4.5 Article

Psychological distress and nutritional status in head and neck cancer patients: a pilot study

期刊

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
卷 277, 期 4, 页码 1211-1217

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-05798-y

关键词

Head and neck cancer; Radiotherapy; Chemotherapy; Nutrition; Psychological status

资金

  1. Slovenian Research Agency [P3-0307]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To determine whether the psychological state of patients with head and neck cancer (HCN) is associated with their nutritional status. Methods In 40 patients with locally advanced HNC treated with definitive or adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, psychological and nutritional status were assessed before treatment, at its completion and 3 months' post-therapy. Psychosocial distress was measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire (HADS-A, HADS-D), whereas the nutritional status was evaluated using standard methods (Nutritional Risk Screening Tool 2002, anthropometric data, dynamometry and laboratory tests) and with a bioelectrical impedance analysis parameter phase angle (PA). Results Before treatment, more patients were screened positive for anxiety than at treatment completion (p = 0.037) or 3 months' post-therapy (p = 0.083). Depression prevalence was non-significantly higher at the end and after therapy. Compared to the baseline, more cachectic patients and a reduction of PA values were found at successive assessments. Anxiety was more often recorded among malnourished/cachectic patients (assessment 1, p = 0.017; assessment 2, p = 0.020) who were also found more frequently depressed (assessment 2, p = 0.045; assessment 3, p = 0.023). Significantly higher PA values were measured in patients without distress determined at 3 months' post-therapy by the HADS-A (p = 0.027). Conclusion The association between the psychological and nutritional status found in this pilot study and the options for intervention warrants further clarification in a larger prospective trial.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据