Journal of Cancer Survivorship
- Impact factor2.63
Other titlesJournal of cancer survivorship
Material typePeriodical, Internet resource
Document typeJournal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource
- Author can archive a pre-print version
- Author can archive a post-print version
- Authors own final version only can be archived
- Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
- On author's website or institutional repository
- On funders designated website/repository after 12 months at the funders request or as a result of legal obligation
- Published source must be acknowledged
- Must link to publisher version
- Set phrase to accompany link to published version (The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com)
- Articles in some journals can be made Open Access on payment of additional charge
Publications in this journal
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: IntroductionSeveral models for survivorship care are prominent within the cancer literature; however, there is little empirical research that examines what oncology clinicians perceive to be the best approach to caring for cancer survivors, what services survivorship programs should include, and how prepared they feel to care for cancer survivors. MethodsAn IRB approved web-based survey of all clinical staff was conducted at a NCI designated comprehensive cancer center with a 49.8% response rate (N = 377). Data were summarized using frequencies and relative frequencies, and pairwise tests of statistical significance were utilized to evaluate differences between clinician type groups. ResultsOverall, the largest proportion of respondents preferred a disease-specific survivorship model (37.6%). This preference was specifically observed in oncology physicians and nurses. When asked where specific survivorship services should be provided, respondents indicated a preference for services directly related to survivors’ medical treatment (i.e. information about late effects) to be delivered in a disease-specific survivorship clinic, and ancillary services (i.e. nutrition and fertility counseling) to be housed in a centralized comprehensive survivorship clinic. Physicians felt that they have significantly more information, training, and resources to care for cancer survivors than did oncology nurses. Discussion/conclusionThese results indicate that oncology clinicians prefer a combination of survivorship care delivery models where continuing medical needs are met in disease-specific clinics, and comprehensive wellness services are offered in a centralized comprehensive survivorship clinic. Results also suggest that planning for survivorship initiatives should include additional resources, education, and training for clinical staff. Implications for cancer survivorsThese findings underscore the need for a universally accepted definition of cancer survivorship, and support a model for delivering care to cancer survivors that is a blend of the disease-specific and comprehensive survivorship programs. KeywordsSurvivors–Delivery of health care–Psychosocial aspects–Patient care teamsJournal of Cancer Survivorship 04/2012; 5(3):217-225.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: IntroductionTesticular cancer affects men mostly in their reproductive age with a cure rate over 90% and fertility is one of the main concerns of survivors. To further elucidate the question of fertility after treatment for testicular cancer, we performed a survey in patients treated in our institution. Patients and methodsWe sent a questionnaire to patients treated for testicular cancer at our institute from 1976 to 2002 (n = 490) of whom 297 (60.6%) responded. We considered the patients to have conserved fertility if they had children after treatment without assisted reproductive technologies. ResultsBefore treatment 119/297 (40.1%) of patients and after treatment 150/297 (50.5%) of patients tried to have children (p = 0.019). Of 119 patients who tried to have children before treatment for testicular cancer 98 (82.4%) succeeded and 74/150 (49.3%) were successful after treatment (p < 0.001). After treatment patients had 1–3 (median 1) children. The median time to birth of first child from diagnosis was 12years. The post-treatment fatherhood in patients treated with surgery only (orchidectomy +/− retroperitoneal lymphnode dissection-RPLND) was 59%, in those with additional radiotherapy 68%, and chemotherapy 50% (p = 0.233). Fertility rate in patients where a non nerve sparing RPLND was performed was only 37%, 62% in patients with nerve sapring RPLND, and 77% in patients where RPLND was not performed (p < 0.0001). ConclusionFertility rate after treatment for testicular cancer is reduced. From our data, the most important treatment modality that influences fertility is non nerve sparing RPLND that should be avoided whenever possible in order improve the quality of life our patients. KeywordsTesticular cancer-Fertility-Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection-Chemotherapy-RadiotherapyJournal of Cancer Survivorship 04/2012; 4(3):274-278.
Article: The effect of androgen deprivation therapy on body composition in men with prostate cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: IntroductionThe use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer is associated with changes in body composition including increased fat and decreased lean mass. Limited information exists regarding the rate and extent of these changes. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effects of ADT on body composition in prostate cancer patients. MethodsLiterature searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies until January 2009. Only longitudinal studies that examined ADT and body composition in prostate cancer patients were included. Data were extracted on body weight, BMI, percentage of fat mass and lean body mass. ResultsSixteen studies (14 cohorts and 2 RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled data, calculated according to a random effects model, showed that ADT increased % body fat by on average 7.7% (95% CI 4.3, 11.2, from seven studies, P < 0.0001) and decreased % lean body mass by on average −2.8% (95% CI −3.6, −2.0, from six studies, P < 0.0001) but for both there was marked heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 99% I2 = 73%, respectively). Similarly, body weight (2.1%, P < 0.0001 from nine studies) and BMI (2.2%, P < 0.0001, from eight studies) increased significantly. More extensive changes were seen with longer duration of treatment. ConclusionsSubstantial increases in fat and declines in lean mass were observed in prostate cancer patients treated with ADT. Lifestyle changes or suitable interventions to minimize the effect of ADT on body composition need to be investigated. Implications for cancer survivorsProstate cancer survivors should be made aware of the side effect of treatment on body composition and further work is required to determine what interventions can minimize the impact of ADT on body composition and therefore what evidence based advice they should be provided with. In general, though recommendation of a healthy diet and moderate exercise is reasonable. KeywordsBody composition-ADT-Prostate cancer-Systematic reviewJournal of Cancer Survivorship 04/2012; 4(2):128-139.
Article: Addressing the needs of young breast cancer survivors at the 5 year milestone: can a short-term, low intensity intervention produce change?[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BackgroundToday, the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer is 65% and there are 10.5 million survivors. The largest group of survivors are those of breast cancer. Reductions in mortality are occurring at a greater rate for women under age 50 at diagnosis than among older women. AimsOur goal was to design a socio-educational intervention for 5-year survivors aged 50 or younger at diagnosis and test the hypotheses that women in the intervention group would show greater improvement than controls with respect to (1) knowledge of breast cancer, its treatment, and long-term health concerns; (2) lifestyle habits (i.e., exercise and diet); and (3) communication with family and physicians. MethodsUsing a randomized controlled trial with a pre-post design, 404 women who were 5years from diagnosis and cancer-free (response rate 54%) were randomly assigned to an intervention or delayed intervention (control) group and were assessed at pre-test (baseline) and 6months later (96% retention). The intervention consisted of three 6-h workshops over a 3month period. Four series of workshops were held at different geographical areas in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. The workshops included activities and information to promote physical, social, emotional, and spiritual well-being. The intervention design was based on findings from focus groups and a survey of 185 cancer-free 5-year survivors that assessed changes since the early months after diagnosis in physical, social, emotional, and spiritual concerns (response rate 73%). ResultsConsistent with our first hypothesis, at post-test, women in the intervention group, on average, had greater knowledge regarding breast cancer, its treatment, and their own future health than did those in the control group (p = 0.015). Hypothesis 2 was partially supported as women in the intervention group were more likely than the control group to report an increased amount of physical activity (p = 0.036), but not significant dietary changes. Social support was related to increased self report of physical activity. With the exception of the last series of workshops, the intervention group did not report improved communications with family, friends, and physicians (hypothesis 3). ConclusionsA short-term intervention can affect knowledge levels and physical activity but not diet or communication in the family. Implications for Cancer SurvivorsThe intervention was related to greater knowledge related to breast cancer, and increased report of physical activity. The program was not related to changes in reported diet or family communication.Journal of Cancer Survivorship 04/2012; 2(3):190-204.
Journal of Cancer Survivorship 01/2009; 3:1-3.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
American Society for Parenteral and...
ISSN: 1941-2452, Impact factor: 1.59
Cancer Information Group; CIG Media...
ISSN: 1938-0682, Impact factor: 2.61
American Diabetes Association,...
ISSN: 1935-5548, Impact factor: 8.09
American Association of Neurological...
ISSN: 1933-0693, Impact factor: 2.96
ISSN: 1932-2267, Impact factor: 2.63
North American Association for the...
ISSN: 1930-739X, Impact factor: 4.28
ISSN: 1879-2472, Impact factor: 2.44
ISSN: 1875-9114, Impact factor: 2.9