Cited by 177Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentCancer survivorship and careCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social Influences on Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Ovarian Cancer

Open access

Abstract

Purpose: Previous research has demonstrated relationships of social support with disease-related biomarkers in patients with ovarian cancer. However, the clinical relevance of these findings to patient outcomes has not been established. This prospective study examined how social support relates to long-term survival among consecutive patients with ovarian cancer. We focused on two types of social support: social attachment, a type of emotional social support reflecting connections with others, and instrumental social support reflecting the availability of tangible assistance. Patients and Methods: Patients were prospectively recruited during a presurgical clinic visit and completed surveys before surgery. One hundred sixty-eight patients with histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian cancer were observed from the date of surgery until death or December 2010. Clinical information was obtained from medical records. Results: In a Cox regression model, adjusting for disease stage, grade, histology, residual disease, and age, greater social attachment was associated with a lower likelihood of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.98; P = .018). The median survival time for patients with low social attachment categorized on a median split of 15 was 3.35 years (95% CI, 2.56 to 4.15 years). In contrast, by study completion, 59% of patients with high social attachment were still alive after 4.70 years. No significant association was found between instrumental social support and survival, even after adjustment for covariates. Conclusion: Social attachment is associated with a survival advantage for patients with ovarian cancer. Clinical implications include the importance of screening for deficits in the social environment and consideration of support activities during adjuvant treatment.

Overview

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 · 10.1200/jco.2011.39.4411

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Cutrona CE, 1987, Advances in Personal Relationships, Vol. 1, 37
  2. 10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1313 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Burns CM, 2005, Findings from a longitudinal study of patients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer, 13, 295
  4. Moran TJ, 2000, Cancer Res, 60, 867
  5. Herr I, 2003, Cancer Res, 63, 3112

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 177

Metadata

Authors
Lutgendorf, S. K., De Geest, K., Bender, D., Ahmed, A., Goodheart, M. J., Dahmoush, L., Zimmerman, M. B., Penedo, F. J., Lucci, J. A., Ganjei-Azar, P., Thaker, P. H., Mendez, L., Lubaroff, D. M., Slavich, G. M., Cole, S. W., & Sood, A. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Susan K. Lutgendorf, Koen De Geest, David Bender, Amina Ahmed, Michael J. Goodheart, Laila Dahmoush, M. Bridget Zimmerman, and David M. Lubaroff, University of Iowa; Susan K. Lutgendorf and David M. Lubaroff, Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA; Frank J. Penedo, Joseph A. Lucci III, and Parvin Ganjei-Azar, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL; Premal H. Thaker, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; Luis Mendez,...
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2012-08-10
Volume
30
Issue
23
Pages
2885-2890
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2154496739
Cited by
177
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 2
FWCI
14.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Iowa Research Online (The University of Iowa) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (CA 109298, R21CA088293, CA-104825, R01CA109298, CA140933, R01CA116778, R01CA104825, CA-116778, R01CA140933, P50CA083639, P30CA016672)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Keywords
ovarian cancer, social support, social attachment, instrumental support, survival, epithelial ovarian cancer, emotional support, adjuvant therapy
MeSH terms
Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial, Aged, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial, Ovarian Neoplasms, Prospective Studies, Social Support, Proportional Hazards Models, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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