<!--dc.title-->High demoralization in a minority of oophorectomized BRCA1/2 mutation carriers influences quality of life
Author(s)Arts-de Jong, M.
Jong, C.A.J. de
Hoogerbrugge-van der Linden, N.
Hullu, J.A. de
KeywordsAll institutes and research themes of the Radboud University Medical Center
Experimental Psychopathology and Treatment
Radboudumc 0: Other Research RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences
Radboudumc 14: Tumours of the digestive tract RIMLS: Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences
Radboudumc 17: Women's cancers RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences
Radboudumc 17: Women's cancers RIMLS: Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences
Full recordShow full item record
AbstractItem does not contain fulltext
Introduction: Demoralization is a relatively neglected issue in which low morale and poor coping result from a stressor such as familial cancer risk. Female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are highly susceptible for developing breast and ovarian cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate demoralization in oophorectomized BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and its relation to quality of life. Methods: This cross-sectional study examined 288 oophorectomized BRCA1/2 mutation carriers using the following standardized self-report measures: Demoralization Scale, EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Cancer Worry Scale. Results: The mean score on the Demoralization Scale was 17.8 (SD 14.0). A clinically significant level of demoralization, defined as a score &gt;=30, was found in 45 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (16%). Being highly demoralized was associated with a significantly lower quality of life, and higher levels of physical problems, anxiety and cancer worries. No demographic or clinical factors could predict higher levels of demoralization. Conclusions: Our findings established that a clear proportion of oophorectomized BRCA1/2 mutation carriers experience demoralization impacting on their well-being. Further research is needed to explore the natural trajectory of demoralization and the resultant need for support in these women.
TypeArticle / Letter to editor
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
<!--dc.title-->F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography combined with computed tomography as a diagnostic tool in native valve endocarditisKouijzer, I.J.E.; Berrevoets, M.A.H.; Aarntzen, E.H.J.G.; Vries, J. de; Dijk, A.P.J. van; Oyen, W.J.G.; Geus-Oei, L.F. de; Bleeker-Rovers, C.P. (2018)Item does not contain fulltext
Beneficial value of testicular sperm extraction-AgarCyto in addition to the standard testicular biopsy for diagnosis of testicular germ cell tumors in nonobstructive azoospermiaHessel, M.L.; Ramos, L.; D'Hauwers, K.W.M.; Braat, D.D.M.; Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, C.A. (2016)OBJECTIVE: To study whether immunohistochemical detection of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS) in AgarCytos, made of the remnants of the testicular sperm extraction (TESE) specimen, is equally accurate as in a standard testicular biopsy. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study performed between January 2013 and May 2014. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENT(S): All men with nonobstructive azoospermia (n = 197) undergoing a urological work-up followed by a unilateral or bilateral TESE for fertility treatment were consecutively included. INTERVENTION(S): An AgarCyto was made of the remnants of these TESE biopsies. Simultaneously a standard testicular biopsy was performed. For all cases a routine hematoxylin-eosin (H & E) staining was performed as well as immunohistochemistry (PLAP and OCT3/4) to detect GCNIS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The presence or absence of GCNIS in the TESE-AgarCyto and standard testicular biopsy. RESULT(S): Six men (3.0%) were diagnosed with a germ cell (pre)malignancy by immunohistochemistry. No cases were encountered in which the TESE-AgarCyto was negative, whereas the standard testicular biopsy was positive for GCNIS. In one case the TESE-AgarCyto detected a premalignancy that was missed by standard testicular biopsy. Unfortunately a standard testicular biopsy was not available for direct comparison in 50% of the GCNIS-positive patients due to various reasons. CONCLUSION(S): Because GCNIS is heterogeneously distributed in the testis, the TESE-AgarCyto can diagnose GCNIS even when the standard testicular biopsy is negative. Direct comparison of accuracy, however, is not reliable due to the low prevalence of GCNIS and the lack of a standard biopsy when an orchidectomy was performed simultaneously with TESE.
Adrenal vein sampling versus CT scan to determine treatment in primary aldosteronism: an outcome-based randomised diagnostic trialDekkers, T.; Prejbisz, A.; Schultze Kool, L.J.; Groenewoud, J.M.M.; Velema, M.S.; Spiering, W.; Kolodziejczyk-Kruk, S.; Arntz, M.; Kadziela, J.; Langenhuijsen, J.F.; et al. (2016)BACKGROUND: The distinction between unilateral aldosterone-producing adenoma or bilateral adrenal hyperplasia as causes of primary aldosteronism is usually made by adrenal CT or by adrenal vein sampling (AVS). Whether CT or AVS represents the best test for diagnosis remains unknown. We aimed to compare the outcome of CT-based management with AVS-based management for patients with primary aldosteronism. METHODS: In a randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients with aldosteronism to undergo either adrenal CT or AVS to determine the presence of aldosterone-producing adenoma (with subsequent treatment consisting of adrenalectomy) or bilateral adrenal hyperplasia (subsequent treatment with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists). The primary endpoint was the intensity of drug treatment for obtaining target blood pressure after 1 year of follow-up, in the intention-to-diagnose population. Intensity of drug treatment was expressed as daily defined doses. Key secondary endpoints included biochemical outcome in patients who received adrenalectomy, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01096654. FINDINGS: We recruited 200 patients between July 6, 2010, and May 30, 2013. Of the 184 patients that completed follow-up, 92 received CT-based treatment (46 adrenalectomy and 46 mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist) and 92 received AVS-based treatment (46 adrenalectomy and 46 mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist). We found no differences in the intensity of antihypertensive medication required to control blood pressure between patients with CT-based treatment and those with AVS-based treatment (median daily defined doses 3.0 [IQR 1.0-5.0] vs 3.0 [1.1-5.9], p=0.52; median number of drugs 2 [IQR 1-3] vs 2 [1-3], p=0.87). Target blood pressure was reached in 39 (42%) patients and 41 (45%) patients, respectively (p=0.82). On secondary endpoints we found no differences in health-related quality of life (median RAND-36 physical scores 52.7 [IQR 43.9-56.8] vs 53.2 [44.0-56.8], p=0.83; RAND-36 mental scores 49.8 [43.1-54.6] vs 52.7 [44.9-55.5], p=0.17) for CT-based and AVS-based treatment. Biochemically, 37 (80%) of patients with CT-based adrenalectomy and 41 (89%) of those with AVS-based adrenalectomy had resolved hyperaldosteronism (p=0.25). A non-significant mean difference of 0.05 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.13) in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was found to the advantage of the AVS group, associated with a significant increase in mean health-care costs of euro2285 per patient (95% CI 1323-3248). At a willingness-to-pay value of euro30 000 per QALY, the probability that AVS compared with CT constitutes an efficient use of health-care resources in the diagnostic work-up of patients with primary aldosteronism is less than 0.2. There was no difference in adverse events between groups (159 events of which nine were serious vs 187 events of which 12 were serious) for CT-based and AVS-based treatment. INTERPRETATION: Treatment of primary aldosteronism based on CT or AVS did not show significant differences in intensity of antihypertensive medication or clinical benefits for patients after 1 year of follow-up. This finding challenges the current recommendation to perform AVS in all patients with primary aldosteronism. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development-Medical Sciences, Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw.