Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Psychosocial Distress in Follow-up Care – Results of a Tablet-based Routine Screening in 202 Patients With Sarcoma

FLORIAN LENZE, FLORIAN POHLIG, CAROLIN KNEBEL, HEINRICH MÜHLHOFER, HANS RECHL, THERESIA PICHLER, PETER HERSCHBACH, RÜDIGER VON EISENHART-ROTHE and ULRICH LENZE
Anticancer Research June 2019, 39 (6) 3159-3165; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13453
FLORIAN LENZE
1Department of Orthopedics and Sports Orthopedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Flo_Lenze@yahoo.de
FLORIAN POHLIG
1Department of Orthopedics and Sports Orthopedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CAROLIN KNEBEL
1Department of Orthopedics and Sports Orthopedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HEINRICH MÜHLHOFER
1Department of Orthopedics and Sports Orthopedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HANS RECHL
1Department of Orthopedics and Sports Orthopedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
THERESIA PICHLER
2CCC Comprehensive Cancer Center, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PETER HERSCHBACH
3Roman Herzog Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
RÜDIGER VON EISENHART-ROTHE
1Department of Orthopedics and Sports Orthopedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ULRICH LENZE
1Department of Orthopedics and Sports Orthopedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Patients with sarcoma are particularly vulnerable to psychosocial distress. The aim of this study was to collect preliminary data on the prevalence of psychosocial distress in such patients during follow-up care and identify risk factors associated with higher psycho-oncological stress levels. Patients and Methods: The study retrospectively enrolled 202 patients with bone or soft-tissue sarcomas who underwent routine psychosocial distress screening during their follow-up care. All patients were screened using an electronic cancer-specific questionnaire. Results: Females and patients who underwent radiotherapy were more distressed. Psychosocial distress levels were markedly higher in the early postoperative phase, but approximately one-third of patients showed high psychosocial distress levels even more than 2 years postoperatively. Conclusion: The results underscore the importance of routine psychosocial distress screenings in patients with sarcoma, which should be performed throughout the follow-up period.

  • Sarcoma
  • psychosocial distress
  • distress screening
  • cancer
  • QSC-R10

Approximately 30-66% of all patients with cancer suffer from psychosocial distress during the course of their disease, which constitutes a relevant clinical and economical problem (1-4). However, treatment of such patients is still mainly focused on biomedical aspects. Studies on psychosocial distress in patients with cancer have shown that the identification of distressed patients is a considerable challenge (5, 6). This difficulty might be attributed to the weak correlation between objective disease characteristics/symptoms and the subjective perception of distress of patients with cancer (5-8). Additionally, many patients feel discomfort when talking about mental health issues, and approximately 25% speak about their mental concerns only when invited to do so (9). International guidelines suggest routine distress screening for all patients with cancer, and such screening is one of the certification requirements for cancer centres (7, 10). In this context, we implemented routine psychosocial distress screenings for all patients with cancer at our Orthopaedic University Department.

Malignant tumours of the musculoskeletal system are rare, comprising only 1% of all malignant tumours (11). Despite improvements in therapy and increased survival rates, patients with musculoskeletal malignancies, such as soft-tissue sarcomas, are particularly vulnerable to psychosocial distress (12-15). In our experience, high distress levels occur not only at early stages of the disease but also during the follow-up period (even years after the operation) in some patients.

Most studies on the prevalence of psychosocial distress in patients with extremity sarcomas use common screening instruments such as the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) or the Depression and Anxiety Stress Scale 21 (DASS 21) (14, 16-19). These questionnaires, however, are not cancer-specific and mainly assess the prevalence of psychiatric disorders, especially anxiety and depression. In contrast, cancer-specific screening instruments specifically focus on disease-related distress and highlight the patient's subjective experiences of cancer. Therefore, such instruments may be of higher clinical value in terms of deriving treatment consequences (12). A popular and validated cancer-specific tool for assessing psychosocial distress is the Questionnaire on Stress in Cancer Patients (QSC-R23), which contains 23 items for describing potential everyday stress in all areas of life for such patients (12). For our routine screening, we use the QSC-R10 – a 10-item short form of the QSC-R23, which was developed to improve its applicability in clinical practice. Book et al. demonstrated the high validity and reliability of this instrument in a sample of 1,850 patients with cancer (3). The use of electronic screening systems provides immediate scoring of questionnaire results, facilitates data collection and can help to ensure the overall efficiency of psychosocial screening programmes (20-23). Studies have suggested a high acceptance of computerized screenings even among older patients and those without computer experience (24, 25).

The aims of this study were as follows: i) To gather preliminary data on the prevalence of psychosocial distress in sarcoma patients during follow-up care; ii) To identify risk factors that might be associated with higher psycho-oncological stress levels in patients with orthopaedic cancer.

Patients and Methods

Participants. We retrospectively enrolled all patients who were screened during their follow-up care for psychosocial distress following resection of a malignant musculoskeletal tumour between 2014 and 2017.

Inclusion criteria comprised follow-up care after resection of a bone or soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremities, as well as an age of 18 years or above. Exclusion criteria were benign musculoskeletal tumours or sarcomas at locations other than the extremities, unresected malignant tumours (that had not been resected at the time of screening), pre-existing psychiatric disorders, insufficient language skills, and an age below 18 years.

The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (project number 216/11).

Procedure. At our Orthopaedic Department, routine screening is performed in the form of a tablet-based self-assessment using the QSC-R10. To carry out this screening, a screening terminal consisting of a tablet stand and a tablet computer has been set up in a designated area of our Orthopaedic Outpatient Clinic. Upon arrival in the clinic, all patients receive concise instructions on how to handle the tablet computer as well as the questionnaire in order to complete all questions on their own. All patients included in this study underwent an identical psycho-oncological screening procedure independent of disease-related factors such as entity (soft-tissue tumour, bone tumour, etc.), tumour stage (local disease, metastatic, etc.), grading, type of surgery (amputation, limb preservation, etc.), additional treatment (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, etc.), and the length of the postoperative period. If one patient underwent more than one psychosocial distress screening during the study period, only the data from the first screening were included and used for the analysis.

After completion of all questions, data were automatically analysed in terms of current distress level (see below) as well as the subjective desire for psycho-oncological support. Individual result sheets were transferred to the medical file of each patient, and the findings were discussed during the outpatient visit (same day) by the attending orthopaedic doctor.

Patients who exceeded the defined cutoff value were assumed to be highly distressed and were offered psycho-oncological support or intensified treatment (if already receiving psycho-oncological treatment). Likewise, patients who expressed a desire for psycho-oncological support were referred to the Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy. For most patients, first contact was made on the same day (day of referral), and further treatment sessions were performed depending on the individual needs of each patient. The psycho-oncological treatment included talking therapy as well as instructions for stress-relief strategies.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Medical and socio-demographic profile of patients (n=202).

Measures. The QSC-R10 is a cancer-specific instrument that allows the screening of cancer patients for the need of psycho-oncological treatment (Figure 1). This validated self-assessment questionnaire consists of 10 items, which were extracted from the QSC-R23 (3, 12). The 10 items of the QSC-R10 assess potentially stressful situations in the daily life of patients with cancer; the response categories are the same as for the QSC-R23 (3, 12). For each situation, patients indicate whether a statement currently applies to them and, if so, the severity of the problem. Response categories range between 0 (the problem does not apply to me) and 5 (it applies to me and is a very serious problem). The items are grouped into five subscales: Psychosomatic complaints, fears, information deficits, everyday life restrictions and social strains. The total score is calculated by summing the single-item scores. A total score of more than 14 points (the maximum possible score is 50 points) reveals a relevant level of psychosocial distress and indicates the need for psycho-oncological support (3).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Questionnaire on distress in cancer patients – short form (QSC-R10).

In addition to the self-assessment questionnaire, patients are asked to complete two further questions:

  1. “Do you want psychosocial support?” (response options: “Yes” and “No”)

  2. “Do you currently receive psycho-oncological support?” (response options: “Yes” and “No”)

Statistical analysis. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS Statistics (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics were calculated for sample characteristics. For each QSC-R10 item and for the total score, means and standard deviations were calculated. Data were statistically analysed according to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and a standard distribution was assumed for all groups. To compare distress values, a further analysis was performed using multifactorial ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc testing where applicable.

Results

Medical and demographic profile. In total, 202 patients [93 females (46%) and 109 males (54%)] met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study (Table I).

Psychosocial distress level. The distress score in our patients (n=202) averaged 13.2 points (range=0-42 points; SD=9.5); 72 patients (36%) exceeded the cut-off value of 14 points in the QSC-R10 screening. The mean of single-item scores ranged from 0.64-2.18 points (SD=1.07-1.55) (Table II). The highest mean score (2.18 points, SD=1.55) was recorded for item five (“I am afraid my disease will spread/recur”) and the lowest (0.64 points, SD=1.07) for item nine (“I do not feel well informed about my disease/treatment”).

The ANOVA revealed that female patients (p=0.023) and patients who underwent radiotherapy (p=0.021) had significantly higher distress scores.

There was no significant association between the variables of tumour grading (p=0.140), tumour localization (p=0.662), chemotherapy (p=0.471), metastasis (p=0.075) or duration of postoperative illness (p=0.365) and high psychosocial distress. Patients with bone tumours had slightly higher distress levels, but this result did not reach statistical significance (p=0.053).

Individual desire for psycho-oncological support and current (active) psycho-oncological treatment. In total, 32 patients (16%) expressed an individual desire for psycho-oncological support; scores for 18 of those (56%) exceeded the cut-off value in the QSC-R10 screening. In the highly distressed cohort of patients (n=72), 18 (25%) stated a desire for psycho-oncological support.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Stress scores for single items of the QSC-R10 (study sample, n=202).

Twenty-six patients (16%) were under psycho-oncological treatment at the time of the screening; scores for 15 of them (58%) exceeded the cut-off value in the QSC-R10.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to gather preliminary data on the prevalence of psychosocial distress in sarcoma patients in follow-up care. Furthermore, we examined potential risk factors for psychosocial distress in patients with these rare tumours. We retrospectively enrolled 202 patients with bone or soft-tissue sarcomas, and they underwent a tablet-based cancer-specific distress screening during follow-up care at our Institution. More than one-third of patients were highly distressed at the time of the distress screening (mean of 31 months postoperatively) and received psycho-oncological treatment. Female patients and patients who underwent radiotherapy had significantly higher distress levels than males and patients without radiotherapy, respectively. Among patients with a postoperative illness duration of more than 2 years, approximately one-third were highly distressed. Our findings support the demand for psychosocial distress screenings not only during active treatment but also throughout follow-up care.

The percentage of distressed patients in our study was comparable to those in other studies that investigated psychosocial comorbidities in patients with cancer (1, 2). Zabora et al. analysed psychological distress in a large sample of 4,496 patients with 14 different cancer entities, and a distress prevalence of 35.1% was recorded (2). Similarly, in the study by Tang et al., approximately one-third of patients with extremity sarcomas were reported to suffer from psychosocial distress (18). However, most previous studies did not utilize cancer-specific distress questionnaires such as the QSC-R10. Herschbach et al., in contrast, assessed psychosocial distress in patients with cancer with a cancer-specific questionnaire (12). In a heterogeneous sample of 1,721 patients, participants with soft-tissue tumours accounted for the highest proportion of distressed patients, with 40% having scores exceeding the cut-off value and requiring psychosocial support. Pohlig et al. conducted a social media-based cancer-specific survey in a young cohort of patients with bone sarcomas, and all enrolled patients had scores which exceeded the cut-off value (26). Due to the study design employed, a certain selection bias was assumed because distressed patients are probably more likely to participate in patient communities of social networks (26). Nevertheless, the extremely high percentage of psychological distress in paediatric sarcoma survivors has been described in the literature (19).

We believe that cancer-specific distress screenings help to mirror the subjective disease-related experiences of patients with cancer and, therefore, might be clinically relevant for determining the need for psycho-oncological support. The cancer-specific screening instrument used in this study (QSC-R10) was developed to assess potentially stressful situations in the daily life of patients with cancer. The most highly rated single distress item in our cohort was the fear of disease progression. Fear, in this context, is an adequate and logical response to the real threat of cancer. Approximately 50% of patients with cancer suffer from moderate to severe fear of disease progression (27). However, a high fear level can affect well-being, quality of life and social functioning and is, therefore, one of the most frequent distress symptoms in patients with cancer (28).

In line with previous studies, we found significantly higher levels of distress in women than in men (2, 10). Furthermore, we found that those patients who underwent radiotherapy were significantly more distressed than those who did not. One explanation might be the treatment setting, with daily radiation up to 8 weeks and possible side effects (e.g. radiodermatitis and wound-healing disorders). Several studies reported high distress levels and the need for psycho-oncological treatment during and after radiotherapy (29, 30). However, Herschbach et al. reported that for most cancer entities, radiation therapy did not play a major role in subjective stress perception (31).

In our cohort, the duration of postoperative illness did not have a statistically significant impact on overall distress levels. However, there was a tendency for patients with a postoperative illness duration of less than 6 months to have higher overall distress levels; scores for 47% of patients with an illness duration of less than 6 months exceeded the defined cut-off value, while those for 33% in the 6-12 month group and 35% in the 12-24 month group exceeded the cut-off value. These findings are in line with those reported by Tang et al., who investigated the prevalence of psychosocial distress in 76 patients with extremity sarcomas at different time-points (preoperatively, 6 and 12 months postoperatively). The mean overall distress was highest after surgery and decreased over time, but similarly to our results, this difference did not reach statistical significance (18).

In our study, scores for 30% of patients with a postoperative illness duration of more than 2 years exceeded the cut-off value. Long-term distress was previously described in a systematic review by Foster et al., who reported that up to one-third of patients with cancer suffered from cancer-related problems, including poorer quality of life and psychosocial distress (32). The high number of patients with sarcoma with persistent psychosocial difficulties might be explained by the surgical treatment regimen, which, in some cases, involves restrictive or even mutilating operations (e.g. amputations) and might result in life-role changes as well as physical impairment (33, 34). In the cohort of highly distressed patients (those whose scores exceeded the cut-off value), only 25% expressed the desire to receive psycho-oncological support. A divergence between the objective indication (need) and the individual desire for psycho-oncological support has been described by de Zwaan et al., who concluded that treatment decisions should be based not only on the objective but also the self-reported need for help (35).

Our study has certain limitations. The study cohort was somewhat heterogeneous with regards to tumour entity (bone sarcomas and soft-tissue sarcomas), grading, and the time-point of the survey in the course of cancer treatment. Furthermore, we did not consider the functional outcome, which might have had an impact on the psychosocial comorbidity of patients with cancer. The fact that only results of a single screening were included for each patient limits the significance of our study with regards to determination of time patterns in distress during follow-up care.

Conclusion

A large number of patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcomas suffer from psychosocial distress during follow-up care. In our cohort, marked psychosocial distress problems were observed in patients within the early postoperative phase (<6 months), but approximately one-third of patients with a postoperative illness duration of more than 2 years also showed high psychosocial distress levels. Female gender and treatment with radiotherapy had significant negative impacts on the psychosocial distress level in our study.

The results underscore the importance of routine psychosocial distress screenings in patients with extremity sarcomas, which should be performed throughout the follow-up period.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Wilhelm-Sander Foundation (project number: 2009.905.2), which is a charitable, non-profit foundation for the promotion of cancer research.

Footnotes

  • Authors' Contributions

    FL was responsible for data analysis/interpretation and article preparation. FP, CK, and HM were involved in the initial study idea, data analysis/interpretation and article preparation. HR, RvER, PH and TP were involved in the process of data interpretation and gave intellectual feedback. UL was one of the study investigators, was involved in data interpretation and in article preparation. All Authors read and approved the final version of the article.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    All Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in regard to this study.

  • Received April 28, 2019.
  • Revision received May 10, 2019.
  • Accepted May 13, 2019.
  • Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Mehnert A,
    2. Koch U
    : Psychological comorbidity and health-related quality of life and its association with awareness, utilization, and need for psychosocial support in a cancer register-based sample of long-term breast cancer survivors. J Psychosom Res 64(4): 383-391, 2008. PMID: 18374737. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.12.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Zabora J,
    2. BrintzenhofeSzoc K,
    3. Curbow B,
    4. Hooker C,
    5. Piantadosi S
    : The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site. Psychooncology 10(1): 19-28, 2001. PMID: 11180574.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Book K,
    2. Marten-Mittag B,
    3. Henrich G,
    4. Dinkel A,
    5. Scheddel P,
    6. Sehlen S,
    7. Haimerl W,
    8. Schulte T,
    9. Britzelmeir I,
    10. Herschbach P
    : Distress screening in oncology-evaluation of the questionnaire on distress in cancer patients-short form (QSC-R10) in a German sample. Psychooncology 20(3): 287-293, 2011. PMID: 20669340. DOI: 10.1002/pon.1821
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Mehnert A,
    2. Hartung TJ,
    3. Friedrich M,
    4. Vehling S,
    5. Brahler E,
    6. Harter M,
    7. Keller M,
    8. Schulz H,
    9. Wegscheider K,
    10. Weis J,
    11. Koch U,
    12. Faller H
    : One in two cancer patients is significantly distressed: Prevalence and indicators of distress. Psychooncology 27(1): 75-82, 2018. PMID: 28568377. DOI:10.1002/pon.4464
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Graves KD,
    2. Arnold SM,
    3. Love CL,
    4. Kirsh KL,
    5. Moore PG,
    6. Passik SD
    : Distress screening in a multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic: Prevalence and predictors of clinically significant distress. Lung Cancer 55(2): 215-224, 2007. PMID: 1857305. DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2006.10.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Siedentopf F,
    2. Marten-Mittag B,
    3. Utz-Billing I,
    4. Schoenegg W,
    5. Kentenich H,
    6. Dinkel A
    : Experiences with a specific screening instrument to identify psychosocial support needs in breast cancer patients. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 148(2): 166-171, 2010. PMID: 19944516. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb. 2009.10.014
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Carlson LE,
    2. Bultz BD
    : Cancer distress screening. Needs, models, and methods. J Psychosom Res 55(5): 403-409, 2003. PMID: 14581094.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Mitchell AJ
    : Pooled results from 38 analyses of the accuracy of distress thermometer and other ultra-short methods of detecting cancer-related mood disorders. J Clin Oncol 25(29): 4670-4681, 2007. PMID: 17846453. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.0438
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Cape J,
    2. McCulloch Y
    : Patients' reasons for not presenting emotional problems in general practice consultations. Br J Gen Pract 49(448): 875-879, 1999. PMID: 1313556.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Singer S,
    2. Dieng S,
    3. Wesselmann S
    : Psycho-oncological care in certified cancer centres – a nationwide analysis in Germany. Psycho-oncology 22(6): 1435-1437, 2013. PMID: 22855347. DOI: 10.1002/pon.3145
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Grimer RJ,
    2. Briggs TW
    : Earlier diagnosis of bone and soft-tissue tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(11): 1489-1492, 2010. PMID: 21037340. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B11.24326
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Herschbach P,
    2. Keller M,
    3. Knight L,
    4. Brandl T,
    5. Huber B,
    6. Henrich G,
    7. Marten-Mittag B
    : Psychological problems of cancer patients: A cancer distress screening with a cancer-specific questionnaire. Br J Cancer 91(3): 504-511, 2004. PMID: 2409853. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601986
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Jacobs AJ,
    2. Michels R,
    3. Stein J,
    4. Levin AS
    : Improvement in overall survival from extremity soft tissue sarcoma over twenty years. Sarcoma 2015: 279601, 2015. PMID: 4363656. DOI: 10.1155/2015/279601
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Paredes T,
    2. Canavarro MC,
    3. Simoes MR
    : Anxiety and depression in sarcoma patients: Emotional adjustment and its determinants in the different phases of disease. Eur J Oncol Nurs 15(1): 73-79, 2011. PMID: 20667777. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon. 2010.06.004
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Trautmann F,
    2. Singer S,
    3. Schmitt J
    : Patients with soft-tissue sarcoma comprise a higher probability of comorbidities than cancer-free individuals. A secondary data analysis. Eur J Cancer Care 26(6), 2017. PMID: 27957779. DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12605
  15. ↵
    1. D'Agostino NM,
    2. Edelstein K,
    3. Zhang N,
    4. Recklitis CJ,
    5. Brinkman TM,
    6. Srivastava D,
    7. Leisenring WM,
    8. Robison LL,
    9. Armstrong GT,
    10. Krull KR
    : Comorbid symptoms of emotional distress in adult survivors of childhood cancer. Cancer 122(20): 3215-3224, 2016. PMID: 5048494. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30171
    OpenUrl
    1. Paredes T,
    2. Pereira M,
    3. Simoes MR,
    4. Canavarro MC
    : A longitudinal study on emotional adjustment of sarcoma patients: The determinant role of demographic, clinical and coping variables. Eur J Cancer Care 21(1): 41-51, 2012. PMID: 21812845. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2011.01269.x
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Tang MH,
    2. Castle DJ,
    3. Choong PF
    : Identifying the prevalence, trajectory, and determinants of psychological distress in extremity sarcoma. Sarcoma 2015: 745163, 2015. PMID: 4342175. DOI: 10.1155/2015/745163
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Wiener L,
    2. Battles H,
    3. Bernstein D,
    4. Long L,
    5. Derdak J,
    6. Mackall CL,
    7. Mansky PJ
    : Persistent psychological distress in long-term survivors of pediatric sarcoma: The experience at a single institution. Psychooncology 15(10): 898-910, 2006. PMID: 2289870. DOI: 10.1002/pon.1024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Pirl WF,
    2. Fann JR,
    3. Greer JA,
    4. Braun I,
    5. Deshields T,
    6. Fulcher C,
    7. Harvey E,
    8. Holland J,
    9. Kennedy V,
    10. Lazenby M,
    11. Wagner L,
    12. Underhill M,
    13. Walker DK,
    14. Zabora J,
    15. Zebrack B,
    16. Bardwell WA
    : Recommendations for the implementation of distress screening programs in cancer centers: Report from the American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS), Association of Oncology Social Work (AOSW), and Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) joint task force. Cancer 120(19): 2946-2954, 2014. PMID: 24798107. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28750
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Snyder CF,
    2. Aaronson NK,
    3. Choucair AK,
    4. Elliott TE,
    5. Greenhalgh J,
    6. Halyard MY,
    7. Hess R,
    8. Miller DM,
    9. Reeve BB,
    10. Santana M
    : Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res 21(8): 1305-1314, 2012. PMID: 22048932. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-0054-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Taenzer P,
    2. Bultz BD,
    3. Carlson LE,
    4. Speca M,
    5. DeGagne T,
    6. Olson K,
    7. Doll R,
    8. Rosberger Z
    : Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behaviour and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatients. Psychooncology 9(3): 203-213, 2000. PMID: 10871716.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Koehler M HB,
    2. Holzner B,
    3. Schäffeler N,
    4. Zimmermann T,
    5. Nest A,
    6. Wifling K,
    7. Herschbach P
    : Future now – implementation of computer-assisted distress screening. Der Onkologe 23(6): 453-461, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s00761-017-0209-7
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Allenby A,
    2. Matthews J,
    3. Beresford J,
    4. McLachlan SA
    : The application of computer touch-screen technology in screening for psychosocial distress in an ambulatory oncology setting. Eur J Cancer Care 11(4): 245-253, 2002. PMID: 12492461.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Wright EP,
    2. Selby PJ,
    3. Crawford M,
    4. Gillibrand A,
    5. Johnston C,
    6. Perren TJ,
    7. Rush R,
    8. Smith A,
    9. Velikova G,
    10. Watson K,
    11. Gould A,
    12. Cull A
    : Feasibility and compliance of automated measurement of quality of life in oncology practice. J Clin Oncol 21(2): 374-382, 2003. PMID: 12525532. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.11.044
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Pohlig F,
    2. Lenze U,
    3. Muhlhofer HML,
    4. Lenze FW,
    5. Schauwecker J,
    6. Knebel C,
    7. Zimmermann T,
    8. Herschbach P
    : IT-based psychosocial distress screening in patients with sarcoma and parental caregivers via disease-specific online social media communities. In Vivo 31(3): 443-450, 2017. PMID: 5461459. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11081
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Herschbach P,
    2. Dinkel A
    : Fear of progression. Recent Results Cancer Res 197: 11-29, 2014. PMID: 24305766. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-40187-9_2
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Dinkel A,
    2. Herschbach P
    : Fear of progression in cancer patients and survivors. Recent Results Cancer Res 210: 13-33, 2018. PMID: 28924677. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-64310-6_2
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Chen AM,
    2. Jennelle RL,
    3. Grady V,
    4. Tovar A,
    5. Bowen K,
    6. Simonin P,
    7. Tracy J,
    8. McCrudden D,
    9. Stella JR,
    10. Vijayakumar S
    : Prospective study of psychosocial distress among patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 73(1): 187-193, 2009. PMID: 18513884. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Sehlen S,
    2. Hollenhorst H,
    3. Schymura B,
    4. Herschbach P,
    5. Aydemir U,
    6. Firsching M,
    7. Duhmke E
    : Psychosocial stress in cancer patients during and after radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 179(3): 175-180, 2003. PMID: 12627260. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-003-1018-z
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Herschbach P,
    2. Book K,
    3. Brandl T,
    4. Keller M,
    5. Lindena G,
    6. Neuwohner K,
    7. Marten-Mittag B
    : Psychological distress in cancer patients assessed with an expert rating scale. Br J Cancer 99(1): 37-43, 2008. PMID: 2453012. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604420
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Foster C,
    2. Wright D,
    3. Hill H,
    4. Hopkinson J,
    5. Roffe L
    : Psychosocial implications of living 5 years or more following a cancer diagnosis: A systematic review of the research evidence. Eur J Cancer Care 18(3): 223-247, 2009. PMID: 19432917. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2008.01001.x
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Griesser MJ,
    2. Gillette B,
    3. Crist M,
    4. Pan X,
    5. Muscarella P,
    6. Scharschmidt T,
    7. Mayerson J
    : Internal and external hemipelvectomy or flail hip in patients with sarcomas: Quality-of-life and functional outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 91(1): 24-32, 2012. PMID: 22042339. DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0b 013e318232885a
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Mason GE,
    2. Aung L,
    3. Gall S,
    4. Meyers PA,
    5. Butler R,
    6. Krug S,
    7. Kim M,
    8. Healey JH,
    9. Gorlick R
    : Quality of life following amputation or limb preservation in patients with lower extremity bone sarcoma. Front Oncol 3: 210, 2013. PMID: 3742996. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2013.00210
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. de Zwaan M,
    2. Mosch P,
    3. Sinzinger H,
    4. Stresing K,
    5. Oberhof P,
    6. Kohl C,
    7. Schilke C,
    8. Muller A
    : The association between the need for psychosocial support, patients' desire for psychosocial support and received psychosocial interventions in cancer patients. Neuropsychiatr 26(4): 152-158, 2012. PMID: 23179358. DOI:10.1007/s40211-012-0035-5
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 39 (6)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 39, Issue 6
June 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Psychosocial Distress in Follow-up Care – Results of a Tablet-based Routine Screening in 202 Patients With Sarcoma
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Psychosocial Distress in Follow-up Care – Results of a Tablet-based Routine Screening in 202 Patients With Sarcoma
FLORIAN LENZE, FLORIAN POHLIG, CAROLIN KNEBEL, HEINRICH MÜHLHOFER, HANS RECHL, THERESIA PICHLER, PETER HERSCHBACH, RÜDIGER VON EISENHART-ROTHE, ULRICH LENZE
Anticancer Research Jun 2019, 39 (6) 3159-3165; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13453

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Psychosocial Distress in Follow-up Care – Results of a Tablet-based Routine Screening in 202 Patients With Sarcoma
FLORIAN LENZE, FLORIAN POHLIG, CAROLIN KNEBEL, HEINRICH MÜHLHOFER, HANS RECHL, THERESIA PICHLER, PETER HERSCHBACH, RÜDIGER VON EISENHART-ROTHE, ULRICH LENZE
Anticancer Research Jun 2019, 39 (6) 3159-3165; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13453
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Predictive and Prognostic Value of SUOX Expression in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
  • Liberal Application of Portal Vein Embolization for Right Hepatectomy Against Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Strategy to Achieve Zero Mortality for a Damaged Liver
  • Pancreaticoenterostomy With Seromuscular-parenchymal Anastomosis for Prevention of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula in Distal Pancreatectomy
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • sarcoma
  • psychosocial distress
  • distress screening
  • cancer
  • QSC-R10
Anticancer Research

© 2022 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire