Next Article in Journal
How to Evaluate the Level of Green Development Based on Entropy Weight TOPSIS: Evidence from China
Previous Article in Journal
Research Progress and Hotspot Analysis of Residential Carbon Emissions Based on CiteSpace Software
Previous Article in Special Issue
Social Support Mediates the Relationship between Body Image Distress and Depressive Symptoms in Prostate Cancer Patients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 3
10.3390/ijerph20031708
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quality of Life and Side Effects Management in Cancer Treatment—A Cross Sectional Study

by
Inés Llamas-Ramos
1,2,3,*,
Jorge Juan Alvarado-Omenat
4,
María Rodrigo-Reguilón
5 and
Rocío Llamas-Ramos
1
1
Faculty of Nursing and Physiotherapy, Universidad de Salamanca, C/Donantes de Sangre s/n, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
2
University Hospital of Salamanca, Paseo de San Vicente, 182, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
3
Institute of Biomedical Research of Salamanca (IBSAL), 37007 Salamanca, Spain
4
FisioSport, CB, C/12 de Octubre, 2, 37008 Salamanca, Spain
5
Virgen de la Concha Hospital, Avda Requejo, 35, 49022 Zamora, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(3), 1708; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031708
Submission received: 25 October 2022 / Revised: 13 January 2023 / Accepted: 15 January 2023 / Published: 17 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Healthcare and Quality of Life of Patients with Cancer)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cancer disease is a world problem which is increasing in its prevalence. Oncology patients have a multitude of symptoms derived from the treatments and from the disease itself that affect their quality of life to a greater or lesser extent. The aim of this study has been to discover the physical and psychological symptoms related to chemotherapy treatment in Spanish cancer patients in order to improve their quality of life. Symptoms from the previous week were taken into account and the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale was used to measure the frequency, severity and associated distress of 32 symptoms. A total of 246 chemotherapy patients at the University Day Hospital in Salamanca completed the scale once while receiving chemotherapy treatment. A 95% confidence interval was considered. The most prevalent symptoms were a lack of energy (76.4%), anxiety (66.7%) and a dry mouth (60.6%). Lung cancer was the most prevalent cancer in men (26%) and breast cancer was the most prevalent cancer in women (72%). There is no consensus on which is the most prevalent symptom in this population and more studies will need to be carried out to determine the best treatment protocols. Symptom’s prevalence knowledge could improve the patients’ care to prevent or avoid complications and to improve the cancer patients’ quality of life.

1. Introduction

Cancer constitutes a huge burden for society [1,2], both in more developed countries and in less developed countries. Its prevalence is increasing due to population growth and aging, as well as a risk factors increase (tobacco or alcohol consumption, overweight/obesity, physical inactivity, or a change in reproductive factors associated with urbanization and economic development [3]).
In 2018, approximately 9.6 million tumor-related deaths were recorded, making cancer one of the most prevalent diseases globally if we consider the data provided by the World Health Organization (WHO). According to the latest information from the National Statistics Institute provided in December 2019 (about the year 2018), tumors were the second cause of death in Spain (26.4% of deaths) behind circulatory system diseases (28.3% of deaths). Lung and colon cancer tumors are the main causes responsible for these deaths. Regarding age, tumors were the main cause of death between one and 14 years (29.2% of the total) and between 40 and 79 years (43.8%). The most frequently diagnosed tumors in the world in 2018 were lung, breast, colon and rectum, prostate and stomach. The data published in the GLOBOCAN project accounted for 18.1 million new cases in the world in 2018 and an estimate by the Spanish Society of Oncology Medicine [4] is that the number of patients will rise to 29.5 million by 2040.
The new cancer cases diagnosed in Spain in 2020 will reach 277,394 patients, similar to 2019 (277,234), the most frequently diagnosed cancers being colon and rectum (44,231 new cases), prostate (35,126), breast (32,953), lung (29,638) and urinary bladder (22,350) [4].
These patients experience many symptoms from diagnosis to the end of treatment or end of life, which affect their quality of life. These symptoms not only depend on the disease itself but on the treatments received. Knowledge of these symptoms and their prevalence is essential to establish the basis of a good treatment to try to anticipate them and reduce their incidence [5].
Establishing the prevalence of symptoms in this population is just as important as choosing the appropriate instrument. There are multiple scales that measure the prevalence of a single symptom: the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) [6], the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) [7], the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) [8], the Perform Questionnaire (PQ) [9,10], the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) [11], or the Constipation Assessment Scale (CAS) [12], among others. On the other hand, there are also instruments that assess more than one symptom: the Symptom Distress Scale (SDS) [13], the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) [14], the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) [15], the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) [16], the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL) [17], or the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS) [18].
Some of these instruments show the responses using visual scales (the SDS, the ESAS, and the MDASI) and others present categorical descriptor responses (the RSCL, the EORTC QLQ-C30, and the MSAS).
Given the need to have specific instruments for a cancer patient’s assessment, the adaptation to Spanish of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale was made, in order to provide a categorical response tool in Spanish, to know the symptomatology and intensity of the symptoms in the three dimensions that evaluate the scale in cancer patients. To this end, the MSAS has been translated and validated into Spanish by Llamas-Ramos et al. [19]. This scale allowed us to collect the most information about the patient symptom experience due to chemotherapy treatments.
The objective of this study has been to establish the symptoms prevalence in oncology patients using the Spanish MSAS version. This knowledge may help to improve their quality of life during and after their oncology treatments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This study is a cross-sectional study. The patients were recruited from the University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain). The scale was filled in by the patients at the same hospital while they were receiving their chemotherapy treatment.
The study was approved by the Hospital Ethical Committee of Salamanca.

2.2. Sample

A convenient sample of patients who participated in the validation version of MSAS was analyzed. The study included patients aged from 18 to 85 years, diagnosed with cancer, and patients who attended to receive their chemotherapy treatment in the Day Hospital of the University Hospital of Salamanca. The sample procedure was consecutive once they met inclusion criteria. All participants were informed and signed an informed consent.
Patients who were receiving their first chemotherapy session, who were in the terminal phase of the disease, who presented cognitive impairment or any neuropsychological disability that prevented them from responding to the scale, who did not know how to read or write, or who suffered from severe hearing loss or blindness or who had not completed more than 13% of the MSAS (as the creator of the original version postulated), were excluded.

2.3. Data Collection Procedure

One trained researcher was the person who recruited the samples in person. She was available if patients had doubts and she collected the filled-in questionnaires before the chemotherapy session had finished. Another researcher was in charge of informing patients about the study, to avoid duplication in the participation, and if they agreed to participate, they received a code to guarantee the anonymity of the patients.

2.4. Questionnaire

The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS) was selected as the instrument to establish the prevalence of physical and psychological symptoms in cancer patients with active treatment.
The MSAS evaluates the frequency, severity and distress of 32 symptoms during the previous week and the severity and associated distress of another eight symptoms. This scale was translated into Spanish [19] and it is shown to be valid and reliable.
First, patients had to check the box “Did not have” if during the previous week they have not experienced the symptom, and if they have felt it, they must indicate the frequency with the options: 1 = “rarely”, 2 = “occasionally”, 3 = “frequently” and 4 = “almost constantly”; the severity of the symptom was classified with the options: 1 = “slight”, 2 = “moderate”, 3 = “severe” and 4 = “very severe”. In addition, the distress had the options: 0 = “not at all”, 1 = “a little bit”, 2 = “somewhat”, 3 = “quite a bit” and 4 = “very much”.
In the first two dimensions, frequency and severity, the score would be the value designated by the patient (from 1 to 4). In the distress dimension, which had five possible answers, the following equivalence was established: 0.8 = “not at all”; 1.6 = “a little bit”; 2.4 = “somewhat”; 3.2 = “quite a bit” and 4 = “very much”. The mean of the values obtained in each of the dimensions was the final score for a symptom. If any symptom had not been felt, it was assessed with a 0. The MSAS is composed of three subscales; the psychological subscale collects six psychological symptoms (feeling sad, feeling irritable, feeling nervous, worrying, difficulty concentrating and difficulty sleeping); the physical subscale is the principal of 12 physical symptoms (pain, lack of energy, feeling drowsy, nausea, dry mouth, lack of appetite, feeling bloated, constipation, changes in the way food tastes, dizziness, weight loss and vomiting); finally, the Global Distress Index is the principal index of the frequency of four psychological symptoms (feeling sad, feeling nervous, feeling irritable and worrying) and the distress of six physical symptoms (lack of energy, lack of appetite, pain, constipation, dry mouth, pain). Therefore, the total score was the average of the values of the 32 symptoms.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

A descriptive analysis of the demographic data of the sample was performed, as well as the symptoms’ prevalence. The mean, the standard deviation (SD), the 95% confidence interval (95% CI), the minimum and maximum for the quantitative variables and the counts and percentages for the qualitative variables were used.

3. Results

3.1. Sample

A total of 246 subjects participated in the study. Among the sample characteristics, it was found that 62.2% (n = 153) of the sample were women. The mean age of the patients was 59.98 years (SD = 11.696). A total of 66.3% (n = 163) were married, 41.9% (n = 103) had received primary education, and 11.4% (n = 28) were active workers (Table 1).
The types of cancer registered in our study were: colon, rectum, bladder, stomach, liver, kidney, pancreas, lung, breast, gynecological, prostate, testicle, hematological, head and neck, esophagus, melanoma and other more prevalent symptoms in each type of cancer.
The most frequent cancer types for men were: lung cancer in 28.0% (n = 26); followed by colon cancer in 22.6% (n = 21) and hematological cancer in 12.9% (n = 12). For women, breast cancer accounted for 47.1% of the sample (n = 72), followed by gynecological cancer with 14.4% (n = 22) and colon cancer with 7.2% (n = 11) (Table 1).

3.2. Description of the Symptoms of the Sample

For the sample recruited in this study, “lack of energy” turned out to be the most prevalent symptom in cancers of the colon, rectum, bladder, stomach, pancreas, lung, breast, hematological and in others different types of cancer that were less prevalent and collected in the study (Table 2).
In relation to physical and psychological symptoms, the number of symptoms experienced was 11.09 (SD 6.210). The minimum was 0 symptoms, and the maximum was 30 symptoms. On the other hand, the prevalence of symptoms ranged from 76.4% to 9.3%. In this sense, the highest prevalence was registered in the following symptoms: “lack of energy” (76.4%; n = 188), “worrying” (66.7%; n = 164) and “dry mouth” (60.6%; n = 149) and the lowest frequency was recorded for the symptoms: “dizziness” (15.0%; n = 37), “vomiting” (13.0%; n = 32) and “problems with urination” (9.3%; n = 23).

3.3. MSAS: Frequency

For this dimension, the frequencies that were recorded as “almost constantly” were for the symptoms “problems with sexual interest or activity” (38.4%; n = 38), “numbness/tingling in hands/feet” (23.4%, n = 29) and “difficulty sleeping” (20.5%; n = 26). The most prevalent symptoms experienced with a frequency of “rarely” were “dizziness” (27%; n = 10), “vomiting” (25%; n = 8) and “shortness of breath” (22%; n = 13). The symptoms in the last section do not refer to any frequency because they can be present or not (Table 3).

3.4. MSAS: Severity

“Hair loss” (38.0%; n = 38), “problems with sexual interest or activity” (28.3%; n = 28) and “changes in the way food tasted” (18.0 %; n = 22) were the symptoms perceived with a very considerable severity. On the other hand, the symptoms that were more reflected as a slight severity were “difficulty concentrating” (50.7%; n = 37), “mouth sores” (47.4%; n = 27) and “cough” (45.9%; n = 28) (Table 3).

3.5. MSAS: Distress

Symptoms selected with considerable distress were: “hair loss” (27.0%; n = 27), “I do not look like myself” (20.5%; n = 8) and “problems with urination” (17.4%; n = 4), while the symptoms which showed “not at all” distress were “weight loss” (60%; n = 33), “feeling drowsy” (32.5%; n = 25) and “changes in skin” (29.4%; n = 20) (Table 3).

3.6. Total MSAS

In the TOTAL MSAS, the men who experienced the most symptoms were those with prostate cancer and for women, those with liver cancer.
In the psychological subscale, for men the cancer that caused the most symptoms was testicular cancer and for women it was liver cancer.
In the physical subscale, the cancer that caused the most symptoms for men was pancreatic cancer and for women, bladder cancer.
Finally, in the global distress index, the cancer for which men experienced the most symptoms was testicular cancer and in women, liver cancer.

4. Discussion

In Spain, the number of diagnosed cancers has continued to increase, establishing a probable relationship with the population increase (47,100,396 inhabitants in 2019), aging, exposure to risk factors (tobacco, alcohol, pollution, obesity, a sedentary lifestyle, etc.) and the increase in early detection protocols in colorectal, breast, cervix or prostate cancer. In recent years, the incidence of cancer in men appears to have stabilized and to have increased in women, probably due to the decrease in smoking in the former and an increase in the latter since 1970 [4]. However, in the present study the percentage of lung cancer in men continues to represent 26% while women register 6%.
In 2020, the most frequent cancers diagnosed in men in Spain were those of the prostate, colon and rectum, lung and urinary bladder, and breast and colon and rectum in women. These differences appear to be related to exposure to different risk factors (environmental and endogenous); even hormonal differences could be involved [4]. This agrees with our study: in Spain, the most prevalent cancers have been colon and hematological lung for men and breast, gynecological and colon for women.
Cancer is a major cause of morbidity with troubling symptoms that may be experienced due to the disease process itself, during treatment, or due to a lack of inadequate control of symptoms [20]. Its control is essential in cancer care to achieve an optimal quality of life [21]. Arseven et al. [22] have exposed the importance of the symptoms; their understanding and management at every stage of the disease process will mitigate its effect and improve the quality of life [22].
There is no agreement in the literature on which is the most prevalent symptom; for some authors, this symptom would be pain [23,24,25,26], for others, it was lack of energy or weakness, [27,28,29,30] dyspnea [31] or lack of appetite [32,33]. References have also been found in which psychological stress [34] registered as having the greatest importance.
Donnelly et al. [35] analyzed 37 symptoms (1000 advanced cancer patients), and concluded that the symptoms commonly associated with cancer were pain, fatigue and anorexia. In addition, weakness, anxiety, lack of energy, early satiety, constipation, and dyspnea were all present in 60–80% of patients with a moderate to severe score. For Potter et al. [20] (400 patients), the five most frequent symptoms in the palliative care unit, where 95% of the patients had a diagnosis of cancer, were pain (64%), anorexia (34%), constipation (32%), weakness (32%) and dyspnea (31%). In relation to the prevalence of symptoms in patients receiving chemotherapy [36] (4000 questionnaires completed by 462 patients), there were oral problems (21%), insomnia (19%), psychological disorders (15%), need for assistance in decision-making (14%), severe fatigue (8.2%) and severe loss of appetite (6.3%). Petterson et al. [37] also evaluated the prevalence, frequency, and symptoms severity as well as the distress they cause in colorectal cancer patients during initial chemotherapy treatment. Numbness or tingling in the hands or feet (64%), lack of energy (62%), drowsiness (49%), and nausea (45%) were the most prevalent symptoms. In gynecological cancers, the clinically important symptoms were dyspepsia, nausea and vomiting [35]. In another study (1640 patients from seven centers in five different countries), nausea was the most frequent symptom in gynecological and stomach cancers; nausea, constipation, and anorexia were prevalent in esophageal, stomach, and colorectal cancers. Weakness was the most frequent in hematological, colorectal, and esophageal cancers, while dyspnea was the most frequent in lung cancer [38].
In relation to gender, Donnelly et al. [35] showed that the most prevalent symptoms for men were dyspnea, hoarseness, hiccups and dysphagia; for women, they were anxiety, nausea, vomiting and early satiety. In another study, men reported dysphagia and insomnia while women reported nausea and vomiting [23]. On the other hand, male patients receiving chemotherapy reported significantly greater intensity of fatigue, dyspnea, loss of appetite, and drowsiness [36].
In this study, the age range was 18–85 years and due to the heterogeneous sample we could not establish comparisons between different age groups. Regarding age groups, the literature shows that younger patients report significantly greater intensity of pain and nausea [36]. Van Lancker et al. [39] reanalyzed this prevalence in people over 65 years of age. They identified 32 symptoms, of which the seven most prevalent were fatigue (77.8%), excretory symptoms (77.5%), urinary incontinence (71%), asthenia (66.7%), pain (66.3%), constipation (52.5%) and anxiety (50%). They found that the greatest limitation, which constitutes an exclusion criterion in their work, is the absence of a valid and reliable measuring instrument to identify these symptoms.
Therefore, symptoms knowledge is important because the appraisal stage and the psychological influences that these treatments have need to be considered in order to develop behavioral and individual interventions [40]. An important aspect to note is that the symptoms do not usually appear in isolation, but can develop at the same time, sometimes manifesting as up to eight symptoms at the same time [41,42]; some cancers even have their own set of symptoms according to some authors [43].
The importance of this article is in line with Kwekkeboom’s study [43] in which she highlighted the importance of knowledge of the patient’s symptoms and summarized them in three points: (1) symptoms knowledge prevents negative outcomes (e.g., depression), (2) it favors a more thorough analysis of the symptoms which may even help to prevent them and finally, (3) recognition of the symptoms favors a more appropriate management of them. However, no studies have established the grade to which these experienced symptoms affect the patients who are suffering them.
For that reason, this study has collected the most prevalent, severe and distress-inducing symptoms in order to prevent or avoid them as much as possible to improve the quality of life of these patients during their treatment and after.

Limitations

The main limitation of the study was that all patients were evaluated by being asked about the week prior to the chemotherapy session; they could suffer different symptoms in different weeks of the disease. Chemotherapy cycles administered and their medication were not taken into account, and it could be a bias which interfered with the present results. Furthermore, comparing different age groups as well as differences between gender or cancer type should be considered in the future.

5. Conclusions

Physical and psychological symptoms generated by cancer treatments affect quality of life. There is no consensus on which is the most prevalent symptom in this population. Although lack of energy, anxiety and a dry mouth are the most prevalent symptoms experienced by our patients, more studies in this line of work are recommended to control and relieve them in cancer patients in order to improve their quality of life.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.L.-R. and R.L.-R.; methodology, I.L.-R., J.J.A.-O., M.R.-R. and R.L.-R.; validation, I.L.-R., J.J.A.-O., M.R.-R. and R.L.-R.; formal analysis, I.L.-R. and R.L.-R.; investigation, I.L.-R., J.J.A.-O., M.R.-R. and R.L.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, I.L.-R. and R.L.-R.; writing—review and editing, I.L.-R., J.J.A.-O., M.R.-R. and R.L.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Hospital Ethical Committee of Salamanca.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge our colleagues and the patients who made this manuscript possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Astrup, G.L.; Rustøen, T.; Hofsø, K.; Gran, J.M.; Bjordal, K. Symptom burden and patient characteristics: Association with quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Head Neck 2017, 39, 2114–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hamer, J.; McDonald, R.; Zhang, L.; Verma, S.; Leahey, A.; Ecclestone, C.; Bedard, G.; Pulenzas, N.; Bhatia, A.; Chow, R.; et al. Quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden (SB) in patients with breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 2017, 25, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Regidor, E.; Gutiérrez-Fisac, J.L.; de los Santos Ichaso, M.; Fernández, E. Trends in principal cancer risk factors in Spain. Ann. Oncol 2010, 21, iii37–iii42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica (SEOM). Las Cifras del Cáncer en España. 2020. Available online: https://seom.org/seomcms/images/stories/recursos/Cifras_del_cancer_2020.pdf (accessed on 22 December 2021).
  5. Abu-Saad, H.; Sagherian, K.; Tamim, H. Validation of the Arabic version of the memorial symptom assessment scale among Lebanese cancer patients. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2015, 50, 559–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Daut, R.L.; Cleeland, C.S.; Flanery, R.C. Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases. Pain 1983, 17, 197–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Karnofsky, D.A.; Burchenal, J.H. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1949. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mendoza, T.R.; Wang, X.S.; Cleeland, C.S.; Morrissey, M.; Johnson, B.A.; Wendt, J.K.; Huber, S.L. The rapid assessment of fatigue severity in cancer patients: Use of the Brief Fatigue Inventory. Cancer 1999, 85, 1186–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Baró, E.; Carulla, J.; Cassinello, J.; Colomer, R.; Mata, J.G.; Gascón, P.; Gasquet, J.A.; Herdman, M.; Rodríguez, C.A.; Sánchez, J.; et al. Development of a new questionnaire to assess patient perceptions of cancer related fatigue: Item generation and item reduction. Value Health 2009, 12, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Baró, E.; Carulla, J.; Cassinello, J.; Colomer, R.; Mata, J.G.; Gascón, P.; Gasquet, J.A.; Rodríguez, C.A.; Valentín, V. Psychometric properties of the Perform Questionnaire: A brief scale for assessing patient perceptions of fatigue in cancer. Support Care Cancer 2011, 19, 657–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Zigmond, A.S.; Snaith, R.P. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 1983, 67, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. McMillan, S.C.; Williams, F.A. Validity and reliability of the Constipation Assessment Scale. Cancer Nurs. 1989, 12, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. McCorkle, R.; Young, K. Development of a symptom distress scale. Cancer Nurs. 1978, 1, 373–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bruera, E.; Kuehn, N.; Miller, M.J.; Selmser, P.; Macmillan, K. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): A simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J. Palliat. Care 1991, 7, 6–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cleeland, C.S.; Mendoza, T.R.; Wang, X.S.; Chou, C.; Harle, M.T.; Morrissey, M.; Engstrom, M.C. Assessing symptom distress in cancer patients: The M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Cancer 2000, 89, 1634–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Aaronson, N.K.; Ahmedzai, S.; Bergman, B.; Bullinger, M.; Cull, A.; Duez, N.J.; Filiberti, A.; Flechtner, H.; Fleishman, S.B.; de Haes, J.C. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1993, 85, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. De Haes, J.C.; van Knippenberg, F.C.; Neijt, J.P. Measuring psychological and physical distress in cancer patients: Structure and application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Br. J. Cancer 1990, 62, 1034–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Portenoy, R.K.; Thaler, H.T.; Kornblith, A.B.; Lepore, J.M.; Friedlander-Klar, H.; Kiyasu, E.; Sobel, K.; Coyle, N.; Kemeny, N.; Norton, L. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale: An instrument for the evaluation of symptom prevalence, characteristics and distress. Eur. J. Cancer 1994, 30, 1326–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Llamas-Ramos, I.; Llamas-Ramos, R.; Martín-Nogueras, A.M.; Alvarado-Omenat, J.J.; Calvo-Arenillas, J.I.; Fonseca-Sánchez, E.; Cortés-Rodríguez, M. Reliability and Validity of the Spanish Version of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale in Oncology Patients. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2016, 52, 884–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Potter, J.; Hami, F.; Bryan, T.; Quigley, C. Symptoms in 400 patients referred to palliative care services: Prevalence and patterns. Palliat. Med. 2003, 17, 310–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Anisimov, V.N.; Sikora, E.; Pawelec, G. Relationships between cancer and aging: A multilevel approach. Biogerontology 2009, 10, 323–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Arseven, A.; Chang, C.H.; Arseven, O.K.; Emanuel, L.L. Assessment instruments. Clin. Geriatr. Med. 2005, 21, 121–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Walsh, D.; Donnelly, S.; Rybicki, L. The symptoms of advanced cancer: Relationship to age, gender and performance status in 1000 patients. Support Care Cancer 2000, 8, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Curtis, E.B.; Krech, R.; Walsh, T.D. Common symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. J. Palliat. Care 1991, 7, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Fainsinger, R.; Miller, M.J.; Bruera, E.; Hanson, J.; Maceachern, T. Symptom control during the last week of life on a palliative care unit. J. Palliat. Care 1991, 7, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Grond, S.; Zech, D.; Diefenbach, C.; Bischoff, A. Prevalence and pattern of symptoms in patients with cancer pain: A prospective evaluation of 1635 cancer patients referred to a pain clinic. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 1991, 9, 372–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ashbury, F.D.; Findlay, H.; Reynolds, B.; McKerracher, K. A Canadian survey of cancer patients’ experiences: Are their needs being met? J. Pain Symptom Manag. 1998, 16, 298–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ng, K.; von Gunten, C.F. Symptoms and attitudes of 100 consecutive patients admitted to an acute hospice/palliative care unit. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 1998, 16, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sarna, L. Correlates of symptom distress in women with lung cancer. Cancer Pract. 1993, 1, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Storey, P. Symptom control in advanced cancer. Semin. Oncol. 1994, 21, 748–753. [Google Scholar]
  31. Higginson, I.; McCarthy, M. Measuring symptoms in terminal cancer: Are pain and dyspnoea controlled? J. R. Soc. Med. 1989, 82, 264–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Brescia, F.J.; Adler, D.; Gray, G.; Ryan, M.A.; Cimino, J.; Mamtani, R. Hospitalized advanced cancer patients: A profile. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 1990, 5, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lichter, I.; Hunt, E. The last 48 hours of life. J. Palliat. Care 1990, 6, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Edmonds, P.M.; Stuttaford, J.M.; Penny, J.; Lynch, A.M.; Chamberlain, J. Do hospital palliative care teams improve symptom control? Use of a modified STAS as an evaluation tool. Palliat. Med. 1998, 12, 345–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Donnelly, S.; Walsh, D.; Rybicki, L. The symptoms of advanced cancer: Identification of clinical and research priorities by assessment of prevalence and severity. J. Palliat. Care 1995, 11, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yamagishi, A.; Morita, T.; Miyashita, M.; Kimura, F. Symptom prevalence and longitudinal follow-up in cancer outpatients receiving chemotherapy. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2009, 37, 823–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Petterson, G.; Berterö, C.; Unosson, M.; Börjeson, S. Symptom prevalence, frecuency, severity and distress during chemotherapy for patients with colorectal cancer. Support Care Cancer 2014, 22, 1171–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vainio, A.; Auvinen, A. Prevalence of symptoms among patients with advanced cancer: An international collaborative study. Symptom Prevalence Group. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 1996, 12, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Van Lancker, A.; Velghe, A.; Van Hecke, A.; Verbrugghe, M.; Van Den Noortgate, N.; Grypdonck, M.; Verhaeghe, S.; Bekkering, G.; Beeckman, D. Prevalence of symptoms in older cancer patients receiving palliative care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2014, 47, 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. McCutchan, G.M.; Wood, F.; Edwards, A.; Richards, R.; Brain, K.E. Influences of cancer symptom knowledge, beliefs and barriers on cancer symptom presentation in relation to socioeconomic deprivation: A systematic review. BMC Cancer 2015, 15, 1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Chang, V.T.; Hwang, S.S.; Feuerman, M.; Kasimis, B.S. Symptom and quality of life survey of medical oncology patients at a veterans affairs medical center: A role for symptom assessment. Cancer 2000, 88, 1175–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Portenoy, R.K.; Thaler, H.T.; Kornblith, A.B.; McCarthy Lepore, J.; Friedlander-Klar, H.; Coyle, N.; Smart-Curley, T.; Kemeny, N.; Norton, L.; Hoskins, W.; et al. Symptom prevalence, characteristics and distress in a cancer population. Qual. Life Res. 1994, 3, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kwekkeboom, K.L. Cancer Symptom Cluster Management. Semin. Oncol. Nurs. 2016, 32, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Socio-demographic data of the complete sample and by sex.
Table 1. Socio-demographic data of the complete sample and by sex.
Variable (n = 246)Total (n = 246)Male (n = 93) Female (n = 153)
Age (Years) A59.98 (11.696)62.80 (9.497)58.27 (12.572)
Marital Status B
Single35 (14.2)9 (9.7)26 (17.0)
Married163 (66.3)74 (79.6)89 (58.2)
Divorced17 (6.9)6 (6.5)11 (7.2)
Widowed31 (12.6)4 (4.3)27 (17.6)
Study Level B
Primary103 (41.9)41 (44.1)62 (40.5)
Secondary35 (14.2)18 (19.4)17 (11.1)
High School40 (16.3)16 (17.2)24 (15.7)
University68 (27.6)18 (19.4)50 (32.7)
Occupation B
Active28 (11.4)9 (9.7)19 (12.4)
Temporary Disability58 (23.6)19 (20.4)39 (25.5)
Housewife50 (20.3) 50 (32.7)
Unemployed13 (5.3)5 (5.4)8 (5.2)
Retired97 (39.4)60 (64.5)37 (24.2)
Type of Cancer B
Colon32 (13.0)21 (22.6)11 (7.2)
Rectum7 (2.8)5 (5.4)2 (1.3)
Bladder4 (1.6)3 (3.2)1 (0.7)
Stomach5 (2.0)1 (1.1)4 (2.6)
Liver4 (1.6)2 (2.2)2 (1.3)
Kidney5 (2.0)4 (4.3)1 (0.7)
Pancreas8 (3.3)2 (2.2)6 (3.9)
Lung32 (13.0)26 (28.0)6 (3.9)
Breast73 (29.7)1 (1.1)72 (47.1)
Gynecological22 (8.9) 22 (14.4)
Prostate5 (2.0)5 (5.4)
Testicle2 (0.8)2 (2.2)
Hematological22 (8.9)12 (12.9)10 (6.5)
Head and neck10 (4.1)4 (4.3)6 (3.9)
Esophagus2 (0.8)1 (1.1)1 (0.7)
Melanoma2 (0.8)2 (2.2)
Others11 (4.5)2 (2.2)9 (5.9)
A Mean (Standard Deviation); B Number (percentage).
Table
Table 2. Most prevalent symptom in each type of cancer.
Table 2. Most prevalent symptom in each type of cancer.
Cancer TypeMost Prevalent SymptomMedian Standard Deviation
ColonLack of energy1.411.010
RectumLack of energy1.781.407
BladderLack of energy2.171.457
StomachLack of energy1.730.505
LiverConstipation2.231.666
KidneyDifficulty sleeping1.851.337
PancreasLack of energy2.041.163
LungLack of energy1.591.197
BreastLack of energy1.891.118
GynecologicalWorrying2.191.113
ProstatePain2.160.496
TesticleWorrying2.931.508
HematologicalLack of energy1.340.913
Head and neckDry mouth2.061.488
EsophagusPain2.930.189
MelanomaDifficulty sleeping2.830.424
OthersLack of energy1.861.309
Table
Table 3. Symptom descriptive of higher and lower frequency, severity and distress.
Table 3. Symptom descriptive of higher and lower frequency, severity and distress.
Frequency (N (%))Severity (N (%))Distress (N (%))
SYMPTOMRarelyAlmost ConstantlySlight Very SevereNot at AllVery Much
Difficulty concentrating 6 (8.2)3 (4.1)37 (50.7)0 (0.0)13 (17.8)0 (0.0)
Pain11 (8.9)10 (8.1)33 (26.6)5 (4.0)2 (1.6)5 (4.0)
Lack of energy10 (5.3)31 (16.5)46 (24.5)8 (4.2)11 (5.8)7 (3.7)
Cough11 (18.0)5 (8.2)28 (45.9)2 (3.3)15 (24.6)2 (3.3)
Feeling nervous21 (15.9)7 (5.3)57 (43.2)4 (3.0)17 (12.9)3 (2.3)
Dry mouth14 (9.4)19 (12.7)56 (37.6)13 (8.7)23 (15.4)8 (5.4)
Nausea10 (15.0)2 (3.0)22 (32.8)1 (1.5)6 (8.9)1 (1.5)
Feeling drowsy13 (16.9)6 (7.8)27 (35.1)3 (3.9)25 (32.5)0 (0.0)
Numbness/tingling in hands/feet12 (9.7)29 (23.4)49 (39.5)10 (8.1)23 (18.5)7 (5.6)
Difficulty sleeping15 (11.8)26 (20.5)35 (27.6)16 (12.6)10 (7.9)12 (9.4)
Feeling bloated8 (11.8)12 (17.6)21 (30.9)5 (7.4)10 (14.7)5 (7.3)
Problems with urination4 (17.4)4 (17.4)6 (26.1)3 (13.0)3 (13.0)4 (17.4)
Vomiting8 (25.0)0 (0.0)14 (43.7)0 (0.0)5 (15.6)0 (0.0)
Shortness of breath13 (22.0)6 (10.2)23 (39.0)3 (5.1)4 (6.8)5 (8.5)
Diarrhea9 (15.5)7 (12.0)22 (37.9)5 (8.6)13 (22.4)7 (12.1)
Feeling sad18 (17.6)9 (8.8)40 (39.2)7 (6.9)13 (12.7)9 (8.8)
Sweats10 (15.6)6 (9.4)24 (37.5)5 (7.8)10 (15.6)6 (9.4)
Worrying22 (13.4)18 (11.0)54 (32.9)13 (7.9)15 (9.1)14 (8.6)
Problems with sexual interest or activity8 (8.1)38 (38.4)22 (22.2)28 (28.3)22 (22.2)14 (14.1)
Itching6 (11.3)8 (15.1)20 (37.7)4 (7.5)9 (17.0)5 (9.4)
Lack of appetite6 (7.3)9 (11.0)14 (17.1)4 (4.9)12 (14.6)3 (3.7)
Dizziness10 (27.0)1 (2.7)15 (40.5)0 (0.0)3 (8.1)2 (5.4)
Difficulty swallowing7 (14.9)7 (14.9)17 (36.2)7 (14.9)2 (4.2)7 (14.9)
Feeling irritable17 (16.2)3 (2.9)37 (35.2)3 (2.9)10 (9.5)3 (2.9)
Mouth sores 27 (47.4)4 (7.0)6 (10.5)5 (8.8)
Changes in the way food tasted 28 (23.0)22 (18.0)10 (8.2)14 (11.5)
Weight loss 20 (36.4)0 (0.0)33 (60.0)0 (0.0)
Hair loss 23 (23.0)38 (38.0)26 (26.0)27 (27.0)
Constipation 29 (24.4)12 (10.1)13 (10.9)9 (7.6)
Swelling of arms or legs 20 (37.7)6 (11.3)10 (18.9)4 (7.5)
“I don’t look like myself” 13 (33.3)5 (12.8)1 (2.6)8 (20.5)
Changes in skin 25 (36.8)3 (4.4)20 (29.4)5 (7.3)
Number (percentage)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Llamas-Ramos, I.; Alvarado-Omenat, J.J.; Rodrigo-Reguilón, M.; Llamas-Ramos, R. Quality of Life and Side Effects Management in Cancer Treatment—A Cross Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1708. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031708

AMA Style

Llamas-Ramos I, Alvarado-Omenat JJ, Rodrigo-Reguilón M, Llamas-Ramos R. Quality of Life and Side Effects Management in Cancer Treatment—A Cross Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(3):1708. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031708

Chicago/Turabian Style

Llamas-Ramos, Inés, Jorge Juan Alvarado-Omenat, María Rodrigo-Reguilón, and Rocío Llamas-Ramos. 2023. "Quality of Life and Side Effects Management in Cancer Treatment—A Cross Sectional Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 3: 1708. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031708

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop