Does a regular nurse‐led distress screening and discussion improve quality of life of breast cancer patients treated with curative intent? A randomized controlled trial. Issue 4 (11th February 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ploos van Amstel, Floortje K.; Peters, Marlies E. W. J.; Donders, Rogier; Schlooz‐Vries, Margrethe S.; Polman, Lenny J. M.; van der Graaf, Winette T. A.; Prins, Judith B.; Ottevanger, Petronella B.
• Is Part Of: Psycho-oncology. Volume 29:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 719
• Page End: 728
• Publication Date: 2020-02-11
• Subjects: breast cancer -- cancer -- distress -- distress screening -- distress thermometer -- nurse‐led intervention -- oncology -- psychosocial intervention -- quality of life -- RCT; Cancer -- Psychological aspects -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Social aspects -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- psychology -- Periodicals; 616.9940019
• DOI: 10.1002/pon.5324
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1057-9249

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: We performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to investigate whether regular screening with the distress thermometer (DT) by a nurse improved global quality of life (QOL) of patients with breast cancer (BC) treated with curative intent. Methods: BC patients were randomized between regular screening for distress with a nurse‐led DT intervention (NDTI) and usual care (UC). Both groups filled out questionnaires at baseline, after each received treatment modality and at follow‐up visits up to 2 years. At these points, the intervention group received also the NDTI. The primary outcome was the global QOL of the EORTC QLQ C30 at 2 years after the end of treatment. Analyses were done on an intention‐to‐treat basis, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), generalized least squares, and interaction analyses. Results: Of 194 randomized patients, 153 filled out the questionnaires up to 2 years after treatment. There was no significant difference between NDTI and UC in global QOL 2 years after the end of treatment (mean diff. = –1∙273, P = .610; 95% CI [−6.195; 3.649]). Subgroup analysis of patients who received multimodality treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, n = 66) showed a significant between‐group difference in global QOL over time (mean diff. = –10, P < .001; 95% CI [−14.835; −5.167]) together with other secondary outcome measures in favor of the NDTI. Conclusion: NDTI did not lead to a significant improvement in global QOL 2 years after the end of treatment for patients with BC. However, the findings indicate that BC patients who received multimodality treatment may benefit from NDTI.