To date, research on stigmatization among cancer patients and related psychosocial consequences has been scarce and mostly based on small and highly selected samples. We investigated stigmatization and its impact on quality of life among a large sample including four major tumor entities. We assessed 858 patients with breast, colon, lung or prostate cancer from two cancer registries. Stigmatization and quality of life (QoL) was assessed with the Social Impact Scale (SIS-D) and the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer), respectively. Group effects were analyzed via analyses of variance, relationships were investigated via Pearson’s r and stepwise regression analyses. The mean age was 60.7 years, 54% were male. Across cancer sites, the dimensions of stigmatization (isolation, social rejection, financial insecurity and internalized shame) were in the lower and middle range, with the highest values found for isolation. Stigmatization was lowest among prostate cancer patients. Stigmatization predicted all five areas of QoL among breast cancer patients (p < .05), but only affected emotional functioning (p < .01) among lung cancer patients. We found an inverse relationship between perceived cancer-related stigmatization and various dimensions of QoL, with variation between cancer sites. Breast cancer patients should be focused in individual therapies regarding the negative consequences accompanied by perceived stigmatization.

Coping with cancer can potentially modify couples’ quality of life (QoL). The predictive impact of dyadic coping (DC) on QoL was investigated within patients with hematological cancer and their partners. Data were collected in a multi-centre longitudinal study (N = 208 couples). We use the SF-12 questionnaire (QoL) and the Dyadic Coping Inventory. Data were mainly analyzed with actor–partner interdependence models (APIM). Within the APIM, baseline QoL was the most significant predictor for QoL (t2). Regarding DC, there were partner effects on physical QoL (t2) and actor and partner effects on mental QoL at t2. Different subtypes of DC have intra- and/or interpersonal impact on patient’s or partner’s QoL. In a clinical setting, patients as well as partners should be seen as both a source of support for each other and as individuals in need of support themselves. Such awareness and targeted intervention may help couples adapt to and cope with cancer.

Background: Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) has become increasingly popular among cancer patients. The prevalence of CAM use differs worldwide and depends on different sociodemographic and medical characteristics. Findings on predictors for CAM use and its benefits for quality of Life (QoL) have been inconclusive in recent studies.Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence and methods of CAM use in breast cancer (BC) and gynecological cancer (GC) patients, to compare CAM users vs. non-CAM users regarding their sociodemographic and medical characteristics, and to investigate the relationship between CAM use and QoL.Methods: In a sub-analysis from a multicenter, cross-sectional study in Germany, we examined 1,214 female cancer patients (897 with BC and 317 with GC). We obtained data from self-reports via standardized questionnaires and measured QoL with the EORTC QLQ-C30.Results: In total, 565 of the 1,214 patients (46.5%) used some form of CAM. Its use was higher in BC than in GC patients (48.6% vs. 40.7%). In both cancer groups, the users evaluated CAM as being helpful (BC: 60.8%, GC: 59.6%) The most frequently used CAM methods were vitamins/minerals/micronutrients, homeopathy, and mistletoe therapy. CAM users are younger, more highly educated, and financially better off than non-CAM users. They are also characterized by having been diagnosed with cancer a longer time ago, being at more advanced stages of the disease, and experiencing higher distress levels. CAM use is significantly associated with a lower global health status/ QoL in GC patients. Predictors for CAM use are: high level of vocational education, middle or high monthly income, time span since diagnosis of more than 12 months, the status of currently ongoing chemotherapy or hormone therapy treatment, and distress.Conclusion: Our data support the findings of previous studies and highlight the need to develop a consistent CAM definition with respect to comparability and evaluation of CAM services. More longitudinal studies are desirable to establish viable associations between CAM use and relevant outcomes such as QoL or disease management.