Abstract
Background
Head and neck cancer is a life threatening illness requiring aversive treatments. Despite clear potential for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in both patients and their partners, research is scant.
Methods
Newly diagnosed patients and partners (no. of dyads=42) completed questionnaires to assess symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, and depression, as well as demographic, medical, and attitudinal variables.
Results
Partners had higher average levels of PTSD symptoms than patients (p=.023). More partners (28.6%) met criteria for estimated PTSD caseness than did patients (11.9%). There were no significant differences in levels of other anxiety or depression symptoms. Perceived threat of disease appears to be a stronger correlate of PTSD symptom levels than medical variables in patients and partners.
Conclusions
A diagnosis of head and neck cancer elicits significant levels of PTSD symptoms in patients, and even higher levels among partners. Identified correlates of distress, including perceived threat of disease, are potential intervention targets.
Keywords: Stress, PTSD, couples, blame, head and neck cancer
INTRODUCTION
It is estimated that over 40,000 people will receive a new diagnosis of head and neck cancer in 2013 in the United States, with the majority diagnosed at intermediate or advanced stages.1 In addition to the threat to life, head and neck cancer is a physically and emotionally challenging disease that can profoundly affect patients’ quality of life and psychosocial function.2,3 Patients must cope not only with the diagnosis of a life threatening disease, but also confront treatments that can result in altered facial appearance and impairment of bodily functions such as speech, eating, swallowing and taste.4 Heightened levels of emotional distress, depression and anxiety have been widely documented in head and neck cancer patient samples5–7, with various studies reporting 20% – 46 % incidence rates for clinically significant distress.8–10 Heightened emotional distress, as well as symptoms of anxiety and depression have also been documented in family caregivers (mainly partners) of patients with head and neck cancer, consistent with the many challenges that life threatening disease and its treatment thrust upon them (see Longacre et al 2012 for review). Indeed, several studies of patient-partner dyads have found symptom levels of anxiety and depression in the partners of head and neck cancer patients to similar to or even higher than in the patients themselves.7, 11–13
Despite the life threatening nature of a diagnosis of head and neck cancer, little research attention has been paid to a particular type of anxiety, namely posttraumatic stress symptoms or full-blown posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in these patients or in their partners. PTSD is a psychiatric disorder which can develop after exposure to a traumatic event that involves the threat of serious injury or death to oneself or others, and it is characterized by heightened arousal, intrusive thoughts, emotional numbness and avoidance of reminders of the traumatic event.14 A diagnosis of cancer was added as a qualifying traumatic event for a diagnosis of PTSD by the American Psychiatric Association in 1994 (DSM-IV).14 However, cancer is a multifaceted experience, potentially starting from diagnosis and extending through treatment, post-treatment, and survival 15 and in this way it may differ from traditional traumatic events, such as war, that have formed the bulk of past research. Nonetheless, over the past two decades, considerable research with other cancer patient populations has established that PTSD symptoms following a cancer diagnosis, as for other traumatic events, are distinct from depression or general anxiety in that symptoms occur in response to a specific threatening event and include specific responses to triggers reminding the person of the event, although there is some comorbidity between PTSD and these other mood disorders.16 The potential clinical implications of PTSD in cancer patients are suggested by accumulating evidence that PTSD can have particularly pernicious health-related consequences, including increased sensitivity to pain and other physical health symptoms, as well as increased morbidity and mortality. 17–19
The purpose of the present study was to use a well validated self-report measure (the PTSD Checklist (PCL))20 to describe and compare the severity of PTSD symptoms and the prevalence of individuals meeting criteria for a clinical diagnosis of PTSD in a sample of newly diagnosed head and neck cancer patients and their partners. We anticipated that not only would patients experience PTSD symptoms in response to a new diagnosis of head and neck cancer, but their partners would as well, given the dyadic relationship, thus adding a novel component to the study. We also examined symptoms of anxiety and depression as likely correlates of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Finally, we examined demographic, medical, and psychological factors, including perceived threat and self-blame, as a first critical test of potential risk factors for the development of PTSD in head and neck cancer patients and their partners.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sample
Patients and their partners were recruited from the Head and Neck Oncology Clinic, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Patients were newly-diagnosed (within sixteen weeks) with upper aerodigestive tract cancers, stages I-IV, without distant metastases. Eligibility criteria included having a partner (spouse or significant other, as identified by the patient) who was also willing to participate in the study. All participants met additional inclusion criteria (English-speaking, with no history of prior cancer diagnosis and no history of psychotic disorder as indicated by medical chart).
Procedure
The study had University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board approval. Participants were approached about the study and provided written informed consent at the time of a routine clinic appointment. Participants were given paper and pencil self-report measures to complete and returned them in person, or by prepaid mail. Patients and partners were instructed to complete the measures independently and were provided with separate return envelopes.
Measures
Sociodemographic information was obtained from all participants. Medical information was obtained from patient medical records.. Both patients and partners completed validated self-report psychosocial measures.
Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms
The PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version 20 (PCL) is a 17-item questionnaire that assesses number and severity of traumatic stress symptoms, including intrusive negative thoughts, avoidance of negative thoughts and behaviors, and hyperarousal symptoms experienced in the past month. Each item is rated on a 5 point scale from “not at all” to “extremely.” A total summed score was calculated (possible range 17–85; Cronbach’s α = .95 in the present sample). The PCL was also used to estimate whether a participant met DSM-IV criteria for PTSD caseness, based on the cluster method, which follows the criteria of endorsing a certain threshold level of symptoms in each of the three symptom clusters (intrusion, avoidance, and hyperarousal) that mirror the DSM-IV.20 The PCL has shown good agreement with both the PTSD module of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV 21 and the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale 22 and has demonstrated validity in cancer populations16. Participants reported on symptoms experienced as a result of learning of their own or their partner’s cancer diagnosis.
Anxiety and Depression Symptoms
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) 23 contains two 7-item subscales to measure anxiety and depression and is widely used in medical populations (α = .91 and .80 for anxiety and depression, respectively, in the present sample).
Potential correlates of Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms
In addition to considering HADS anxiety and depression symptoms as potential correlates of PTSD symptoms, we also assessed patient and partner psychological, clinical, and sociodemographic factors that we hypothesized would serve as correlates. Perceived threat was assessed using a 3-item measure adapted from Witte, Cameron, McKeon and Berkowitz.24 Participants rated items concerning how serious, life threatening, and threatening to their well-being their (or their partner’s), condition was (1=not at all; 5=extremely threatening). Items were averaged (α = .81 in the present sample). Disease-related blame was assessed using measures from Christensen and colleagues’25 work in head and neck cancer populations. General blame was assessed by asking participants to rate the “extent to which you believe your (your partner’s) cancer was caused by you (your partner’s) own actions” (1 = not at all, 5 = completely) and substance use-related blame was assessed by asking participants to rate the “extent to which you believe your (your partner’s) cancer was specifically caused by tobacco or alcohol use” (1 = not at all, 5 = completely). Because we were interested in the relationship between substance use-related blame and traumatic stress symptoms, we also assessed self-reported use of tobacco and alcohol with five questions adapted from the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire regarding regular tobacco use at any time during the respondent’s lifetime.26 Thus, we used the yes/no questions “Do you currently smoke cigarettes” and “Do you currently use other tobacco products such as cigars, pipes, or chewing tobacco” followed by similar questions about past use (e.g., “Was there ever a time when you smoked cigarettes on a regular basis”). Participants were identified as lifetime tobacco users if they endorsed any of these items. Alcohol use was assessed with the yes/no question “Do you currently drink alcohol, or has there ever been a time in your life when you did drink alcohol on a regular basis?”
Clinical variables
We abstracted clinical information, including severity of disease defined by stage (I-IV), whether patients underwent surgical treatment (yes/no), other treatments (chemotherapy, radiotherapy), disease site, time since diagnosis, time since treatment onset, and whether patients were on treatment or completed treatment. Physical disfigurement and dysfunction was rated by the patient’s surgeon for all patients using the Observer-rated Disfigurement Scale 27, a single-item nine-point Likert scale that has been validated in head and neck populations receiving different types of treatment.
Data Analysis
Paired t-tests (for continuous variables) and McNemar’s χ2 tests (for dichotomous variables) were conducted to compare patients and partners on PCL scores and PTSD caseness, as well as depression and anxiety scale scores. Similar tests were performed to compare patients and partners on background characteristics and levels of perceived threat, and general and tobacco/alcohol-related blame. Correlation coefficients were calculated to examine bivariate relationships between variables (perceived threat, general blame, disease severity, surgical treatment, degree of disfigurement, whether patients were on treatment or finished with treatment, number of days since treatment onset, age, gender, education level and income level) and PCL scores. Potential correlates of posttraumatic stress symptoms were subsequently examined using multiple linear regression analyses. Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS version 20. Because of skewness, scores on the PCL and the Observer-rated Disfigurement Scale were log transformed prior to analyses in order to normalize their distributions.
RESULTS
Participants
Among 65 patient-partner dyads approached, 45 patients and their partners were enrolled. Of the remainder, either the patient (n=18) or partner (n=2) refused to participate, primarily due to time or other constraints. Among the 45 enrolled dyads, 3 dyads returned data from only one member (2 partners, 1 patient). Thus, the final sample included 42 dyads. As shown in Table 1, most participants were European-American and were educated beyond high school. Most dyads were married (n=37 dyads, 88%), and all were male-female pairs. The majority of patients were male (n=32, 76%). (Potential demographic correlates of the outcomes are considered below.) About half of the participants (52%) were diagnosed with pharyngeal head and neck cancer, and the majority (62%) had stage IV disease. The majority of the patients underwent surgical treatment either alone or in combination with chemoradiation. The average Disfigurement rating was 2.17 (for patients undergoing surgery, mean=2.46 (2.1)) and most patients (n=26, 62%) were given the lowest rating of 1 on the 1–9 scale, indicating minimal disfigurement. Participants completed assessments an average of 9.5 weeks postdiagnosis (mean = 67 days ±28.7 days post diagnosis; range of 28 days – 112 days).
Table 1.
Background Characteristics of Participants (No. of participants=84)
| Characteristic, no. (%) | Patient No. of patients=42 |
Partner No. of partners=42 |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 32 (76) | 10 (24) |
| Female | 10 (24) | 32 (76) |
| Age, mean; range (SD) | 55; 35–77 (8.7) | 53; 27–78 (11.3) |
| Ethnic group | ||
| European American | 41 (98) | 42 (100) |
| African American | 1 (2) | 0 |
| Highest education level | ||
| ≤ high school | 25 (60) | 28 (67) |
| >high school | 17 (40) | 14 (33) |
| Current marital status | ||
| Married | 37 (88) | 37 (88) |
| “Marriage-like” relationship | 5 (12) | 5 (12) |
| Annual family income | ||
| > $50,000* | 22 (54) | -- |
| Relationship duration, yrs, mean; range (SD)* | 22; 1–58 (13.8) | -- |
| Disease site: | ||
| Larynx | 4 (10) | -- |
| Pharynx | 22 (52) | -- |
| Oral | 13 (31) | -- |
| Salivary | 2 (5) | -- |
| Unknown Primary | 1 (2) | |
| Stage: | ||
| I | 5 (12) | -- |
| II | 6 (14) | -- |
| III | 5 (12) | -- |
| IV | 26 (62) | -- |
| Treatment: | ||
| Surgery only | 19 (45) | -- |
| Surgery + radiation | 3 (7) | -- |
| Surgery + chemoradiation | 6 (14) | -- |
| Chemoradiation | 14 (33) | -- |
| On Treatment, yes | 25 (60) | |
| Days since treatment onset a, mean; range (SD) | 37.8; 0–100; (30.6) | |
| Degree of Disfigurementb mean; range (SD) | 2.17; 1–8 (1.9) | -- |
| History of Tobacco Use, yes | 30 (71) | 25 (60) |
| History of Regular Alcohol Use, yes | 29 (69) | 17 (40) |
Obtained from the patient; income and relationship duration data missing for one dyad.
Data missing for one patient
Higher scores are reflective of greater disfigurement
PTSD symptoms
As shown in Table 2, PTSD symptoms, as measured by the PCL, were endorsed by both patients and their partners, and partners had significantly higher PTSD symptom levels than patients. Patients’ and partners’ traumatic stress scores were not significantly correlated with one another (r= .04; p=.821).
Table 2.
PTSD Checklist (PCL) Scores (mean, SD), Estimated PTSD Cases, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores (mean, SD) by Group (No. of participants=84)
| Measure | Patients No. of patients=42 |
Partners No. of partners=42 |
Test Statistic | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCL Scorea | 29.6 (11.7) | 35.8 (14.0) | t(41) = −2.35 | .023 |
| Estimated PTSD Cases, cluster method (no., %) | 5 (11.9) | 12 (28.6) | ---* | .143 |
| Met Cluster B (intrusion) criteria (no., %) | 16 (38.1) | 25 (59.5) | ---* | .093 |
| Met Cluster C (avoidance) criteria (no., %) | 7 (16.7) | 13 (31) | ---* | .302 |
| Met Cluster D (hyperarousal) criteria (no., %) | 10 (23.8) | 19 (45.2) | ---* | .115 |
| HADS Anxiety subscale | 7.3 (4.4) | 9.0 (5.1) | t(41) = −1.90 | .065 |
| Met Anxiety score cut off of ≥11 (no., %) | 11 (26.2) | 19 (45.2) | ---* | .096 |
|
| ||||
| HADS Depression subscale | 4.8 (3.2) | 5.5 (3.5) | t(41) = −1.02 | .316 |
| Met Depression score cut off of ≥11 (no., %) | 2 (4.8) | 2 (4.8) | ---* | 1.0 |
|
| ||||
scores were log transformed prior to analysis to reduce skewness in their distribution. Means based on raw scores are presented here to facilitate interpretation. Higher scores are reflective of greater PTSD symptoms.
McNemar’s test
Using the cluster method to classify estimated PTSD cases, 5/42 (11.9%) of patients met criteria and 12/42 (28.6%) of partners met criteria (Table 2). A higher percentage of partners met estimated PTSD caseness than patients, although this was not significant. There was no dyad in which both the patient and the partner met estimated PTSD caseness. Three of the 5 patients (and 5 of the 12 partners) who met estimated criteria for PTSD were receiving cancer treatment at the time of assessment. Closer inspection of the three specific symptom clusters of PTSD (intrusion, avoidance, and hyperarousal) revealed that patients and partners endorsed more symptoms of intrusion, with the majority of partners (59%) meeting the intrusion cluster criteria, i.e., endorsing threshold severity, and 38% of patients also meeting this criteria. However, partners also endorsed more avoidance and hyperarousal symptoms when compared to patients, although this did not reach statistical significance.
Anxiety and depression symptoms
Both patients and partners reported higher levels of anxiety symptoms than depression symptoms (see Table 2). As shown in the table, patients’ and partners’ average symptom levels did not differ from each other. In addition, their scores were not highly correlated with each other (anxiety, r=.24, p=.241; depression, r=.01, p=.930). Scores on the HADS anxiety and depression subscales of 11 and above indicate probable psychiatric distress; over one fourth of patients and nearly one half of partners met this criterion on the anxiety subscale. Patients and partners were less likely to meet this criterion on the depression scale, with less than 5% of each group endorsing probable depressive distress. Further, of the 5 patients with estimated PTSD caseness, 3 also met criteria for anxiety caseness and 1 met criteria for both anxiety and depression caseness. Of the 12 partners with estimated PTSD caseness, 10 also met criteria for anxiety caseness and 1 met criteria for both anxiety and depression caseness.
Correlates of PTSD symptoms
We first examined correlations among PTSD symptoms, anxiety and depression. In both patients and partners, PCL scores were significantly related to both their HADS anxiety scores as well as HADS depression scores (for patients, anxiety, r=.76, p=.001, depression, r=.42, p=.006 and for partners, anxiety, r=.81, p=.001; depression, r=.74, p=.001). Although HADS anxiety scores were correlated with estimated PTSD caseness in both patients and partners (r=.50, p=.001 and r=.60, p=.001 respectively), HADS depression scores were only related to estimated PTSD caseness in partners (r=.44, p=.003) and not in patients (r=.26, p=.098).
Regarding other potential correlates of PTSD symptoms, we first examined group differences between patients and partners on perceived threat and general blame, as well as group differences in substance-related blame in the subset of dyads in which the patient reported a lifetime history of tobacco use (Table 3). As shown in the table, there was no difference between patients and their partners in levels of perceived threat associated with cancer. Further, patient and partner perceived threat scores were correlated with one another (r=.40, p=.008). Regarding blame, on average, patients were marginally more likely to blame themselves for their disease than were their partners to assign them blame. In addition, patients’ and partners’ scores were correlated with each other (r=.68; p=.001) indicating that if patients blamed themselves, their partners were likely to blame them as well. For substance-related blame, we examined the subset of patient-partner dyads in which the patient reported a history of tobacco use (n=30 dyads). As shown in Table 3, patients and their partners reported similar mean levels of substance-related blame for the patient’s disease. Moreover, their blame scores in this area were highly correlated with each other (r=.69; p =.001).
Table 3.
Perceived Threat, General Blame and Substance-related Blame Scores (mean; range, SD) by Group (No. of participants=84)
| Measure | Patients No. of Patients=42 |
Partners No. of Partners=42 |
Test Statistic | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived Threat | 3.6; 1.67–5, (0.8) | 3.7; 1.67–5, (0.8) | t(41)= −.343 | .734 |
| General Blame | 2.9; 1–5, (1.4) | 2.5; 1–5, (1.3) | t(41)= 1.969 | .056 |
| Substance-related Blamea | 3.0; 1–5, (1.3) | 2.9; 1–5, (1.5) | t(29)= .162 | .873 |
assessed in dyads consisting of patients with lifetime tobacco use (No. of dyads=30). Higher scores are reflective of greater threat and blame.
We next examined whether perceived threat, blame or the sociodemographic and medical factors were associated with PTSD symptoms. We first calculated simple correlations for each of the potential predictors with the patients’ total PCL scores and the partners’ total PCL scores, as shown in Table 4. In partners, PTSD symptoms were significantly correlated with their rating of perceived threat to the patient (r=.38, p=.012), indicating those partners who viewed their patients diagnosis as more threatening also experienced more severe PTSD symptoms. This correlation was weaker and not significant in patients (r=.26, p=.093). Disease-related general blame, stage of disease, whether the patient underwent surgery (yes/no), degree of disfigurement, being on treatment, and days since treatment onset were unrelated to patient’s and partner’s PCL scores. Finally, age was not related to PCL score in patients (r= −.12, p=.460), but was negatively related to PCL score in partners (r= −.32, p=.036), indicating that younger partners experienced higher levels of traumatic stress symptoms. All other demographic characteristics (gender, education, and income) were not significant.
Table 4.
Correlates of PTSD Checklist (PCL) total score a (No. of participants=84): Bivariate associations and multiple regression results.
| Patients (n=42) PCL |
Partners (n=42) PCL |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | b | r | b | |
| Psychological variables | ||||
| Perceived threat | .26 | .235 | .38* | .357* |
| General blame | −.06 | --- | .24 | --- |
| Clinical variables | ||||
| Disease severity (stage 1–4) | −.12 | --- | .05 | --- |
| Surgery, yes | −.14 | --- | .05 | --- |
| Disfigurement a (1–9) | −.24 | --- | .10 | --- |
| On treatmentb | .02 | --- | −.28 | −.290* |
|
| ||||
| Days since treatment onset | −.16 | --- | −.05 | |
|
| ||||
| Participant characteristics | ||||
| Agec | −.12 | --- | −.32* | −.202 |
| Genderd | −.28 | −.258 | .11 | --- |
| Educatione | −.14 | --- | .07 | --- |
| Incomef | −.07 | --- | .09 | --- |
p <.05
scores were log transformed prior to analysis to reduce skewness in their distribution.
On treatment coded 0=treatment completed, 1=on treatment
Age coded as continuous variable.
Gender coded 0=male, 1=female.
Education coded 0=high school graduate or less, 1=schooling beyond high school.
Income coded 0=under $30,000, 1=$30,000–70,000, 2=over $70,000. Income data missing for one dyad
Regression coefficients are standardized.
In the subset of dyads with patients who reported lifetime tobacco use (n=30) we examined whether substance-related blame was related to PTSD symptoms. Substance use-related blame was significantly related to PTSD symptoms in partners (r=.42; p=.022) but was unrelated in patients (r=.12; p=.521). Thus, for this subsample of 30 dyads, partners who blamed the patient’s tobacco and alcohol use for the disease had higher levels of PTSD symptoms.
Given the sample size and the need to ensure an appropriate ratio of study participants to variables considered in multivariate analysis, only potential correlates with a correlation coefficient that was at least modest size (r≥.25) were included in a multiple regression analysis with PCL total score as the outcome. Thus for patients, the perceived threat score and gender were included in the regression. Although they as a set showed a trend for a relationship to PCL total score, (F (2, 39) = 3.035, p =.06; R=.37), neither variable alone remained a reliable independent correlate of PCL score (see Table 4). For partners, the perceived threat score, whether they were on treatment, and age were included in the regression analysis and they as a set were significantly related to PCL total score, (F (3, 38) = 4.983, p =.005; R=.53). Of the three predictors, only perceived threat and whether they were on treatment were significant on its own.
DISCUSSION
The partners of recently diagnosed patients with head and neck cancer, as well as the patients, reported experiencing PTSD symptoms. Indeed, levels of PTSD symptoms were significantly higher for partners than for patients. This pattern was not seen for depression or general anxiety symptoms, suggesting that partners of patients with head and neck cancer may be particularly at risk for the development of more severe PTSD symptoms. Consistent with this view, over two times as many partners met criteria for estimated PTSD diagnosis than did the patients themselves, although this did not reach statistical significance.
We found that 11.9% of patients met criteria for estimated PTSD based on their PCL scores. To our knowledge, this is the first report in the literature that has focused on PTSD in the specific context of head and neck cancer patients and their partners. However, in a mixed patient sample that included some individuals with this type of cancer assessed 6 months post diagnosis, Kangas and colleagues found a rate of 22%. 28 Further, our incidence of 11.9% is in the range, albeit lower end, of that found in other types of cancer such as breast cancer (11.2%–18.5%)29 and gynecologic cancer patients (16–34%).30 It is unclear whether the timing of our assessment and/or the patient characteristics (e.g., both male and female genders) may have affected our percentages of PTSD caseness compared with prior work in other cancer populations. A larger proportion (28.6%) of our partners met criteria for estimated PTSD. Because most of our partners were female, we explored the possible contribution of gender to both PCL score and estimated PTSD caseness and found no reliable relationship. Therefore, regardless of gender, partners experienced greater PTSD symptoms than patients, although it is noted that our sample size is small.
As has been generally established in the literature, perceptions of threat are key in the development of traumatic stress.31–32 We found that patients and partners who believed their or their partner’s disease to be more threatening also reported the most traumatic stress, and perceived threat was our strongest correlate of traumatic stress, surpassing the objective disease indices that we measured in this preliminary work. Although others have found relationships between level of disfigurement and general distress33, we did not find this in our sample using PTSD symptoms as our outcome. However, our sample tended to have low levels of disfigurement, perhaps due to advances in surgical techniques. The relationship between blame and PTSD symptoms remains unclear. We did not find any reliable relationship between general blame and PCL scores in either patients or partners although substance-related blame was positively related to PTSD symptoms in the subset of partners of patients with a history of substance use; this same relationship was not found in these patients themselves.
Our assessment occurred relatively soon after diagnosis, between 4 weeks and 16 weeks post-diagnosis. This post-diagnosis time period is important because patients are likely making medical decisions and engaging in treatment, and heightened traumatic stress may negatively impact decision-making and adherence to treatment regimens. Similarly, partners may be involved in treatment decisions as well as providing emotional and tangible support to patients, in addition to maintaining their family and work obligations, and perhaps taking on additional family responsibilities from the patient. This increase in burden, coupled with the threat of losing their loved one, may have contributed to partners’ higher level of traumatic stress as compared to patients’ levels. In previous work, caregivers, (comprised mostly of partners), of head and neck cancer patients reported higher levels of concern about recurrence than patients 34 and showed long-term difficulties in psychological adjustment, with distress higher than the general population.35 Further, some evidence suggests that female partners of head and neck cancer patients are at risk for anxiety disorders, particularly agoraphobia.36 Finally, the implications may be long term for the relationship; head and neck patients and partners who have greater baseline distress had worse communication and lower levels of intimacy over time in one recent study.37
PTSD symptomatology, such as avoidance, may be an especially important issue for head and neck cancer patients and their partners as it may impact health behavior, along with generalized anxiety and depression. Head and neck cancer patients often endure difficult treatments that can result in difficulties in daily living activities (e.g., eating, speech)4 and in one study about one third of patients undergoing radiotherapy were not adherent to treatment.38 Another hallmark symptoms cluster of PTSD, intrusive thoughts, was found to be related to physician reported poor medical adherence in other medical populations (e.g., heart transplantation recipients).39 Psychological interventions to decrease distress in head and neck patients (see Luckett, Britton, Clover, & Rankin, 2011 for review) 40 and specifically to reduce PTSD symptoms in head and neck cancer patients have shown some promise 41, and more work is needed to further develop these interventions, and expand them to target patients’ partners.
Although this study’s relatively close temporal time frame to diagnosis and inclusion of patients’ partners are key strengths, the cross-sectional design and small sample size allow for limited inferences regarding causative processes or an examination of PTSD at other phases of illness, and limited our ability to identify reliable correlates. While we were able to examine correlates of our continuous measure of post-traumatic stress symptom levels, our sample was too small to begin to examine, for example, characteristics among participants who met estimated PTSD criteria. The preliminary nature of this work, and the preponderance of advanced stage patients who were male (with female partners) in our sample, precludes strong conclusions about the relationships between posttraumatic stress symptoms and gender, range of disease stage, or disfigurement; these would be important areas for future work. Further, we were unable to examine the impact of type of surgery, reconstruction, disease site, and other comorbidities on PTSD symptoms as well. We were unable to determine whether participants had a pre-existing history of anxiety and/or mood disorders, or had utilized psychotropic medications or psychosocial services, all of which may have affected current PTSD symptom reporting. We used a self-report measure, the PCL, to assess PTSD symptoms. Although the PCL is widely used in cancer populations and has demonstrated good agreement with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV 21, which is a well-established method of assessment, we nonetheless are limited by its self-report nature. It is also possible that despite instructions to report on intrusive thoughts related to cancer diagnosis, participants may have been reporting on intrusive thoughts about future events (e.g., future treatments), given the nature of cancer. Finally, the correlations between the HADS and PCL are high, particularly for anxiety. Although this suggests an overlap of some elements of the PCL and HADS, it also suggests that other elements of the PCL are tapping something distinct that is not contained in the HADS.
In conclusion, the emotional sequelae of cancer diagnosis can be traumatic for some patients, and may go beyond the patient. The fact that PTSD symptoms are experienced by patients, and even more so by partners, as a result of head and neck cancer diagnosis suggests clinicians need to be aware of this type of reaction in their newly diagnosed patients, as well as their partners.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the patients and partners who generously participated in this study.
Funding was provided by Grants 5R03CA119692 and P30 CA047904 from the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD
Footnotes
No authors have identified any conflicts of interest with this work.
Preliminary data were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, Washington D.C., March 2011.
References
- 1.Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(1):11–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Archer J, Hutchison I, Korszun A. Mood and malignancy: Head and neck cancer and depression. J Oral Pathol Med. 2008;37(5):255–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2008.00635.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Funk GF, Karnell LH, Christensen AJ. Long-term health-related quality of life in survivors of head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;138(2):123–33. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2011.234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Fingeret MC, Vidrine DJ, Reece GP, Gillenwater AM, Gritz ER. Multidimensional analysis of body image concerns among newly diagnosed patients with oral cavity cancer. Head Neck. 2010;32(3):301–9. doi: 10.1002/hed.21181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Chen AM, Jennelle RL, Grady V, et al. Prospective study of psychosocial distress among patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73(1):187–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Haman KL. Psychologic distress and head and neck cancer: part 1--review of the literature. J Support Oncol. 2008;6(4):155–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Longacre ML, Ridge JA, Burtness BA, Galloway TJ, Fang CY. Psychological functioning of caregivers for head and neck cancer patients. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(1):18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.11.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Katz MR, Kopek N, Waldron J, Devins GM, Tomlinson G. Screening for depression in head and neck cancer. Psychooncology. 2004;13(4):269–80. doi: 10.1002/pon.734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zabora J, Brintzenhofeszoc K, Curbow B, Hooker C, Piantodosi S. The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site. Psychooncology. 2001;10:19–28. doi: 10.1002/1099-1611(200101/02)10:1<19::aid-pon501>3.0.co;2-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Singer S, Krauss O, Siegel G, et al. Predictors of emotional distress in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2012;34(2):180–187. doi: 10.1002/hed.21702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Vickery LE, Latchford G, Hewison J, Bellew M, Feber T. The impact of head and neck cancer and facial disfigurement on the quality of life of patients and their partners. Head Neck. 2003;25(4):289–96. doi: 10.1002/hed.10206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Jenewein J, Zwahlen RA, Zwahlen D, Drabe N, Moergeli H, Buchi S. Quality of life and dyadic adjustment in oral cancer patients and their female partners. Eur J Cancer Care. 2008;17(2):127–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2007.00817.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Eerenstein SE, Van der Linden MH, Kuik DJ, de Bree R, Leemans CR. Distress in spouses and patients after treatment for head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope. 2007;117:238–241. doi: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000250169.10241.58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.American Psychiatric Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4. American Psychiatric Association; Washington DC: 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Baum A, Posluszny DM. Traumatic stress as a target for intervention with cancer patients. In: Baum A, Andersen BL, editors. Psychosocial Interventions for Cancer. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2001. pp. 143–173. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Rustad JK, David D, Currier MB. Cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder: Diagnosis, pathogenesis and treatment considerations. Palliat Support Care. 2012;10:212–223. doi: 10.1017/S1478951511000897. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cavalcanti-Ribeiro P, Andrade-Nascimento M, Morais-de-Jesus M, et al. Post-traumatic stress disorder as a comorbidity: impact on disease outcomes. Exp Rev Neurotherap. 2012;12(8):1023–1037. doi: 10.1586/ern.12.77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Shipherd JC, Clum G, Suvak M, Resick PA. Treatment-related reductions in PTSD and changes in physical health symptoms in women. J Behav Med. 2013:1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10865-013-9500-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Pacella ML, Armelie A, Boarts J, et al. The impact of prolonged exposure on PTSD symptoms and associated psychopathology in people living with HIV: a randomized test of concept. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(5):1327–1340. doi: 10.1007/s10461-011-0076-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Weathers F, Litz B, Herman D, Huska J, Keane T. The PTSD Checklist (PCL): Reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. Presented at the 9th meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies; San Antonio, Texas. 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Andrykowski MA, Cordova MJ, Studts JL, Miller TW. Posttraumatic stress disorder after treatment for breast cancer: prevalence of diagnosis and use of the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version (PCL-C) as a screening instrument. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66(3):586–90. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.66.3.586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Blanchard EB, Jones-Alexander J, Buckley TC, Forneris CA. Psychometric properties of the PTSD Checklist (PCL) Behav Res Ther. 1996;34(8):669–73. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(96)00033-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatri Scan. 1983;67(6):361–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Witte K, Cameron KA, McKeon JK, Berkowitz JM. Predicting risk behaviors: development and validation of a diagnostic scale. J Health Communication. 1996;1(4):317–41. doi: 10.1080/108107396127988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Christensen A, Moran P, Ehlers S, Raichle K, Karnell L, Funk G. Smoking and drinking behavior in patients with head and neck cancer: Effects of behavioral self-blame and perceived control. J Behav Med. 1999;22:407–418. doi: 10.1023/a:1018669222706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Fagerstrom K. Measuring degree of physical dependence to tobacco smoking with reference to individualization of treatment. Addict Behav. 1978;3:235–241. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(78)90024-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Katz MR, Irish JC, Devins GM, Rodin GM, Gullane PJ. Reliability and validity of an observer-rated disfigurement scale for head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck. 2000;22(2):132–141. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0347(200003)22:2<132::aid-hed4>3.0.co;2-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kangas M, Henry JL, Bryant RA. Predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder following cancer. Health Psychol. 2005;24(6):579–85. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.24.6.579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Mehnert A, Koch U. Prevalence of acute and post-traumatic stress disorder and comorbid mental disorders in breast cancer patients during primary cancer care: A prospective study. Psychooncology. 2007;16:181–188. doi: 10.1002/pon.1057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Posluszny DM, Edwards RP, Dew MA, Baum A. Perceived threat and PTSD symptoms in women undergoing surgery for gynecologic cancer or benign conditions. Psychooncology. 2011;20(7):783–787. doi: 10.1002/pon.1771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Smith SK, Zimmerman S, Williams CS, Preisser JS, Clipp EC. Post-traumatic stress outcomes in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(6):934–941. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.3414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Jacobsen PB, Widows MR, Hann DM, Andrykowski MA, Kronish LE, Fields KK. Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms after bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer. Psychosom Med. 1998;60(3):366–371. doi: 10.1097/00006842-199805000-00026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Katz MR, Irish JC, Devins GM, Rodin GM, Gullane PJ. Psychosocial adjustment in head and neck cancer: the impact of disfigurement, gender and social support. Head Neck. 2003;25(2):103–112. doi: 10.1002/hed.10174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Hodges LJ, Humphris GM. Fear of recurrence and psychological distress in head and neck cancer patients and their carers. Psychooncology. 2009;18(8):841–8. doi: 10.1002/pon.1346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Ross S, Mosher CE, Ronis-Tobin V, Hermele S, Ostroff JS. Psychosocial adjustment of family caregivers of head and neck cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18(2):171–8. doi: 10.1007/s00520-009-0641-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Drabe N, Zwahlen D, Buchi S, Moergeli H, Zwahlen RA, Jenewein J. Psychiatric morbidity and quality of life in wives of men with long-term head and neck cancer. Psychooncology. 2008;17(2):199–204. doi: 10.1002/pon.1199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Manne S, Badr H, Kashy DA. A longitudinal analysis of intimacy processes and psychological distress among couples coping with head and neck or lung cancers. J Behav Med. 2012;35(3):334–46. doi: 10.1007/s10865-011-9349-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Patel UA, Patadia MO, Holloway N, Rosen F. Poor radiotherapy compliance predicts persistent regional disease in advanced head/neck cancer. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(3):528–33. doi: 10.1002/lary.20072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Favaro A, Gerosa G, Caforio AL, et al. Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in heart transplantation recipients: the relationship with outcome and adherence to medical treatment. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2011;33(1):1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2010.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Luckett T, Britton B, Clover K, Rankin NM. Evidence for interventions to improve psychological outcomes in people with head and neck cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Support Care Cancer. 2011;19(7):871–81. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1119-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Kangas M, Milross C, Taylor A, Bryant RA. A pilot randomized controlled trial of a brief early intervention for reducing posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depressive symptoms in newly diagnosed head and neck cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2012 doi: 10.1002/pon.3208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]