|
|||||
|
|
||||||
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 25, No 15 (May 20), 2007: pp. 2049-2056 © 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.1769 Controlled Study of Fatigue, Quality of Life, and Somatic and Mental Morbidity in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Survivors: How Lucky Are the Lucky Ones?
From the Department of Gynecology, Sorlandet Hospital, Arendal; and the Department of Gynecological Oncology and The Cancer Clinic, Department of Clinical Cancer Research, Rikshospitalet-Radiumhospitalet, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Address reprint requests to Astrid H. Liavaag, MD, Department of Gynecology, Sorlandet Hospital HF, Serviceboks 605, 4809 Arendal, Norway; e-mail: astrid.liavaag{at}sshf.no
Purpose: There are few studies of somatic and mental morbidity in epithelial ovarian cancer survivors (EOCSs). The aim of this controlled, cross-sectional study was to explore fatigue, quality of life (QOL), and somatic and mental morbidity in EOCSs. Patients and Methods: Among 287 EOCSs treated according to protocols at The Norwegian Radium Hospital between 1977 and 2003, 189 patients (66%) participated. Information was collected by a questionnaire containing demographic and morbidity items and self-rating scales. Internal comparisons of various subgroups of EOCSs were performed, and EOCSs were compared with age-adjusted controls from the general population. Results: Minimal differences were observed relating to somatic and mental morbidity, fatigue, and QOL between EOCSs with and without relapse, long or short follow-up time, and prognostic index status. Chronic fatigue was found in 22% (95% CI, 16% to 28%), and only body image was significantly associated with chronic fatigue in multivariable analyses. EOCSs showed significantly more somatic and mental morbidity, somatic complaints, use of medications, and use of health care services than controls. The levels of anxiety and fatigue were also significantly higher in EOCSs than in controls, whereas the levels of depression and of several QOL dimensions were lower. The prevalence of chronic fatigue was 12% among controls. Conclusion: EOCSs had more somatic and mental morbidity, more fatigue, poorer QOL, and used more medication and health services than controls. Minimal differences were observed between various EOCS subgroups. Health care professionals should try to improve and be attentive to the health of EOCSs.
Few studies have investigated the somatic and mental health, fatigue, and health-related quality of life (QOL) in survivors of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOCSs) who have survived more than 1 year after primary treatment. Given that the number of EOCSs disease free for more than 2 years has been low, Stewart et al1 characterized such survivors as "the lucky ones"; however, such EOCSs are gradually becoming more numerous. Multimodal treatment is the main reason for this positive development, but only a minority of EOCSs become permanently tumor free; the majority experience relapses with multiple courses of chemotherapy during the years.2 In her review, Lockwood-Rayermann2 emphasized the need for more data regarding the situation of EOCSs, and particularly in relation to long-term observations. Stewart et al1 reported that among 200 EOCSs without evidence of active disease for 2 years, 98% regarded their health as good or excellent, whereas 54% had current pain or discomfort. EOCSs reported better mental health and equivalent fatigue levels compared with controls. Among 98 EOCSs without evidence of active disease for more than 6 months, Holzner et al3 found that 33% had fatigue. Wenzel et al4 reported that in 49 EOCSs without evidence of active disease, 75% had little or no problems with physical well-being, 6% had depression, 14% had fear of recurrence, and 20% had long-term adverse effects. On the basis of a considerable sample size of EOCSs and access to normative data (NORM), the aims of this cross-sectional, follow-up study of somatic and mental morbidity, fatigue, and QOL in EOCSs were to compare subgroups of EOCSs in relation to relapse, currently on/off treatment, follow-up time, and prognostic index; to explore factors in EOCSs associated with caseness of chronic fatigue; and to compare findings in EOCSs with age-adjusted controls from the general population.
Sample Selection We included EOCSs from the Department of Gynecological Oncology, Rikshospitalet-Radiumhospitalet Medical Center (until 2004, The Norwegian Radium Hospital) with more than 18 months survival. The women included were 20 to 70 years old at the time of the survey and were treated according to protocol for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I to III epithelial ovarian cancer. We had to go back to July 15, 1977, to acquire a sample size sufficient to fill the statistical requirements. The selection criteria were fulfilled by 297 EOCSs who were alive by September 2004, and these patients were invited by mail to take part in the study. One reminder was sent to the nonrespondents after 4 weeks. After additional examination of their medicals records, we excluded 10 EOCSs: two respondents and two nonrespondents who received pelvic radiotherapy as primary treatment in the end of the 1970s, three nonrespondents who received pelvic radiotherapy because of concurrent endometrial cancer, one respondent and one nonrespondent who had stromal ovarian cancer, and one nonrespondent who received bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin treatment because of unusual histology.
Treatment Principles Platinum-based chemotherapy represented the most frequent systemic treatment. Paclitaxel was incorporated into the combination chemotherapy in the 1990s.6 The majority of patients in our sample received combined carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line treatment, but nine received single-agent therapy with cisplatin. Relapses were treated with various types of chemotherapy. Combination- or single-drug second-line therapy was administered (including paclitaxel, carboplatin, and tamoxifen) depending on the time since primary treatment (before or after 6 months) and site of relapse. Four EOCSs received radiotherapy after relapse in lymph nodes, brain, or bone.
Measurements
The Fatigue Questionnaire (FQ) assesses the presence and intensity of fatigue symptoms.8 Seven items assess physical fatigue, and four items assess mental fatigue, and they were added together to provide the total fatigue score. Patients with chronic fatigue (CF) were identified according to the given procedure.8 In our sample of EOCSs, the internal consistency of the fatigue symptoms items were
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) consists of a depression and an anxiety subscale.9 Cases of HADS-defined anxiety disorder (HADS-A) or depression (HADS-D) were defined by a score of
The European Organisation and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30) consists of 30 items comprising five functional scales, an overall QOL/global health scale, three symptom scales, and six single-symptom items.10 The scores are transformed onto a 0 to 100 scale: on the functional scales, higher score represents better functioning, whereas on the symptom scales, higher score means more symptoms. In the EOCSs sample, the internal consistencies of the following functions were physical,
Body image scale (BIS) is a 10-item self-rating scale developed to show changes in body image in cancer patients.11 The questionnaire evaluates how the patient feels about her appearance and about changes due to disease. Each item is scored on a four-point Likert scale and higher BIS score represents poorer body image. The internal consistency in the EOCSs sample was Prognostic index in EOCSs was constructed for this study by scoring the presence of established prognostic factors: age at diagnosis, FIGO stage, relapse within 6 months, primary treatment modality, and follow-up time.5,6 On the basis of the index sum score, EOCSs were allocated to a worst, medium, or best prognostic group. Details are shown in the footnote to Table 1.
Control Sample The HUNT sample. The HUNT study is described in detail elsewhere.12,13 All inhabitants aged 20 years in Nord-Trøndelag County of Norway were invited to a health survey between 1995 and 1997. Among the 47,312 women invited, 28,979 were age 30 to 69 years, and 23,701 (81.8%) attended the HUNT study. We excluded 1,961 patients who reported a previous cancer diagnosis and/or had partial or bilateral oophorectomy, leaving a sample of 21,740 women. On the basis of age at survey, EOCSs were allocated into 5-year groups, and based on such groups, five age-adjusted women were drawn as controls from HUNT, comprising a total of 945 women.
NORM Samples
Statistical Analysis
Ethics
Disease Groups and Attrition Analysis Among the 287 EOCSs eligible for the study, 189 (66%) participated. We separated the 189 EOCS respondents into 130 (69%) patients who never had a relapse (nonrelapse group) and 59 (31%) who had a relapse (relapse group). All of the EOCSs in the relapse group had their relapse within 6 months after primary treatment. In the relapse group, 17 EOCS had received chemotherapy during the last 6 months (on-treatment group) and 42 had not received chemotherapy during the last 6 months (off-treatment group). A comparison of EOCSs respondents (n = 189) and nonrespondents (n = 98) showed that except for longer time since primary treatment among the respondents (mean 6.3 v 4.4 years, P = .003), no significant differences in relapse rate or other clinical variables were observed.
EOCS With and Without Relapse
No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding anxiety and depression or the fatigue measures (Table 2). The relapse group scored significantly lower only on overall QOL/global health (Table 2). No significant intergroup differences were observed for myocardial infarction, angina, and stroke taken together, musculoskeletal diseases, or use of health services or medication last year (Table 2). No significant intergroup differences were observed for the prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, asthma, or thyroid disease, or on the QLQ-C30 symptom scales (data not shown). In the total sample of EOCSs, CF was observed in 22.2% (95% CI, 16.3% to 28.1%).
Other EOCS Subgroups
Associations With Caseness of CF
EOCSs On and Off Current Treatment Comparisons of relapsed EOCSs on and off treatment for the last 6 months before survey showed that those on treatment had a lower prevalence of paid work (P = .006) and their QLQ-C30 social function scores were worse (P = .002). No other significant intergroup differences were observed for other variables examined in Table 2 (data not shown).
Comparisons of EOCSs and HUNT
Comparisons of EOCSs and NORM Samples The EOCSs had significantly higher levels of education compared with the NORM 2004 group (Table 5). Cognitive, emotional, and social functioning of the QLQ-C30 were significantly worse in EOCSs. The levels of physical, mental, and total fatigue were significantly higher in EOCSs compared with the NORM 2005 group, and the prevalence of CF was 22% in EOCSs versus 12% in the NORM group (P = .01).
Effect Sizes When significant differences for continuous measures were calculated as effect sizes, only the QLQ-C30 social function was clinically significantly poorer in EOCSs compared with the NORM group (d = .57).
Comparisons of EOCSs with and without relapse did not show any significant differences regarding somatic or mental morbidity, fatigue, or QOL, except for QLQ-C30 overall QOL/global health that was poorer in the relapse group. CF was observed in 22.2% (95% CI, 16.3% to 28.1%) of all EOCSs, which was higher than in controls (12.2%; 95% CI, 7.5% to 16.9%), but not significantly so. Only body image was significantly associated with CF in multivariable analyses. EOCSs subgroup analyses of prognostic index, survival time, and primary treatment did not show any differences on fatigue, QOL, or mental or somatic morbidity. Compared with age-adjusted controls, EOCSs had significantly more musculoskeletal diseases and more distressing GI symptoms. Use of medication was also significantly more frequent in EOCSs, as was visits to their regular general practitioners. Compared with controls, the QLQ-C30 cognitive, emotional, and social functions were significantly lower in EOCSs. Significantly higher levels of anxiety but lower levels of depression were observed compared with controls. Our finding of a considerable proportion of CF patients in the EOCS group is in accordance with the findings of Holzner et al3 and in contrast to those of Stewart et al.1 The reduction of QOL functions was in contrast to the findings of Wenzel et al.4 The findings of positive somatic and mental health reported by Wenzel et al4 and Stewart et al1 were not confirmed in our comparisons with age-adjusted controls. EOCSs have considerably more somatic and mental morbidity, use of medication, and consumption of health services compared with age-adjusted controls. However, these three studies had shorter follow-up time than our study. We also compared EOCSs with relapse on and off treatment for the last 6 months, which showed that those on treatment had poorer social function than those off treatment. However, small numbers make type II statistical errors a definite limitation of these comparisons. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare EOCSs with and without relapse, and we also note that all relapses occurred within 6 months after primary treatment, which is less favorable prognostically. The surprising lack of intergroup difference could be explained by adaptation and response shift in the years after primary treatment. We presume that after having survived the first 18 months, mental distress may have been reduced and QOL improved due to acceptance of patients new life situation. The higher frequency of physically active individuals can indicate that EOCSs are more conscious about their health and lifestyle than were the controls. The level of anxiety is increased and several QLQ-C30 functions decreased compared with the age-adjusted NORM samples. However, the level of depression was significantly lower in EOCSs, which was not related to the higher proportion of EOCSs using sedatives or antidepressants. In general, anxiety is a reaction to danger in the future, whereas depression is a reaction to loss.15 We therefore presume that EOCSs still worry about relapse and the course of their disease, whereas the initial loss of being diagnosed with cancer has been processed mentally over time, and in that perspective EOCSs have a lower level of depression than controls. The 66% respondent rate is considered to be quite good, particularly given that many EOCSs were treated several years ago and some of the questionnaires contained questions about sensitive familial and sexual issues. We have used international instruments and questionnaires that are well validated and with good psychometric properties. We also present data on the nonrespondents that showed few significant differences, and allow us to draw conclusions about EOCSs more generally. The age-matching of the controls emphasizes the validity of our findings. One limitation may be the 29-year inclusion period. During this time span, several types of first-line chemotherapy were also used; however, not in our sample of survivors. Given that the majority received chemotherapy with platinum and paclitaxel, we found subanalyses on that factor less relevant. Primary treatment with surgery and postoperative chemotherapy was considered to be similar during this time period. The relapse group contained 59 EOCSs, and with a significance level of P < .01, our study has low statistical power, and only quite large effect sizes will be identified with confidence. A major limitation of the study is the fairly low participation rate of the NORM samples, which is a common problem in surveys of the general population without reminders or incentives. We do not know to what degree the scores of the participants are representative for the nonparticipants. Other Norwegian studies have demonstrated only modest differences in prevalence estimates and sociodemographic distribution when comparing results by individuals responding after a reminder and initial responders.16-18 In conclusion, EOCSs have significantly more somatic diseases and complaints, higher scores on fatigue and anxiety, and poorer QOL compared with NORM samples. The groups with and without relapse, as well as other subgroups, were quite similar regarding somatic and mental morbidities, fatigue, and QOL. The subgroup of patients with relapses on treatment during the last 6 months scored worse in these domains compared with those treated for relapse a longer time ago. EOCSs may be considered lucky because they have survived for considerable time, but they pay a price of increased morbidity and fatigue and poorer QOL on a long-term basis. General practitioners, gynecologists, and oncologists should pay attention to the health care of EOCSs, and not simply remind them that they are lucky to be alive.
The authors indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
Conception and design: Astrid H. Liavaag, Anne Dørum, Alv A. Dahl Financial support: Anne Dørum Administrative support: Anne Dørum, Sophie D. Fosså, Claes Tropé Provision of study materials or patients: Astrid H. Liavaag, Anne Dørum, Claes Tropé Collection and assembly of data: Astrid H. Liavaag, Anne Dørum Data analysis and interpretation: Astrid H. Liavaag, Anne Dørum, Sophie D. Fosså, Alv A. Dahl Manuscript writing: Astrid H. Liavaag, Anne Dørum, Sophie D. Fosså, Claes Tropé, Alv A. Dahl Final approval of manuscript: Astrid H. Liavaag, Anne Dørum, Sophie D. Fosså, Claes Tropé, Alv A. Dahl
Supported by The Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation (Grant No. 55002/001) through the Norwegian Cancer Society (A.H.L.). The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (the HUNT study) is a collaboration between HUNT Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Verdal), Norwegian Institute of Public Health, and Nord-Trøndelag County Council. Presented in part at the annual meeting of the Norwegian Gynecological Association, September 1, 2006, Oslo, Norway. Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.
1. Stewart DE, Wong F, Duff S, et al: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger: An ovarian cancer survivor survey. Gynecol Oncol 83: 537-542, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 2. Lockwood-Rayermann S: Survivorship issues in ovarian cancer: A review. Oncol Nurs Forum 33: 553-562, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 3. Holzner B, Kemmler G, Meraner V, et al: Fatigue in ovarian carcinoma patients: A neglected issue. Cancer 97: 1564-1572, 2003[CrossRef][Medline] 4. Wenzel LB, Donnelly JP, Fowler JM, et al: Resilience, reflection, and residual stress in ovarian cancer survivorship: A gynecologic oncology group study. Psychooncology 11: 142-153, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 5. Berek JS, Hacker NF: Practical Gynecologic Oncology (ed 4). Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, 2005, pp 443-494 6. Friedlander ML: Prognostic factors in ovarian cancer. Semin Oncol 25: 305-314, 1998[Medline] 7. Thorsen L, Nystad W, Stigum H, et al: The association between self-reported physical activity and prevalence of depression and anxiety in long-term survivors of testicular cancer and in general population sample. Support Care Cancer 13: 637-646, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 8. Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawlikowska T, et al: Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res 37: 147-153, 1993[CrossRef][Medline] 9. Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Tangen T, et al: The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. J Psychosom Res 52: 69-77, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 10. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality of life instrument for use in international trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85: 365-376, 1993 11. Hopwood P, Fletcher I, Lee A, et al: A body image scale for use with cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 37: 189-197, 2001[Medline] 12. Holmen J, Midthjell K, Krüger Ö, et al: The Nord-Tröndelag Health Study 1995-97 (HUNT 2): Objectives, contents, methods and participation. Nor Epidemiol 13: 19-32, 2003 13. Norwegian University of Science and Technology: HUNT. http://www.hunt.ntnu.no/ 14. Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (ed 2). Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988 15. Hales RE, Yudosky SC, Talbott JA The American Psychiatric Press Textbook of Psychiatry (ed 3). Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Press, 1999 16. Sogaard AJ, Selmer R, Bjertness E, et al: The Oslo Health Study: The impact of self-selection in a large, population-based survey. Int J Equity Health 3: 3, 2004[CrossRef][Medline] 17. Selmer R, Sogaard AJ, Bjertness E, et al: The Oslo Health study: Reminding the non-responderseffects on prevalence estimates. Nor Epidemiol 13: 89-94, 2003 18. Stigum H, Magnus P, Veierod M, et al: Impact on sexually transmitted disease spread of increased condom use by young females, 1987-1992. Int J Epidemiol 24: 813-820, 1995 Submitted September 15, 2006; accepted February 15, 2007. This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2007 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|