Do Spirituality and Faith Make a Difference? Report from the Southern European Psycho-Oncology Study Group

OBJECTIVE: In the last decade, some attention has been given to spirituality and faith and their role in cancer patients' coping. Few data are available about spirituality among cancer patients in Southern European countries, which have a big tradition of spirituality, namely, the Catholic religion. As part of a more general investigation (Southern European Psycho-Oncology Study--SEPOS), the aim of this study was to examine the effect of spirituality in molding psychosocial implications in Southern European cancer patients. METHOD: A convenience sample of 323 outpatients with a diagnosis of cancer between 6 to 18 months, a good performance status (Karnofsky Performance Status > 80), and no cognitive deficits or central nervous system (CNS) involvement by disease were approached in university and affiliated cancer centers in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland (Italian speaking area). Each patient was evaluated for spirituality (Visual Analog Scale 0-10), psychological morbidity (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale--HADS), coping strategies (Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer--Mini-MAC) and concerns about illness (Cancer Worries Inventory--CWI). RESULTS. The majority of patients (79.3%) referred to being supported by their spirituality/faith throughout their illness. Significant differences were found between the spirituality and non-spirituality groups (p ≤ 0.01) in terms of education, coping styles, and psychological morbidity. Spirituality was significantly correlated with fighting spirit (r = -0.27), fatalism (r = 0.50), and avoidance (r = 0.23) coping styles and negatively correlated with education (r = -0.25), depression (r = -0.22) and HAD total (r = -0.17). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Spirituality is frequent among Southern European cancer patients with lower education and seems to play some protective role towards psychological morbidity, specifically depression. Further studies should examine this trend in Southern European cancer patients.

Clinical Outcome and Morphologic Analysis after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Using the Excluder Endograft

OBJECTIVE: Long-term follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is very scarce, and doubt remains regarding the durability of these procedures. We designed a retrospective cohort study to assess long-term clinical outcome and morphologic changes in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) treated by EVAR using the Excluder endoprosthesis (W. L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz). METHODS: From 2000 to 2007, 179 patients underwent EVAR in a tertiary institution. Clinical data were retrieved from a prospective database. All patients treated with the Excluder endoprosthesis were included. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans were retrospectively analyzed preoperatively, at 30 days, and at the last follow-up using dedicated tridimensional reconstruction software. For patients with complications, all remaining CTAs were also analyzed. The primary end point was clinical success. Secondary end points were freedom from reintervention, sac growth, types I and III endoleak, migration, conversion to open repair, and AAA-related death or rupture. Neck dilatation, renal function, and overall survival were also analyzed. RESULTS: Included were 144 patients (88.2% men; mean age, 71.6 years). Aneurysms were ruptured in 4.9%. American Society of Anesthesiologists classification was III/IV in 61.8%. No patients were lost during a median follow-up of 5.0 years (interquartile range, 3.1-6.4; maximum, 11.2 years). Two patients died of medical complications ≤ 30 days after EVAR. The estimated primary clinical success rates at 5 and 10 years were 63.5% and 41.1%, and secondary clinical success rates were 78.3% and 58.3%, respectively. Sac growth was observed in 37 of 142 patients (26.1%). Cox regression showed type I endoleak during follow-up (hazard ratio, 3.74; P = .008), original design model (hazard ratio, 3.85; P = .001), and preoperative neck diameter (1.27 per mm increase, P = .006) were determinants of sac growth. Secondary interventions were required in 32 patients (22.5%). The estimated 10-year rate of AAA-related death or rupture was 2.1%. Overall life expectancy after AAA repair was 6.8 years. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR using the Excluder endoprosthesis provides a safe and lasting treatment for AAA, despite the need for maintained surveillance and secondary interventions. At up to 11 years, the risk of AAA-related death or postimplantation rupture is remarkably low. The incidences of postimplantation sac growth and secondary intervention were greatly reduced after the introduction of the low-permeability design in 2004.