had less symptom distress compared to patients who were not married, but married patients indicated more distress with sexual dysfunction (P=0.04). Married patients rated alopecia less favorably than unmarried patients (P=0.03), but married patients viewed certain CINV health states more favorably (P=0.02–0.04).

Conclusions

CINV remains one of the most dreaded side effects of chemotherapy. Separate preference profiles exist for patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent disease, as well as for married versus unmarried patients. While MSAS scores and VAS rankings showed consistency across some health states, this was not true for CINV, suggesting that current symptom status may only influence patient preferences for selected side effects.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Agarwal R, Kaye SG (2003) Ovarian cancer: strategies for overcoming resistance to chemotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer 3:502–516CrossRefPubMed Agarwal R, Kaye SG (2003) Ovarian cancer: strategies for overcoming resistance to chemotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer 3:502–516CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Borjeson S, Hursti T, Peterson C, Fredikson M, Furst CJ, Avall-Lundqvist E, Steineck G (1997) Similarities and differences in assessing nausea on a verbal category scale and a visual analogue scale. Cancer Nurs 20(4):260–266CrossRefPubMed Borjeson S, Hursti T, Peterson C, Fredikson M, Furst CJ, Avall-Lundqvist E, Steineck G (1997) Similarities and differences in assessing nausea on a verbal category scale and a visual analogue scale. Cancer Nurs 20(4):260–266CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Carelle N, Piotto E, Bellanger A, Germanaud J, Thuillier A, Khayat D (2002) Changing patient perceptions of the side effects of chemotherapy. Cancer 95:155–163CrossRefPubMed Carelle N, Piotto E, Bellanger A, Germanaud J, Thuillier A, Khayat D (2002) Changing patient perceptions of the side effects of chemotherapy. Cancer 95:155–163CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Coates A, Abraham S, Kaye SB, Sowerbutts T, Frewin C, Fox RM, Tattersall MHN (1983) On the receiving end—patient perception of the side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 19:203–208CrossRefPubMed Coates A, Abraham S, Kaye SB, Sowerbutts T, Frewin C, Fox RM, Tattersall MHN (1983) On the receiving end—patient perception of the side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 19:203–208CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference de Boer-Dennert M, de Wit R, Schmitz PI, Djontono J, v Beurden V, Stoter G, Verweij J (1997) Patient perceptions of the side-effects of chemotherapy: the influence of 5HT3 antagonists. Br J Cancer 76(8):1055–1061PubMed de Boer-Dennert M, de Wit R, Schmitz PI, Djontono J, v Beurden V, Stoter G, Verweij J (1997) Patient perceptions of the side-effects of chemotherapy: the influence of 5HT3 antagonists. Br J Cancer 76(8):1055–1061PubMed
6.
go back to reference Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (2nd edn). Oxford University Press, New York Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (2nd edn). Oxford University Press, New York
7.
go back to reference Griffen AM, Butow PN, Coates AS, Childs AM, Ellis PM, Dunn SM, Tattersall MHN (1996) On the receiving end V: patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy in 1993. Ann Oncol 7:189–195PubMed Griffen AM, Butow PN, Coates AS, Childs AM, Ellis PM, Dunn SM, Tattersall MHN (1996) On the receiving end V: patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy in 1993. Ann Oncol 7:189–195PubMed
8.
go back to reference Grunberg SM, Boutin N, Ireland A, Miner S, Silveira J, Ashikaga T (1996) Impact of nausea/vomiting on quality of life as a visual analogue scale-derived utility score. Support Care Cancer 4:435–439PubMed Grunberg SM, Boutin N, Ireland A, Miner S, Silveira J, Ashikaga T (1996) Impact of nausea/vomiting on quality of life as a visual analogue scale-derived utility score. Support Care Cancer 4:435–439PubMed
9.
go back to reference Lindley C, McCune JS, Thomason TE, Lauder D, Sauls A, Adkins S, Sawyer WT (1999) Perception of chemotherapy side effects cancer versus noncancer patients. Cancer Practice 7(2):59–65CrossRefPubMed Lindley C, McCune JS, Thomason TE, Lauder D, Sauls A, Adkins S, Sawyer WT (1999) Perception of chemotherapy side effects cancer versus noncancer patients. Cancer Practice 7(2):59–65CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference McGarvey EL, Baum LD, Pinkerton RC, Rogers LM (2001) Psychological sequelae and alopecia among women with cancer. Cancer Practice 9(6):283–289CrossRefPubMed McGarvey EL, Baum LD, Pinkerton RC, Rogers LM (2001) Psychological sequelae and alopecia among women with cancer. Cancer Practice 9(6):283–289CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Moss C, Kaye SB (2002) Ovarian cancer: progress and continuing controversies in management. Eur J Cancer 38:1701–1707CrossRefPubMed Moss C, Kaye SB (2002) Ovarian cancer: progress and continuing controversies in management. Eur J Cancer 38:1701–1707CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Münstedt K, Manthey N, Sachsse S, Vahrson H (1997) Changes in self-concept and body image during alopecia induced cancer chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer 5:139–143CrossRefPubMed Münstedt K, Manthey N, Sachsse S, Vahrson H (1997) Changes in self-concept and body image during alopecia induced cancer chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer 5:139–143CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Portenoy RK, Thaler HT, Kornblith AB, Lepore JM, Friedlander-Klar H, Kiyasu E, Sobel K, Coyle N, Kemeny N, Norton L, Scher H (1994) The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale: an instrument for the evaluation of symptom prevalence, characteristics and distress. Eur J Cancer 30A(9):1326–1336CrossRefPubMed Portenoy RK, Thaler HT, Kornblith AB, Lepore JM, Friedlander-Klar H, Kiyasu E, Sobel K, Coyle N, Kemeny N, Norton L, Scher H (1994) The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale: an instrument for the evaluation of symptom prevalence, characteristics and distress. Eur J Cancer 30A(9):1326–1336CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Stiggelbout AM, De Haes JCJM (2001) Patient preference for cancer therapy: an overview of measurement approaches. J Clin Oncol 19:220–230PubMed Stiggelbout AM, De Haes JCJM (2001) Patient preference for cancer therapy: an overview of measurement approaches. J Clin Oncol 19:220–230PubMed
15.
go back to reference Sun CC, Bodurka DC, Donato ML, Rubenstein EB, Borden CL, Basen-Engquist K, Munsell MF, Kavanagh JJ, Gershenson DM (2002) Patient preferences regarding side effects of chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: do they change over time? Gynecol Oncol 87:118–128CrossRefPubMed Sun CC, Bodurka DC, Donato ML, Rubenstein EB, Borden CL, Basen-Engquist K, Munsell MF, Kavanagh JJ, Gershenson DM (2002) Patient preferences regarding side effects of chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: do they change over time? Gynecol Oncol 87:118–128CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W (2001) Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 21:329–334CrossRefPubMed Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W (2001) Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 21:329–334CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Rankings and symptom assessments of side effects from chemotherapy: insights from experienced patients with ovarian cancer
Authors
Charlotte C. Sun
Diane C. Bodurka
Candice B. Weaver
Rafia Rasu
Judith K. Wolf
Michael W. Bevers
Judith A. Smith
J. Taylor Wharton
Edward B. Rubenstein
Publication date
01-04-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 4/2005
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-004-0710-6

Other articles of this Issue 4/2005

Supportive Care in Cancer 4/2005 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine