ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study tested the logistical feasibility of obtaining data on social support systems from cancer patients enrolled on clinical trials and compared the social support of older adults (age ≥65) and younger adults (<50 years of age) with cancer. METHODS: Patients had to be eligible for a phase II or phase III oncology clinical trial and enter the study prior to treatment. Patients filled out the Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS) at baseline. The Symptom Distress Scale (SDS) and single-item overall quality of life (QOL) Uniscale were assessed at baseline and weekly for 4 weeks. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in overall mean Lubben social support levels by age. Older patients had more relatives they felt close to (85% versus 53% with 5 or more relatives, P = 0.02), heard from more friends monthly (84% versus 53% with 3 or more friends, P = 0.02), less overall symptom distress (P = 0.03), less insomnia (P = 0.003), better concentration (P = 0.005), better outlook (P = 0.01), and less depression (P = 0.005) than younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Younger subjects reported worse symptoms, a smaller social support network, and fewer close friends and relatives than older subjects. Having someone to discuss decisions and seeing friends or relatives often was associated with longer survival.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms/psychology , Psychometrics/instrumentation , Quality of Life , Surveys and Questionnaires/standards , Algorithms , Clinical Trials as Topic , Endpoint Determination , Humans , Neoplasms/physiopathology , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pain Measurement , Sickness Impact Profile , Surveys and Questionnaires/economicsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Shark cartilage has been a popular complementary or alternative medicine intervention. The basis for this popularity is the claim that sharks rarely get cancer because of the high proportion of cartilage in the shark's body. However, early studies were equivocal. Therefore, a clinical trial was conducted to look at the impact of shark cartilage in patients with advanced cancer. The primary goal of this trial was to determine whether a shark cartilage product improved overall survival for patients with advanced cancer who were getting standard care. Secondary research goals were to evaluate toxicities, tolerability, and quality of life associated with this shark cartilage product. METHODS: The study was a two-arm, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial. Patients with incurable breast or colorectal carcinoma had to have good performance status and organ function. Patients could be receiving chemotherapy. Patients were all to receive standard care and then to be randomly selected to receive either a shark cartilage product or an identical-appearing and smelling placebo 3 to 4 times each day. RESULTS: Data on a total of 83 evaluable patients were analyzed. There was no difference in overall survival between patients receiving standard care plus a shark cartilage product versus standard care plus placebo. Likewise, there was no suggestion of improvement in quality of life for patients receiving the shark cartilage, compared with those receiving placebo. CONCLUSION: This trial was unable to demonstrate any suggestion of efficacy for this shark cartilage product in patients with advanced cancer.
