Psychological distress in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients following microsatellite instability testing for Lynch syndrome on the pathologist’s initiative

According to the Dutch Guideline on Hereditary Colorectal Cancer published in 2008, patients with recently diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) should undergo microsatellite instability (MSI) testing by a pathologist immediately after tumour resection if they are younger than 50 years, or if a second CRC has been diagnosed before the age of 70 years, owing to the high risk of Lynch syndrome (MIPA). The aim of the present MIPAPS study was to investigate general distress and cancer-specific distress following MSI testing. From March 2007 to September 2009, 400 patients who had been tested for MSI after newly diagnosed CRC were recruited from 30 Dutch hospitals. Levels of general distress (SCL-90) and cancer-specific distress (IES) were assessed immediately after MSI result disclosure (T1) and 6 months later (T2). Response rates were 23/77 (30%) in the MSI-positive patients and 58/323 (18%) in the MSI-negative patients. Levels of general distress and cancer-specific distress were moderate. In the MSI-positive group, 27% of the patients had high general distress at T1 versus 18% at T2 (p = 0.5), whereas in the MSI-negative group, these percentage were 14 and 18% (p = 0.6), respectively. At T1 and T2, cancer-specific distress rates in the MSI-positive group and MSI-negative group were 39 versus 27% (p = 0.3) and 38 versus 36% (p = 1.0), respectively. High levels of general distress were correlated with female gender, low social support and high perceived cancer risk. Moderate levels of distress were observed after MSI testing, similar to those found in other patients diagnosed with CRC. Immediately after result disclosure, high cancer-specific distress was observed in 40% of the MSI-positive patients

Patient-reported outcome measures for cancer caregivers: a systematic review

Purpose Informal caregivers provide invaluable help and support to people with cancer. As treatments extend survival and the potential burdens on carers increase, there is a need to assess the impact of the role. This systematic review identified instruments that measure the impact of caregiving, evaluated their psychometric performance specifically in cancer and appraised the content. Methods A 2-stage search strategy was employed to: 1. identify instruments that measure the impact of caregiving, 2. run individual searches on each measure to identify publications evaluating psychometric performance in the target population. Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Psychinfo and restricted to English for instrument used and article language. Psychometric performance was evaluated for content and construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, precision, responsiveness and acceptability. Individual scale items were extracted and systematically categorised into conceptual domains. Results 10 papers were included reporting on the psychometric properties of 8 measures. Although construct validity and internal consistency were most frequently evaluated, no study comprehensively evaluated all relevant properties. Few studies met our inclusion criteria so it was not possible to consider the psychometric performance of the measures across a group of studies. Content analysis resulted in 16 domains with 5 overarching themes: lifestyle disruption; wellbeing; health of the caregiver; managing the situation and relationships. Conclusions Few measures of caregiver impact have been subject to psychometric evaluation in cancer caregivers. Those that have do not capture well changes in roles and responsibilities within the family and career, indicating the need for a new instrument