Associations of pretreatment emotional distress with adherence to therapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a post hoc analysis of the Chinese FOWARC phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

IF 7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Lishuo Shi, Jianwei Zhang, Yanhong Deng
{"title":"Associations of pretreatment emotional distress with adherence to therapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a post hoc analysis of the Chinese FOWARC phase 3 randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Lishuo Shi, Jianwei Zhang, Yanhong Deng","doi":"10.1186/s12916-025-04128-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-adherence in advanced rectal cancer therapy is common and severely impairs clinical outcomes. Although behavioral research suggests emotional factors influence adherence, limited evidence links pretreatment emotional distress (PED) to treatment adherence in rectal cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This post hoc analysis of a phase 3 randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 9, 2010, to February 15, 2015, involving 219 patients (assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with fluorouracil plus radiotherapy [group A, 67 patients], modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin [mFOLFOX6] plus radiotherapy [group B, 66 patients], or mFOLFOX6 alone [group C, 86 patients] followed by TME resection and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy) with locally advanced rectal cancer from the main center. The PED of patients was measured through the emotional dimension items in the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). The primary outcome was adherence to therapy, with non-adherence defined as patients in groups A and B receiving fewer than ten cycles of chemotherapy or less than 37 Gy of radiotherapy, and patients in group C receiving fewer than ten cycles of chemotherapy. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for adherence by PED levels. Additionally, the structural equation model (SEM) was utilized to analyze the impact pathways of PED on adherence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 219 patients (142 men; mean age, 53.4 years) who completed the QLQ-C30 scale, 27.8% (61/219) demonstrated non-adherence to the treatment regimen. Multivariable analyses showed that each 1-point increase in PED score raised non-adherence risk by 4.37 times (OR: 4.37, 95% CI: 1.92-9.96, P < 0.001). The SEM analysis revealed that PED score was positively correlated with the risk of non-adherence (standardized regression coefficients [β] = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.28), while economic burden was positively correlated with PED (β = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.28), and could indirectly affect adherence through PED (β = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Higher levels of pretreatment emotional distress were associated with an increased risk of treatment non-adherence, thereby highlighting the potential significance of addressing emotional distress in cancer management.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01211210.</p>","PeriodicalId":9188,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medicine","volume":"23 1","pages":"293"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12096767/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-04128-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Non-adherence in advanced rectal cancer therapy is common and severely impairs clinical outcomes. Although behavioral research suggests emotional factors influence adherence, limited evidence links pretreatment emotional distress (PED) to treatment adherence in rectal cancer patients.

Methods: This post hoc analysis of a phase 3 randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 9, 2010, to February 15, 2015, involving 219 patients (assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with fluorouracil plus radiotherapy [group A, 67 patients], modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin [mFOLFOX6] plus radiotherapy [group B, 66 patients], or mFOLFOX6 alone [group C, 86 patients] followed by TME resection and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy) with locally advanced rectal cancer from the main center. The PED of patients was measured through the emotional dimension items in the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). The primary outcome was adherence to therapy, with non-adherence defined as patients in groups A and B receiving fewer than ten cycles of chemotherapy or less than 37 Gy of radiotherapy, and patients in group C receiving fewer than ten cycles of chemotherapy. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for adherence by PED levels. Additionally, the structural equation model (SEM) was utilized to analyze the impact pathways of PED on adherence.

Results: Among the 219 patients (142 men; mean age, 53.4 years) who completed the QLQ-C30 scale, 27.8% (61/219) demonstrated non-adherence to the treatment regimen. Multivariable analyses showed that each 1-point increase in PED score raised non-adherence risk by 4.37 times (OR: 4.37, 95% CI: 1.92-9.96, P < 0.001). The SEM analysis revealed that PED score was positively correlated with the risk of non-adherence (standardized regression coefficients [β] = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.28), while economic burden was positively correlated with PED (β = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.28), and could indirectly affect adherence through PED (β = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.09).

Conclusions: Higher levels of pretreatment emotional distress were associated with an increased risk of treatment non-adherence, thereby highlighting the potential significance of addressing emotional distress in cancer management.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01211210.

局部晚期直肠癌患者预处理情绪困扰与治疗依从性的关系:中国FOWARC 3期随机临床试验的事后分析
背景:不依从在晚期直肠癌治疗中很常见并且严重影响临床结果。虽然行为研究表明情绪因素影响依从性,但有限的证据表明预处理情绪困扰(PED)与直肠癌患者的治疗依从性有关。方法:本研究对2010年6月9日至2015年2月15日进行的一项3期随机临床试验进行事后分析,涉及219例患者(被分配接受氟尿嘧啶+放疗的新辅助治疗[a组,67例],改良氟尿嘧啶、亚叶酸钙和奥沙利铂[mFOLFOX6] +放疗[B组,66例],或单独使用mFOLFOX6 [C组])。[86例]以局部进展期直肠癌为主中心行TME切除及术后辅助化疗。通过《生活质量问卷-核心问卷》(QLQ-C30)中的情绪维度项目对患者的PED进行测量。主要结局是治疗依从性,非依从性定义为A组和B组患者接受少于10个化疗周期或少于37 Gy的放疗,C组患者接受少于10个化疗周期。使用多变量logistic回归模型估计PED水平依从性的比值比(ORs)和95%置信区间(CIs)。此外,利用结构方程模型(SEM)分析了PED对依从性的影响途径。结果:219例患者中,男性142例;完成QLQ-C30量表的患者中,27.8%(61/219)表现出不遵守治疗方案。多变量分析显示,PED评分每增加1分,不依从性风险增加4.37倍(OR: 4.37, 95% CI: 1.92-9.96, P)。结论:较高水平的预处理情绪困扰与治疗不依从性风险增加相关,从而突出了处理情绪困扰在癌症管理中的潜在意义。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT01211210。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medicine
BMC Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.10%
发文量
435
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medicine is an open access, transparent peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is the flagship journal of the BMC series and publishes outstanding and influential research in various areas including clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities. In addition to research articles, the journal also publishes stimulating debates, reviews, unique forum articles, and concise tutorials. All articles published in BMC Medicine are included in various databases such as Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAS, Citebase, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, OAIster, SCImago, Scopus, SOCOLAR, and Zetoc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信