3.8 Article

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life after Treatment for Choroidal Melanoma

Journal

OCULAR ONCOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY
Volume 5, Issue 6, Pages 402-411

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000496927

Keywords

Choroidal melanoma; Enucleation; Radiotherapy; Quality of life; Anxiety; Depression; Well-being

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH-NEI [EY002162]
  2. Research to Prevent Blindness Unrestricted Grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: Patients with choroidal melanoma can develop psychological morbidity because of visual disability, pain, facial deformity, and fears of metastatic disease. The aim of this study was to report on the prevalence of symptoms, moods, and well-being after radiotherapy or enucleation for choroidal melanoma and how these outcomes changed over time. Methods: Participants were mailed questionnaires approximately 6 months following treatment, then annually on every anniversary of their treatment. Results: Soon after enucleation, patients experienced visual difficulties because of loss of stereopsis and visual field and were concerned about their appearance and about metastatic disease. After radiotherapy, patients were more concerned about local tumor recurrence and more troubled by diplopia and headache. Over time, visual difficulties diminished after enucleation but increased in patients who had received radiotherapy, with concerns about metastasis, loss of health, and tumor recurrence diminishing in both groups. Anxiety tended to diminish whereas depression increased, especially after enucleation. Emotional well-being improved after both kinds of treatment, whereas functional and physical well-being diminished after enucleation but improved after radiotherapy. Self-reported quality of life diminished equally with both kinds of treatment. Conclusion: The findings of this study should help physicians understand what patients tend to feel after treatment for choroidal melanoma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available