Cited by 15Cancer survivorship and careEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes

Perioperative risk factors of psychological distress in patients undergoing treatment for esophageal cancer

Open access
Ohkura, Yu, Shindoh, Junichi, Ichikura, Kanako, Udagawa, Harushi, Ueno, Masaki, Matsushima, Eisuke·2020·World Journal of Surgical Oncology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Esophageal cancer patients often feel depressed and are fearful of metastasis and death. The objective of this study was to clarify the characteristics of patients with psychological distress at all 5 time points compared with patients with no psychological distress especially from standpoints of personal coping styles and QOL. Methods: In total, 102 of 152 consecutive patients who attended the outpatient clinic at Toranomon Hospital between April 2017 and April 2019 met eligibility criteria for inclusion in this study. Questionnaires designed to identify psychological distress (HADS-scores) and assess QOL (EORTC QLQ C-30/OES18) were administered at 5 time points from the time of the first outpatient consultation to 3 months after esophagectomy. The questionnaire of coping strategies (MAC-scales) was administered at only time 1 point. Results: Based on the trends of HADS-scores, we defined two groups: “persistent high-HAD scores” and “persistent low-HADS scores.” There are strong relationships between psychological distress and coping strategy, and psychological distress and QOL. The possibility that there are relationships between stress coping strategies and some QOL status depending on some point of treatment. Conclusions: The psychological distress during the treatment course of esophageal cancer is significantly associated with the coping strategies and QOL influenced by esophagectomy. This study can provide baseline information for identifying patients in need of psychological management and paves the way for larger clinical studies in the future.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12957-020-02092-3

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Changes in psychological status of patients undergoing esophagectomy are significantly associated with changes in symptom experience and quality of life brought about by esophagectomy.

    “Ohkura et al. longitudinally tracked changes in the psychological status of patients undergoing esophagectomy at fve time points and showed that changes in patients' psychological status were signifcantly associated with changes in symptom experience and quality of life brought about by esophagectomy [47,48].”

    From Symptom Experiences before Medical Help-Seeking and Psychosocial Responses of Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Qualitative Study. (2023) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Methods report psychological-distress measurements at five time points, and the Results (EORTC QLQ C-30 and psychological distress; page unavailable) find significantly worse functioning and symptoms in the persistently distressed group. However, the study compares groups with persistently high or low distress; it does not show that within-patient changes in psychological status were significantly associated with changes in symptoms or quality of life. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [13]Umphred, Darcy. Neurological rehabilitation (6th ed.). 2012: 838.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ohkura, Y., Shindoh, J., Ichikura, K., Udagawa, H., Ueno, M., & Matsushima, E.
Affiliations
  • Tokyo Medical and Dental University (JP)
  • Toranomon Hospital (JP)
  • Kitasato University (JP)
Corresponding author
Ohkura, Yu
Venue
World Journal of Surgical Oncology
Published
2020-12
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
326-326
ISSN
1477-7819 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3111757166
Cited by
15
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • World Journal of Surgical Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Keywords
esophageal cancer, psychological distress, coping strategies, quality of life, esophagectomy, perioperative period, depression, anxiety, fear of death, psychological management
MeSH terms
Psychological Distress, Esophageal Neoplasms, Humans, Prognosis, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Stress, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review