Interplay between spirituality and religiosity on the physical and mental well-being of cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: This study explored the relationship of spirituality and religiosity as it affects the physical and mental quality of life (pQOL, mQOL) of cancer survivors. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study that included adults ≥ 19 years who received treatment for various types of cancer. Patients' QOL was obtained at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Cohorts were categorized according to spirituality/religiosity levels: low spirituality-low religiosity (LSLR), low spirituality-high religiosity (LSHR), high spirituality-low religiosity (HSLR), and high spirituality-high religiosity (HSHR). RESULTS: Of the 551 eligible, 248 (45%) had HSHR, 196 (36%) had LSHR, 75 (14%) had LSLR, and 32 (6%) had HSLR. The pQOL of LSLR were significantly lower than those with HSHR (p = 0.02). The differences in pQOL between LS and HS were observed among those who have HR (p < 0.0001). Among patients with LR, pQOL did not differ. The mQOL of patients with LSLR was significantly lower than those with HSHR (p < 0.0001). The mQOL of those with HS was significantly higher than those with LS in both cohorts having LR (p < 0.0001) or HR (p < 0.0001). pQOL decreased while mQOL increased over time regardless of spirituality or religiosity levels. CONCLUSION: Spirituality is important in the improvement of both pQOL and mQOL of cancer survivors, while religiosity may have some impact on pQOL. Clinicians' incorporation of spirituality into cancer treatment facilitates well-rounded care, which offers measurable improvements for patients with an illness, of which the treatment is often arduous, and uncertain.

Effect of smoking on survival from non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective Veterans' Affairs Central Cancer Registry (VACCR) cohort analysis.

Although a well-established risk factor for lung cancer, the impact of smoking on the survival of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not well known. We performed a retrospective analysis of the Veteran's Affairs Comprehensive Cancer Registry of NSCLC patients. Smoking status was categorized as never smoker, past smoker and current smoker based on self-reported history. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of smoking on overall survival (OS) from NSCLC. The study population (n = 61,440) comprised predominantly of males (98 %) and Caucasians (81 %). The median age at diagnosis was 68 years (range 22-108 years). Current smokers were diagnosed with NSCLC at a younger age (65 years) compared to never smokers (71 years) and past smokers (72 years) (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, current smokers (n = 34,613) [Hazard ratio (HR) 1.059; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.012-1.108], but not past smokers (n = 23,864) (HR 1.008; 95 % CI 0.962-1.056), had worse OS for Stage III and IV NSCLC, compared to never smokers (n = 2,963). Smoking status was not prognostic in stages I and II NSCLC. Current smokers were diagnosed with NSCLC at a younger age than never smokers. Although current smoking was associated with worse prognosis, especially in stages III and IV, the impact of smoking status on OS was modest.

Phase II trial of 131-Iodine tositumomab with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for relapsed diffuse large B cell lymphoma.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the standard outpatient dose of 131-Iodine tositumomab (75 cGy) combined with high-dose carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) followed by autologous stem cell rescue for the treatment of chemotherapy-sensitive relapsed or refractory, or high-risk first complete remission (CR) patients with diffuse large B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (DLBCL). Forty patients with chemotherapy-sensitive persistent or relapsed or high/intermediate or high international prognostic index DLCBL were treated in a phase II trial combining 75 cGy 131-Iodine tositumomab with high-dose BEAM followed by autologous stem cell transplantation. The CR rate after transplantation was 78%, and the overall response rate was 80%. Short-term and long-term toxicities were similar to historical control patients treated with BEAM alone. With a median follow-up of 6 years (range, 3-10 years), the 5-year overall survival (OS) was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-83%), and the 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 70% (95% CI, 53%-82%). The PFS and OS were encouraging in this group of chemotherapy-sensitive persistent, relapsed, or high-risk patients with DLBCL. A follow-up phase III trial with 131-Iodine tositumomab/BEAM vs rituximab/BEAM was planned based on this information.

Spirituality, patients' worry, and follow-up health-care utilization among cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Spirituality may aid cancer survivors as they attempt to interpret the meaning of their experience. OBJECTIVE: We examined the relationship between spirituality, patient-rated worry, and health-care utilization among 551 cancer survivors with different malignancies, who were evaluated prospectively. METHODS: Baseline spirituality scores were categorized into low and high spirituality groups. Patient-rated worries regarding disease recurrence/progression, developing new cancer, and developing complications from treatment were collected at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Follow-up health-care utilization was also examined at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Among the survivors, 271 (49%) reported low spirituality and 280 (51%) reported high spirituality. Of the cohort, 59% had some kind of worry regarding disease recurrence/progression, development of new cancers, and treatment complications. Highly spiritual survivors were less likely to have high levels of worries at both 6 and 12 months. Highly worried survivors were significantly more likely to place phone calls to their follow-up providers and had more frequent follow-up visits at 6 and 12 months. No interactions between spirituality and level of worry were noted to affect follow-up health-care utilization. CONCLUSION: Given spirituality's effect on anxiety, spirituality-based intervention may have a role in addressing cancer survivors' worries but may not improve health-care utilization.