Psychological distress, physical illness and mortality risk.

BACKGROUND: Psychological distress has been associated with an increased risk of overall and disease-specific mortality risk. This study examines whether the length of follow-up time influences mortality risk. METHODS: The associations between psychological distress and all-cause and coronary heart disease mortality were modelled using proportional hazards modelling in a prospective cohort study of 6920 men and women aged 45-64 years. Psychological distress was assessed at baseline using the 30-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-30). RESULTS: Psychological distress was associated with a 5-year all-cause mortality (RR 1.68 95% CI 1.07-2.62) and CHD mortality (RR 1.64 95% CI 1.02-2.56) in men after adjustment for sociodemographic and CHD risk factors, but not after further adjustment for baseline physical illness (RR 1.41 95% CI 0.88-2.23) for all-cause mortality (RR 1.39 95% CI 0.88-2.21) for CHD mortality. Psychological distress was not associated with all-cause and CHD mortality at 15- and 20-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress is a reflection of baseline physical illness that increases mortality risk. Psychological distress maybe on the causal pathway between physical illness and mortality risk.

Does knowledge of cancer diagnosis affect quality of life? A methodological challenge.

BACKGROUND: As part of an assessment of quality of life in lung cancer patients an investigation was carried out to examine whether the knowledge of their diagnosis affected their quality of life. METHODS: Every patient in a defined geographical area with a potential diagnosis of lung cancer was interviewed at first consultation and after a definitive treatment has been given. Quality of life was assessed using three standard measures: the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), the EORTC quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its lung cancer supplementary questionnaire (QLQ-LC13). Comparison was made in quality of life scores between patients who knew their cancer diagnosis and those who did not. RESULTS: In all, 129 lung cancer patients were interviewed. Of these, 30 patients (23%) knew and 99 (78%) did not know their cancer diagnosis at the time of baseline assessment. The patient groups were similar in their characteristics except for age (P = 0.04) and cell type (P < 0.0001). Overall, there were no significant differences between these two groups with regard to their scores on the three instruments used. A major finding was that both group scored almost the same on emotional reactions (P = 0.8) and social isolation (P = 1.0) as measured by the NHP, and emotional (P = 0.7) and social functioning (P = 1.0) as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30. In addition there were no significant differences in patients' symptom scores between those who knew their diagnosis and those who did not, nor did any consistent pattern emerge. The only significant difference was for sleep difficulties (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the knowledge of cancer diagnosis does not affect the way in which patients respond to quality of life questionnaires.

Quality of life in lung cancer patients: does socioeconomic status matter?

BACKGROUND: As part of a prospective study on quality of life in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients an investigation was carried out to examine whether there were differences among patients' quality of life scores and their socioeconomic status. METHODS: Quality of life was measured at two points in time (baseline and three months after initial treatment) using three standard instruments; the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), the European Organization for Research and Cancer Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and its lung cancer supplement (QLQ-LC13). Socioeconomic status for each individual patient was derived using Carstairs and Morris Deprivation Category ranging from 1 (least deprived) to 7 (most deprived) on the basis of the postcode sector of their address. RESULTS: In all, 129 lung cancer patients entered into the study. Of these data for 82 patients were complete (at baseline and follow-up). 57% of patients were of lower socioeconomic status and they had more health problems, less functioning, and more symptoms as compared to affluent patients. Of these, physical mobility (P = 0.05), energy (P = 0.01), role functioning (P = 0.04), physical functioning (P = 0.03), and breathlessness (P = 0.02) were significant at baseline. However, at follow-up assessment there was no significant difference between patient groups nor did any consistent pattern emerge. CONCLUSION: At baseline assessment patients of lower socioeconomic status showed lower health related quality of life. Since there was no clear trend at follow-up assessment this suggests that patients from different socioeconomic status responded to treatment similarly. In general, the findings suggest that quality of life is not only the outcome of the disease and its treatment, but is also highly dependent on each patients' socioeconomic characteristics.

How quality of life data contribute to our understanding of cancer patients' experiences? A study of patients with lung cancer.

A prospective study was conducted to measure quality of life in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients attending a chest clinic in a large teaching and district general hospital in a geographically defined area (northern sector of Glasgow, Scotland). Quality of life was assessed at two points in time, pre-diagnosis (baseline) and 3 months after diagnosis (follow-up) using three standard measures; the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP); the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), and its lung cancer supplement (QLQ-LC13). Out of 133 lung cancer patients diagnosed during the study period, 129 patients (97%) were interviewed pre-diagnosis. Of these, only 63% of the patients had an active treatment. Ninety-six patients were alive at follow-up, of whom 82 patients were re-interviewed. Thus, only 82 patients who had complete data were used in the analysis. Comparing patients' pre-diagnosis and follow-up scores on the NHP, only sleep difficulties improved slightly. Patients reported increased perceived health problems of all other characteristics studied (energy, p = 0.0004; physical mobility, p = 0.0008). Similar results were observed on the EORTC questionnaires indicating that patients' functioning and global quality of life had decreased. The only significant improvement after 3 months was seen in patients' cough (p = 0.006). There were marked increases in hair loss (p < 0.0001), constipation (p = 0.007), and sore mouth (p = 0.0004). The findings suggest that patient-centred variables should receive sufficient consideration in the treatment of lung cancer. The study results clearly indicate that information on quality of life contributes to our understanding of patients' experiences of their cancer treatment.