Psychosocial Morbidity and its Correlates in Cancer Patients of the Mediterranean Area: Findings from the Southern European Psycho-Oncology Study

BACKGROUND: A few and partial data are available on psychosocial morbidity among cancer patients in Mediterranean countries. As a part of a more general investigation (Southern European Psycho-Oncology Study-SEPOS), the rate of psychosocial morbidity and its correlation with clinical and cultural variables were examined in cancer patients in Italy, Portugal and Spain. METHODS: A convenience sample of cancer outpatients with good performance status and no cognitive impairment were approached. The Hospital Anxiety-Depression scale (HAD-S), the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer scale (Mini-MAC), and the Cancer Worries Inventory (CWI) were used to measure psychological morbidity, coping strategies and concerns about illness. RESULTS: Of 277 patients, 34% had pathological scores ("borderline cases" plus "true cases") on HAD-S Anxiety and 24.9% on HAD-S Depression. Total psychiatric "caseness" was 28.5% and 16.6%, according to different HAD cut-offs (14 and 19, respectively). Significant relationships of HAD-S Anxiety, HAD-S Depression, HAD-S Total score, with Mini-MAC Hopeless and Anxious Preoccupation, and CWI score were found. No differences emerged between countries on psychosocial morbidity, while some differences emerged between the countries on coping mechanisms. Furthermore, Fatalism, Avoidance and marginally Hopeless were higher compared to studies carried out in English-speaking countries. LIMITATIONS: The relatively small sample size and the good performance status prevent us to generalize data on patients with different cancer sites and advanced phase of illness. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of the patients presented anxiety and depressive morbidity, with significant differences in characteristics of coping in Mediterranean countries in comparison with English-speaking countries.

A Communication Intervention for Training Southern European Oncologists to Recognize Psychosocial Morbidity in Cancer. I - Development of the Model and Preliminary Results on Physicians' Satisfaction

BACKGROUND: The detection of psychosocial distress is a significant communication problem in Southern Europe and other countries. Work in this area is hampered by a lack of data. Because not much is known about training aimed at improving the recognition of psychosocial disorders in cancer patients, we developed a basic course model for medical oncology professionals. METHODS: A specific educational and experiential model (12 hours divided into 2 modules) involving formal teaching (ie, journal articles, large-group presentations), practice in small groups (ie, small-group exercises and role playing), and discussion in large groups was developed with the aim of improving the ability of oncologists to detect emotional disturbances in cancer patients (ie, depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorders). RESULTS: A total of 30 oncologists from 3 Southern European countries (Italy, Portugal, and Spain) participated in the workshop. The training course was well accepted by most participants who expressed general satisfaction and a positive subjective perception of the utility of the course for clinical practice. Of the total participants, 28 physicians (93.3%) thought that had they been exposed to this material sooner, they would have incorporated the techniques received in the workshop into their practices; 2 participants stated they would likely have done so. Half of the doctors (n = 15) believed that their clinical communication techniques were improved by participating in the workshop, and the remaining half thought that their abilities to communicate with cancer patients had improved. CONCLUSIONS: This model is a feasible approach for oncologists and is easily applicable to various oncology settings. Further studies will demonstrate the effectiveness of this method for improving oncologists skills in recognizing emotional disorders in their patients with cancer.

The Oncological and Functional Risks of the Organ Preservation Experimental Treatment Approach

We increasingly face conservative surgery for rectal cancer and even the so called ‘wait and see’ approach, as far as 10–20% patients can reach a complete pathological response at the time of surgery. But what can we say to our patients about risks? Standard surgery with mesorectal excision gives a <2% local recurrence with a post operative death rate of 2–8% (may reach 30% at 6 months in those over 85), but low AR has some deterioration in bowel function and in low cancer a permanent stoma may be required. Also a long-term impact on urinary and sexual function is possible. Distant metastasis rate seem to be identical in the standard and conservative approach. It is difficult to evaluate conservative approach because a not clear standardization of surgery for low rectal cancer. Rullier et al tried to clarify, and they found identical results for recurrence (5–9%), disease free survival (70%) at 5y for coloanal anastomosis and intersphinteric resection. Other series have found local recurrence higher than with standard approach and functional results may be worse and, in some situations, salvage therapy is compromised or has more complications. In this context, functional outcomes are very important but most studies are incomplete in measuring bowel function in the context of conservative approach. In 2005 Temple et al made a survey of 122/184 patient after sphinter preserving surgery and found a 96.9% of incomplete evacuation, 94.4% clustering, 93.2% food affecting frequency, 91.8% gas incontinence and proposed a systematic evaluation with a specific questionnaire. In which concerns ‘Wait and see’ approach for complete clinical responders, it was first advocated by Habr Gama for tumors up to 7cm, with a low locoregional failure of 4.6%, 5y overall survival 96%, 72% for disease free survival; one fifth of patients failed in the first year; a Dutch trial had identical results but others had worse recurrence rates; in other series 25% of patients could not be salvaged even with APR; 30% have subsequent metastatic disease what seems equal for ‘wait and see’ and operated patients. In a recent review Glynne Jones considers that all the evaluated ‘wait and see’ studies are heterogeneous in staging, inclusion criteria, design and follow up after chemoradiation and that there is the suggestion that patients who progress while under observation fare worse than those resected. He proposes long-term observational studies with more uniform inclusion criteria. We are now facing a moment where we may be more aggressive in early cancer and neoadjuvant treatment to be more conservative in the subsequent treatment but we need a better stratification of patients, better evaluation of results and more clear prognostic markers.