
==== Front
Support Care Cancer
Support Care Cancer
Supportive Care in Cancer
0941-4355
1433-7339
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

39225728
8800
10.1007/s00520-024-08800-z
Research
Changes in health-related quality of life, depression, and fear of progression during oncological inpatient rehabilitation and beyond: a longitudinal study
Giesler Jürgen M. juergen.giesler@uniklinik-freiburg.de

1
Weis Joachim 2
1 https://ror.org/0245cg223 grid.5963.9 0000 0004 0491 7203 Section of Health Care Research and Rehabilitation Research, Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Hugstetter Str. 49, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
2 https://ror.org/0245cg223 grid.5963.9 0000 0004 0491 7203 Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Self-Help Research, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany
2 9 2024
2 9 2024
2024
32 9 62627 3 2024
11 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Purpose

Studies evaluating oncological inpatient rehabilitation rarely include follow-up intervals beyond 6 months and larger proportions of patients other than those with breast cancer. Therefore, this study investigated changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), depression, and fear of progression of patients with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer from the beginning to the end of oncological rehabilitation and a 9-month follow-up.

Methods

Three hundred seventy-seven patients with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer undergoing oncological inpatient rehabilitation (median age 61 years, 49% female) completed the EORTC QLQ-C30, the PHQ-9, and the FoP-Q-SF at each measurement point. Data analysis used 3 (tumor site) × 3 (time of measurement) repeated measures ANCOVAs with patient age and time since diagnosis as covariates. At each time point, we also compared our sample to the general population on the measures used.

Results

Having controlled for the covariates, we found significant effects of tumor site, which were small except for Diarrhea. Effects of time of measurement were often significant and in part at least medium in size indicating improvement of HRQoL and depression during rehabilitation. At follow-up, some HRQoL domains and depression deteriorated. Women with breast cancer, in particular, showed a greater decrease in emotional functioning then. Compared to the general population, the sample’s HRQoL and depression were significantly worse on most occasions.

Conclusion

Oncological inpatient rehabilitation may improve HRQoL. The subsequent and in part differential deterioration in some HRQoL domains suggests a need for further follow-up care within survivorship programs.

Keywords

Cancer
Oncological rehabilitation
Health-related quality of life
Depression
Fear of progression
Survivorship
Universitätsklinikum Freiburg (8975)Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The diagnosis of cancer and cancer treatment is frequently associated with acute, long-term, and late sequelae affecting the patient’s physical and psychological functioning, including, e.g., health-related quality of life (HRQoL) [1], emotional distress [2, 3], anxiety and depression [4–6], and fear of progression (FoP) [7]. Aimed at reducing the impact of such disabling and handicapping conditions, oncological rehabilitation attempts to enable patients to adapt to their new situation by regaining physical, social, psychological, and work-related functioning [8]. Its interventions range from techniques targeting specific limitations to more comprehensive multi-modal inpatient approaches. Given current epidemiological trends in cancer incidence and survival, the relevance of cancer rehabilitation with respect to survivorship is expected to even increase in the future [8].

In German-speaking countries, oncological rehabilitation is provided either in an inpatient format at specialized centers over a 3-week period on average or in an outpatient format. In line with the overall goals of oncological rehabilitation, it may include medical treatment, diet counseling, exercise and physical training, health education, psychological support, mind–body interventions, and social counseling tailored to the individual patient’s needs. Addressing key areas of impairment referred to above, studies evaluating the effects of oncological inpatient rehabilitation have frequently included HRQoL, depression, anxiety, or FoP as patient-reported outcomes (PRO) [9–29]. Primarily employing quasi-experimental, longitudinal designs, the majority of these studies [9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28] included more than two measurement points demonstrating mostly positive and in part stable changes. However, only seven of these studies covered follow-up intervals beyond 6 months after the end of rehabilitation [12, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27]. In addition, even fewer studies included larger proportions of patients with other than breast cancer, like, e.g., colorectal [11, 22, 24, 26] or prostate cancer [15, 23, 24]. Consequently, knowledge on the development of HRQoL, depression, and FoP beyond the end of oncological inpatient rehabilitation is largely scarce as is knowledge on whether patients with different cancers might differ in their development in regard to these outcomes in the long term. Information on these outcomes might, among other things, help identify potential differences in rehabilitation and care needs between different tumor diagnostic groups.

Given these limitations of research in this field of oncological inpatient rehabilitation, the present study aimed to investigate whether.HRQoL, depression, and FoP change during oncological inpatient rehabilitation and the subsequent 9 months

Breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer differ in regard to their potential changes in these PROs

And to compare the sample’s HRQoL, depression, and FoP to reference values of the general population [30, 31] and to a recommended cut-off for dysfunctional FoP [32]

The study was part of a larger research project focusing upon the measurement of patient competencies in the context of cancer, their potential change during rehabilitation and beyond, and their relationship with HRQoL, depression, and FoP. Results on the first two of these issues have already been reported elsewhere [33, 34].

Methods

Design and procedure

The study included N = 377 patients from the overall project who received inpatient rehabilitation for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer in nine clinics for oncological rehabilitation. These cancer types had been chosen to represent three of the most frequent tumor entities. Eligibility criteria further required patients to be at least 18 years old, sufficiently fluent in German, willing to participate in a questionnaire study and not suffering from acute psychiatric illness were eligible for the study. After having been informed about the study by clinic staff and providing written consent, patients completed questionnaires at the beginning and at the end of rehabilitation, and 9 months later. As twenty of the patients had experienced a local recurrence lately, they were excluded from data analyses in order to create a more homogeneous sample in regard to potential treatments received during rehabilitation, resulting in N = 357 for analysis.

The study was approved by the University of Freiburg Ethics Committee (No. 359/12) and registered at the German Register of Clinical Studies (No. DRKS00004410).

Measures

HRQoL was measured with the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) [35]. It includes 30 items covering several domains of functioning and symptoms of cancer patients (global health, physical functioning, fatigue, etc.). Functioning and symptom scale scores represent sums of item sets and are transformed to range from 0 to 100. Higher scores on the global health and functioning scales indicate better quality of life, and higher scores on the symptom scales indicate higher symptom burden. In the present sample, the median internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 multi-item scales was Mdn = 0.85 at baseline.

Depression was measured with the German version of the PHQ-9 [36], a module of the Patient Health Questionnaire assessing symptoms of a major depressive disorder by nine items. Summing across item responses gives a scale score ranging from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating higher depression. In this sample, the internal consistency at baseline was 0.82.

FoP was measured with the Fear of Progression Questionnaire short form (FoP-Q-SF) [37]. Its 12 items address various cognitive and emotional facets of FoP. Summing across all items yields a score ranging from 12 to 60, with higher scores reflecting higher FoP. A score of 34 or above is assumed to be indicative of a dysfunctional level of FoP [32]. At baseline, the internal consistency in this sample was 0.82.

Selected sociodemographic data were provided by patients’ self-reports. Medical data were obtained from patients’ medical records at the collaborating centers.

Statistical methods

Power calculations for the overall project were specified for a 3 × 2 × 3 repeated measures design with the between groups factors of tumor site and curative vs. palliative treatment situation and three measurement points [34]. Consulting appropriate statistical tables [38], a sample size of N = 288 appeared adequate for detecting small (f = 0.1) interaction effects of these three factors given a type one error of 0.01 and a power (1–β) of 0.80. In order to improve the chances of detecting a smaller than medium effect of the tumor site somewhat, we increased the intended cell size per site to 136, totaling N = 408. Assuming a dropout of 25%, the overall project aimed to recruit 512 participants at baseline in order to meet this requirement.

Data analysis included descriptive statistics for sociodemographic and medical variables and χ2-tests and one-way ANOVAs in order to determine baseline differences by tumor site. In order to analyze changes across time, we employed a 3 (tumor site: S) × 3 (time of measurement, T) repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) design that included patient age and TsD as covariates controlling for respective baseline between groups differences described further below. Testing the effects involving time of measurement, we used Huyn-Feldt-adjusted F-values where indicated. Post-hoc between-group comparisons included Bonferroni adjustments. Comparing the sample’s PRO overall means to a respective reference value [30–32], we used two-tailed one-sample t-tests. As effect size measures, Cohen’s d, ϕ, or (partial) η2 were employed. Throughout, missing values were not imputed. Employing χ2-techniques or t-tests, we compared patients available at follow-up with dropouts on selected sociodemographic and medical variables and baseline PROs in order to determine potential bias from dropouts.

Results

Sample

Patients were 61.1 years old on average (SD = 9.4). Mean age varied significantly as a function of tumor site (F = 24.0, df: 2, 350; p < 0.001, η2 = 0.12; breast cancer: M = 56.8, colorectal cancer: M = 60.8, and prostate cancer: M = 65.2 years). Median TsD was Mdn = 9.4 months (range 0.7–325). TsD also varied significantly as a function of the tumor site. It was longer in breast cancer women (Mdn = 12.8 months) compared to colorectal and prostate cancer patients (Mdn = 8.4 and 4.1 months, respectively; Kruskal–Wallis H = 42.3, df: 2, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.13.

Table 1 presents further information on sociodemographic and medical sample baseline characteristics. In most of these, diagnostic groups differ significantly, with effect sizes being mostly small or medium, except for tumor size (T1: breast cancer 39%, colorectal cancer 11%, prostate cancer 5%, ϕ = 0.52). Table 1 Absolute (f) and relative (%) frequencies of sociodemographic and medical sample characteristics by tumor site

Tumor site	Breast	Colorectal	Prostate	All			
Characteristica	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	χ2	ϕ	
Gender (n = 357)									n.cb		
Female	98	100	69	49	-	-	167	47			
Male	-	-	72	51	118	100	190	53			
Marital status (n = 354)								20.42**	.24	
Single	12	12	14	10	1	1	27	8			
Married/cohabitating	58	60	94	67	97	84	249	70			
Divorced/separated	18	19	18	13	11	10	47	14			
Widowed	9	9	15	11	7	6	31	9			
Education (n = 343)								5.54	-	
9 years	24	25	44	33	35	30	103	30			
10 years	35	36	42	31	30	27	107	31			
12 years	11	11	15	11	20	18	46	13			
13 years	27	28	33	25	27	24	87	25			
Employment (n = 354)								16.97***	.22	
Yes (full-time or other)	69	71	81	57	50	43	200	57			
No	28	29	60	43	66	57	154	43			
T (n = 318)c									86.41***	.52	
T1	31	39	14	11	5	5	50	16			
T2	38	48	28	22	50	46	116	37			
T3	10	13	70	54	49	45	129	41			
T4	1	1	18	14	4	4	23	7			
N (n = 335)									35.54***	.33	
Negative	41	47	69	53	68	59	178	53			
Positive	45	51	61	47	30	26	136	41			
X	2	2	1	1	18	16	21	6			
Primary metastases (n = 326)								8.60	-	
No	72	87	104	80	93	82	269	83			
Yes	10	12	22	17	11	10	43	13			
X	1	1	4	3	9	8	14	4			
Secondary metastases (n = 222)							31.39***	.38	
No	25	50	65	92	83	82	173	78			
Yes	25	50	6	9	18	18	49	22			
Significant χ2-values in bold; ϕ reported for significant χ2-values only

an’s less than 357 result from missing values in row and/or column variables; bn.c., not computed; canalysis restricted to tumor stages T1 through T4 in order to avoid expected cell frequencies less than 5 when including Tis, T0, and X

*p ≤ .05; **p ≤ 01, ***p ≤ .001

At follow-up, 50 patients (14%) had dropped out of the study. Dropouts and completers were comparable on all PRO baseline measures except for Nausea and Vomiting (completers scoring lower, p < 0.05), the effect size being small, however (η2 < 0.05). Sociodemographic and medical characteristics showed only a few significant and small differences between completers and dropouts. Compared to dropouts, a higher proportion of completers received curative treatment and showed no metastases, while tumor stage was either “indeterminate” or T4 in a smaller proportion of them (p ≤ 0.01, ϕ being 0.19, 0.25, and 0.21, respectively).

Differences between tumor diagnostic groups and changes across time

Table 2 shows few significant and mostly small effects (η2 < 0.06) of the covariates patient age and TsD. The small effect of patient age on social functioning indicates that higher age is associated with better social functioning (β = 0.18, not in Table 2), while its moderate effect on financial difficulties implies higher age to go along with fewer difficulties (β =  − 0.26). The small significant effects of TsD on fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, and constipation indicate a longer TsD to be associated with higher symptom burden (0.14 ≤ β ≤ 0.17). Table 2 F-values and partial η2 from 3 (tumor site, S) × 3 (time, T) repeated measurement ANCOVAs with patient age (Age) and TsD as covariates (240 ≤ n ≤ 287)

Scale	Covariate, main, and interaction effect terms	
Statistic	Age	TsD	Site	Time	Time × Site	
EORTC QLQ C-30 functioning scales	
Physical functioning	F	2.06	1.09	3.74*	32.00***	2.00	
pη2	–	–	.03	.10	–	
Role functioning	F	3.01	2.02	.48	45.87***	1.40	
pη2	–	–	–	.14	–	
Emotional functioning	F	.01	1.40	2.16	82.92***	5.68***	
pη2	–	–	–	.23	.04	
Cognitive functioning	F	2.53	2.69	5.60**	17.24***	2.28	
pη2	–	–	.04	.06	–	
Social functioning	F	8.38**	2.72	.94	55.01***	.26	
pη2	.03	–	–	.17	–	
Global health	F	.18	2.81	.40	54.95***	.20	
pη2	–	–	–	.17	–	
Depression and fear of progression	
Depression	F	.64	.73	3.46*	57.01***	5.66***	
pη2	–	–	.03	.18	.04	
Fear of progression	F	1.26	.79	1.16	1.98	.73	
pη2	–	–	–	–	–	
EORTC QLQ C-30 symptom scales	
Fatigue	F	.02	7.73*	6.34**	52.87***	.57	
pη2	–	.03	.04	.16	–	
Nausea and vomiting	F	2.89	4.67*	1.25	2.94	1.10	
pη2	–	.02	–	–	–	
Pain	F	.05	5.39*	4.17*	20.74***	1.39	
pη2	–	.02	.03	.07	–	
Dyspnea	F	.23	1.26	7.81***	10.67***	3.52*	
pη2	–	–	.05	.04	.03	
Insomnia	F	.99	.64	4.45*	14.68***	.57	
pη2	–	–	.03	.05	–	
Appetite loss	F	.00	.47	3.44*	12.00***	2.68*	
pη2	–	–	.02	.04	.02	
Constipation	F	3.26	5.97*	.54	3.20*	1.06	
pη2	–	.02	–	.01	–	
Diarrhea	F	1.26	1.42	25.68***	8.40***	.60	
pη2	–	–	.16	.03	–	
Financial difficulties	F	18.00***	.02	6.28**	1.20	.90	
pη2	.06	–	.04	–	–	
Note: Significant F-values in bold

* p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ 01, *** p ≤ .001

Having controlled for both covariates, we find several significant effects of tumor site, which are large for diarrhea and small for physical functioning, cognitive functioning, depression, fatigue, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, and financial difficulties. On average, patients with breast cancer report lower physical and cognitive functioning, more depression, fatigue, dyspnea, and insomnia than patients with prostate cancer (Tables 3 and 4). Compared to patients with colorectal cancer, they report lower cognitive functioning, more pain, and insomnia. In contrast, patients with colorectal cancer report more diarrhea than patients with breast and prostate cancer. They also report more financial difficulties than patients with prostate cancer. Regarding appetite loss, the post-hoc comparisons reveal no significant differences between patient groups. Table 3 Results of 3 (tumor site) × 3 (time of measurement) repeated measures ANCOVAs of EORTC QLQ C-30 functioning scales, depression, and fear of progression (240 ≤ n ≤ 282)

Scale	Site	Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD) or Standard Errors (SE), resp., and Reference Values (REF)	
M1	SD1	M2	SD2	M3	SD3	M1,2,3	SE(M1,2,3)	MREF	
Physical functioning	Breast	65.57	19.78	73.95	17.71	72.72	19.30	70.61	1.98		
Colorectal	70.25	18.15	77.92	16.23	79.14	18.39	75.31	1.60		
Prostate	74.95	19.07	77.68	17.69	79.86	22.88	78.14	1.76		
All	70.52a	19.22	76.73	17.18	77.58	20.41			78.9	
Role functioning	Breast	50.21	28.93	63.92	27.66	60.76	29.60	60.42	2.76		
Colorectal	49.21	28.11	64.31	26.07	65.25	29.11	59.26	2.26		
Prostate	51.95	32.41	67.20	28.55	72.70	29.62	62.54	2.47		
All	50.42a	29.77	65.17a	27.32	66.49a	29.70			77.7	
Emotional functioning	Breast	50.82	26.56	75.68	21.18	58.01	25.81	62.22	2.48		
Colorectal	60.06	24.68	73.97	22.62	67.77	21.89	66.82	1.99		
Prostate	62.46	26.21	75.00	21.78	70.85	25.04	69.36	2.18		
All	58.30a	26.07	74.79a	21.88	66.10a	24.57			79.1	
Cognitive functioning	Breast	58.76	28.01	69.23	28.56	65.38	28.01	66.66	2.71		
Colorectal	72.07	27.23	77.93	25.36	78.55	22.91	75.69	2.17		
Prostate	78.19	23.95	84.40	21.28	78.19	24.32	79.01	2.39		
All	70.42a	27.41	77.68a	25.65	74.76a	25.48			88.9	
Social functioning	Breast	53.85	30.85	70.09	28.22	66.03	27.58	66.42	2.73		
Colorectal	55.81	29.60	72.78	25.42	72.02	28.32	66.48	2.18		
Prostate	53.90	28.96	70.74	23.78	68.79	29.66	62.36	2.40		
All	54.63a	29.65	71.35a	25.64	69.28a	28.58			86.7	
Global health	Breast	53.84	18.63	66.89	18.66	64.36	19.13	62.72	1.90		
Colorectal	54.63	19.21	65.28	17.48	65.12	20.23	61.23	1.50		
Prostate	53.23	20.71	64.96	16.51	63.89	22.47	60.37	1.66		
All	53.94a	19.51	65.61	17.45	64.50	20.65			64.3	
Depression	Breast	8.48	4.31	4.89	3.51	6.67	4.49	6.50	.45		
Colorectal	6.06	4.18	4.63	3.58	5.44	3.95	5.40	.36		
Prostate	5.51	4.16	4.01	4.08	4.71	4.47	4.86	.41		
All	6.55a	4.37	4.50a	3.74	5.54a	4.33			3.2	
Fear of progression	Breast	32.83	7.65	31.61	7.69	32.10	8.43	31.74	.95		
Colorectal	32.63	8.58	32.39	7.77	31.55	8.85	32.24	.80		
Prostate	30.16	7.80	30.11	8.34	29.76	8.84	30.38	.92		
All	31.92a	8.12	31.44a	7.95	31.15a	8.74			34.0	
aSignificant (p ≤ .001) difference of a respective overall sample mean from the age-matched reference value of the German general population for the QLQ-C30 [23], the PHQ-9 [24], or the cutoff for dysfunctional FoP [32], respectively

Table 4 Results of 3 (tumor site) × 3 (time of measurement) repeated measures ANCOVAs of EORTC QLQ C-30 symptom scales (273 ≤ n ≤ 287)

Scale	Site	Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD) or Standard Errors (SE), resp., and Reference Values (REF)	
M1	SD1	M2	SD2	M3	SD3	M1,2,3	SE(M1,2,3)	MREF	
Fatigue	Breast	59.56	25.69	45.50	23.79	47.96	28.94	49.07	2.58		
Colorectal	50.75	25.05	36.74	21.70	37.64	23.21	42.77	2.06		
Prostate	43.01	26.47	33.05	24.19	32.13	29.11	36.43	2.25		
All	50.56a	26.42	37.90a	23.59	38.62a	27.55			29.2	
Nausea and vomiting	Breast	5.06	10.46	2.95	8.34	5.27	14.26	3.36	1.12		
Colorectal	6.64	14.22	4.32	13.16	4.48	12.61	5.42	.91		
Prostate	2.98	8.76	2.28	7.92	4.39	14.22	3.79	.99		
All	4.96	11.64	3.25	10.35	4.67	13.59			4.0	
Pain	Breast	39.61	30.23	30.74	26.77	35.93	32.00	33.85	2.87		
Colorectal	27.33	29.11	19.52	25.11	20.12	25.04	23.33	2.27		
Prostate	33.16	30.09	21.13	24.94	20.79	30.05	25.13	2.48		
All	32.63	30.05	23.10a	25.86	24.62a	29.49			32.8	
Dyspnea	Breast	46.75	29.25	33.77	24.48	31.17	31.69	36.71	2.86		
Colorectal	30.86	29.43	27.78	27.53	24.69	29.31	28.34	2.30		
Prostate	21.99	27.46	20.57	28.96	21.28	27.59	21.05	2.52		
All	32.26a	30.23	27.00	27.62	25.33	29.58			23.2	
Insomnia	Breast	57.81	35.29	49.79	34.95	45.57	34.66	50.99	3.40		
Colorectal	45.60	31.98	37.74	28.39	38.68	32.90	40.07	2.78		
Prostate	43.26	37.81	32.62	33.15	34.40	34.72	37.50	3.04		
All	48.27a	35.37	39.43a	32.59	39.19a	34.19			30.2	
Appetite loss	Breast	12.24	22.76	5.06	16.09	10.13	22.24	8.76	2.28		
Colorectal	21.91	31.63	11.73	23.82	12.35	22.60	15.58	1.85		
Prostate	10.75	20.94	7.17	20.17	11.47	23.31	9.84	2.05		
All	15.48a	26.45	8.33	20.79	11.43	22.67			8.2	
Constipation	Breast	14.72	28.35	12.99	24.28	15.15	25.68	13.81	2.54		
Colorectal	16.98	28.28	12.65	23.56	18.52	28.58	17.16	2.03		
Prostate	21.63	27.96	14.89	26.15	15.96	27.53	16.61	2.23		
All	17.92a	28.23	13.50a	24.59	16.73a	27.39			8.2	
Diarrhea	Breast	11.40	21.47	5.70	14.80	8.77	20.63	7.18	2.64		
Colorectal	32.08	35.61	23.27	29.52	31.13	35.71	29.16	2.12		
Prostate	12.09	23.58	7.69	17.97	13.55	25.33	11.93	2.34		
All	19.66a	29.88	13.19a	23.85	19.05a	30.31			7.4	
Financial difficulties	Breast	27.78	32.42	24.79	30.60	27.35	35.53	23.22	3.28		
Colorectal	31.80	36.40	29.66	35.24	26.30	33.97	28.88	2.61		
Prostate	11.96	25.48	12.68	25.60	10.51	23.66	15.06	2.91		
All	24.13a	33.08	22.70a	31.77	21.39a	32.25			9.5	
aSignificant (p ≤ .001) difference of a respective overall sample mean from the age-matched reference value of the German general population for the QLQ-C30 [23]

Effects of time of measurement are significant and mostly at least moderate (η2 ≥ 0.06) on all but three outcomes (fear of progression, nausea and vomiting, and financial difficulties). They primarily indicate improvement during rehabilitation that is stable at 9 months (Tables 3 and 4). Regarding emotional and cognitive functioning, depression, appetite loss, and diarrhea, there also is some deterioration at 9 months, however.

Finally, there are some significant and generally small interaction effects between tumor site and time of measurement indicating differential change across time (Tables 2, 3, 4). Compared to patients with colorectal or prostate cancer, patients with breast cancer improve to a greater extent during rehabilitation in emotional functioning but deteriorate again to a greater extent thereafter. Depression follows a similar pattern. Regarding dyspnea, patients with breast cancer show greater improvement during rehabilitation and thereafter appear to be stable. Patients with colorectal cancer show a comparable change regarding appetite loss.

Comparison with reference values

Compared to EORTC QLQ-C30 norms from the German general population [30] (see last column of Tables 3 and 4), the present sample scores significantly lower on average on all EORTC QLQ-C30 functioning scales on nearly all time points except for physical functioning and the Global Health scale. The mean effect size (|d|= 0.74) is moderate (d > 0.50) at the beginning of rehabilitation, and smaller afterwards (mean |d’s| being 0.32 and 0.36, respectively, values not given in Table 3). Complementarily, the sample scores significantly higher throughout on 5 of the 9 symptom scales, whereby moderate to large effect sizes result in fatigue and insomnia (0.81 and 0.51, respectively, values not given in Table 4), which decrease thereafter. Similarly, the sample’s mean depression score at each time point is significantly higher than the suggested reference value [31] with moderate effect sizes at the beginning of rehabilitation and at follow-up. In contrast, FoP means are significantly lower than the cutoff for dysfunctional FoP [32].

Discussion

Employing an RM-ANCOVA design that included comparable proportions of patients with breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer attending inpatient rehabilitation and the covariates patient age and TsD, this study investigated effects of tumor site, time of measurement, and their interaction on HRQoL, depression, and FoP. Given their effect sizes being small, even where significant, we found the influence of the covariates to be weak except for the association between higher patient age and lesser financial difficulties. The latter may in part reflect the sample composition, which included about 31% of retired participants living on regular pension. In addition, it should be noted that the relationship of patient age with social functioning and financial difficulties, respectively, is in line with previous research [1]. Regarding effects of tumor site, we found significant differences between patients with breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer in HRQoL and depression across time independent of patient age and TsD. Albeit mostly small in terms of effect size, these differences may be understood as partly reflecting persisting care needs specific to a particular group of patients. Primarily, this applies to patients with colorectal cancer who report a comparatively higher diarrhea symptom burden, thus reflecting the only larger effect (η2 ≥ 0.14) of tumor site. It also applies to patients with breast cancer, however, who show greater impairment on the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales of physical and cognitive functioning as well as on six of the symptom scales and on PHQ-9 depression. These differences may at least in part be due to the effects of prior treatment under acute care or surgery. In particular, receiving endocrine therapy, e.g., might have contributed to breast cancer patients’ higher levels of functional impairment or symptoms. Unfortunately, subsample sizes of breast cancer patients not having received, having completed, or still receiving endocrine therapy, respectively, did not allow valid testing of this hypothesis here. Therefore, further research aimed at explaining such differences between tumor diagnostic groups is required, as these thus far have often been covered merely descriptively by previous studies [24, 29].

The significant and in terms of effect size moderate to large changes in most HRQoL domains and depression during oncological inpatient rehabilitation and beyond may be seen as the main result of the present study. As to be expected from previous research, these changes indicate general improvement during rehabilitation. These are most prominent in role, emotional, and social functioning, fatigue, and depression. However, while improvement in most of these outcomes remained stable 9 months after rehabilitation, there was significant deterioration in some others, which in part also appeared to apply only to subgroups of patients, like, e.g., emotional functioning in patients with breast cancer or diarrhea in patients with colorectal cancer. Here again, the question of how to explain these differential changes arises. In the present study, ex-post analyses suggested that compared to colorectal or prostate cancer patients a higher proportion of patients with breast cancer indicated having experienced “distressing life events” (without further specification) during the previous 6 months (51.2%, 43.6%, and 27.1%, respectively, p < 0.005) and hospital re-admissions related to their disease and surgery (25%, 11%, and 7%, respectively, p < 0.05). Of course, this may not generalize beyond the current sample. However, as some previous studies have in part observed indications of differential deterioration in HRQoL after inpatient rehabilitation [23, 24], too, further research on possible determinants of such trajectories is again called for.

Comparing the overall sample means of each measurement point to available reference values for HRQoL, depression, and FoP revealed that in spite of obvious improvement during rehabilitation, patients continued to score significantly lower than available reference values in some of these outcomes. This is in line with the results of earlier studies [23, 25]. Although effect sizes for differences had decreased at follow-up, moderate ones were still observed there for emotional, cognitive, and social functioning. Regarding FoP, the sample’s mean scores were significantly lower than the cutoff suggested for dysfunctional FoP [32] from the first measurement point onwards. This might suggest the majority of the sample had no need for treatment in this respect, thus leading to no detectable improvement in FoP in contrast to other studies [19, 21]. In fact, the latter of these studies reports post-and follow-up FoP mean scores of about M = 32 that are only slightly higher than those reported here.

Aside from providing suggestions for further research, the results of this study may inform the practice of oncological rehabilitation and follow-up care. Implementing screening for distress in its various forms at the beginning of rehabilitation, e.g., may help tailor rehabilitative treatments even better to the individual patient’s needs and thus achieve a major principle of rehabilitative services. When compared to available norms for the German general population, patients scored still notably worse in some HRQoL domains and symptoms and higher on depression at the end of rehabilitation or at the 9-month follow-up in spite of prior improvement. This obviously suggests the need for additional follow-up care. The deterioration observed in breast cancer patients, e.g., in emotional functioning at follow-up, points in the same direction. The task of providing appropriate follow-up care would imply integrating the detection of respective care needs and the provision of appropriate interventions. This might be accomplished through currently discussed national survivorship programs that integrate a wide range of medical and psychosocial services and the collaboration of acute care, in- and outpatient rehabilitation, and cancer counseling centers [39–42].

Strength and limitations

Strengths of this study include its multi-factorial and multi-center approach, the inclusion of three major tumor entities to comparable proportions, the comparatively large sample size, and a follow-up interval covering 9 months. However, some limitations also need to be considered. First, the longitudinal observational design precludes causal inferences on rehabilitation effects. Second, in spite of the largely positive results of the dropout analyses, selection effects cannot completely be excluded as the response rate at study entry could not be recorded. Third, the final sample size is somewhat lower than originally planned, so some other than main effects may have been missed. Fourth, gender and tumor site are in part confounded. Fifth, generalizing findings to other tumor entities and other than inpatient settings is not possible, thus indicating the need for further research.

Conclusion

Oncological inpatient rehabilitation has the potential to significantly improve patients’ HRQoL and depression. Some HRQoL functions and symptoms may deteriorate again somewhat later, indicating the need for subsequent follow-up care that can be addressed through survivorship programs. Research addressing the possible differential change of HRQoL outcomes after rehabilitation and its determinants might help improve rehabilitation and survivorship services further.

Acknowledgements

We thank the participating patients and survivors. Our thanks also go to the following colleagues who supported this multi-center study in their role as former Medical Directors or physicians at their rehabilitation centers: Dres. G. Adam and C. Zeller, Asklepios Clinic for Oncological Rehabilitation, Triberg; Prof. Dr. H.H. Bartsch, Clinic for Oncological Rehabilitation, Clinic for Tumor Biology, Freiburg; PD Dr. R. Caspari, Paracelsus Clinic by the Lake, Clinic for Oncological Rehabilitation, Bad Gandersheim; Dr. T. Dauelsberg, Winkelwald Clinic, Clinic for Oncological Rehabilitation, Nordrach; Dr. W. Hoffmann, Clinic for Oncological Rehabilitation, Park Therme, Badenweiler; Dr. R. Kobes-Schrödel, Adelsberg Clinic for Oncological Rehabilitation, Bad Berka; Dr. J. Körber, Nahetal Clinic for Oncological Rehabilitation, Bad Kreuznach; Dr. H. Schäfer, Wehrawald Clinic, Rehabilitation Center Todtmoos, Todtmoos; PD Dr. J. Teichmann and Dr. C. Fernandes Almeida, Rehabilitation Center Oberharz, Clausthal-Zellerfeld.

Author contribution

Both authors contributed to the conceptualization of the study design, the acquisition, statistical analysis and interpretation of the data, to drafting and revising the paper, and to finally approving the version to be submitted.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research funded this study under Grant No. 01GX1051.

Data availability

The data on which the present analyses are based will be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. It was approved by the University of Freiburg Ethics Committee (No. 359/12) and registered at the German Register of Clinical Studies (No. DRKS00004410).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Quinten C The effects of age on health-related quality of life in cancer populations: a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 involving 6024 cancer patients Eur J Cancer 2015 51 18 2808 2819 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.08.027 26602015
Quinten C et al (2015) The effects of age on health-related quality of life in cancer populations: a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 involving 6024 cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 51(18):2808–281926602015 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.08.027
2. Carlson LE Prevalence of psychosocial distress in cancer patients across 55 North American cancer centers J Psychosoc Oncol 2019 37 1 5 21 10.1080/07347332.2018.1521490 30592249
Carlson LE et al (2019) Prevalence of psychosocial distress in cancer patients across 55 North American cancer centers. J Psychosoc Oncol 37(1):5–2130592249 10.1080/07347332.2018.1521490
3. Mehnert A One in two cancer patients is significantly distressed: prevalence and indicators of distress Psychooncology 2018 27 1 75 82 10.1002/pon.4464 28568377
Mehnert A et al (2018) One in two cancer patients is significantly distressed: prevalence and indicators of distress. Psychooncology 27(1):75–8228568377 10.1002/pon.4464
4. Goerling U Prevalence and severity of anxiety in cancer patients: results from a multi-center cohort study in Germany J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2023 149 9 6371 6379 10.1007/s00432-023-04600-w 36757620
Goerling U et al (2023) Prevalence and severity of anxiety in cancer patients: results from a multi-center cohort study in Germany. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 149(9):6371–637936757620 10.1007/s00432-023-04600-w
5. Bach A Psychiatric comorbidities in cancer survivors across tumor subtypes: a systematic review World J Psychiatry 2022 12 4 623 635 10.5498/wjp.v12.i4.623 35582337
Bach A et al (2022) Psychiatric comorbidities in cancer survivors across tumor subtypes: a systematic review. World J Psychiatry 12(4):623–63535582337 10.5498/wjp.v12.i4.623
6. Vehling S Prevalence of affective and anxiety disorders in cancer: systematic literature review and meta-analysis Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 2012 62 7 249 258 22585582
Vehling S et al (2012) Prevalence of affective and anxiety disorders in cancer: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 62(7):249–25822585582
7. Luigjes-Huizer YL What is the prevalence of fear of cancer recurrence in cancer survivors and patients? A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis Psychooncology 2022 31 6 879 892 10.1002/pon.5921 35388525
Luigjes-Huizer YL et al (2022) What is the prevalence of fear of cancer recurrence in cancer survivors and patients? A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Psychooncology 31(6):879–89235388525 10.1002/pon.5921
8. Silver JK The State of Cancer Rehabilitation in the United States J Cancer Rehabil 2018 1 1 8 30882090
Silver JK et al (2018) The State of Cancer Rehabilitation in the United States. J Cancer Rehabil 1:1–830882090
9. Heim ME Kunert S Ozkan I Effects of inpatient rehabilitation on health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients Onkologie 2001 24 3 268 272 11455220
Heim ME, Kunert S, Ozkan I (2001) Effects of inpatient rehabilitation on health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. Onkologie 24(3):268–27211455220
10. Schäfer H et al. (2001) [Changes in the psychosocial burden of patients with breast cancer during oncological inpatient rehabilitation]. Praxis Klinische Verhaltensmedizin und Rehabilitation. 14(Heft 56): p. 307–322
11. Teichmann JV Oncological rehabilitation: evaluation of the efficiency of inpatient rehabilitation Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 2002 41 1 53 63 10.1055/s-2002-19952 11830793
Teichmann JV (2002) Oncological rehabilitation: evaluation of the efficiency of inpatient rehabilitation. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 41(1):53–6311830793 10.1055/s-2002-19952
12. Weis J, Moser MT, Bartsch HH (2002) [Goal-oriented evaluation of oncological inpatient rehabilitation: the ZESOR-study. Final report, project D4. A sub-project of the rehabilitation research network Freiburg/Bad Säckingen]. Tumor Biology Center, Institute of Rehabilitation Research and Prevention
13. Kramer R Long-term study of psychological effects in clinical rehabilitation (VESPER-study) Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2003 128 27 1470 1474 10.1055/s-2003-40290 12840769
Kramer R et al (2003) Long-term study of psychological effects in clinical rehabilitation (VESPER-study). Dtsch Med Wochenschr 128(27):1470–147412840769 10.1055/s-2003-40290
14. Hartmann U Ring C Reuss-Borst MA Improvement of health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients by inpatient rehabilitation Med Klin (Munich) 2004 99 8 422 429 10.1007/s00063-004-1050-5 15309269
Hartmann U, Ring C, Reuss-Borst MA (2004) Improvement of health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients by inpatient rehabilitation. Med Klin (Munich) 99(8):422–42915309269 10.1007/s00063-004-1050-5
15. Dombo O Otto U Quality of life after radical urologic pelvic surgery and impact of inpatient rehabilitation Urologe A 2005 44 1 11 28 10.1007/s00120-004-0736-x 15619061
Dombo O, Otto U (2005) Quality of life after radical urologic pelvic surgery and impact of inpatient rehabilitation. Urologe A 44(1):11–2815619061 10.1007/s00120-004-0736-x
16. Strauss-Blasche G Combined inpatient rehabilitation and spa therapy for breast cancer patients: effects on quality of life and CA 15–3 Cancer Nurs 2005 28 5 390 398 10.1097/00002820-200509000-00009 16192831
Strauss-Blasche G et al (2005) Combined inpatient rehabilitation and spa therapy for breast cancer patients: effects on quality of life and CA 15–3. Cancer Nurs 28(5):390–39816192831 10.1097/00002820-200509000-00009
17. Hartmann U Improvement of anxiety and depression in women with breast cancer during inpatient oncological rehabilitation - results of a prospective study Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 2006 45 2 88 94 10.1055/s-2005-915336 16575714
Hartmann U et al (2006) Improvement of anxiety and depression in women with breast cancer during inpatient oncological rehabilitation - results of a prospective study. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 45(2):88–9416575714 10.1055/s-2005-915336
18. Hartmann U, Muche R, Reuss-Borst M (2007) Effects of a step-by-step inpatient rehabilitation programme on quality of life in breast cancer patients. A prospective randomised study. Oncol Res Treat 30(4): p. 177–182
19. Kruger A Course of psychosocial distress and health-related quality of life in patients at different age groups during cancer rehabilitation Z Psychosom Med Psychother 2009 55 2 141 161 19402019
Kruger A et al (2009) Course of psychosocial distress and health-related quality of life in patients at different age groups during cancer rehabilitation. Z Psychosom Med Psychother 55(2):141–16119402019
20. Riesenberg H Lubbe AS In-patient rehabilitation of lung cancer patients–a prospective study Support Care Cancer 2010 18 7 877 882 10.1007/s00520-009-0727-y 19714371
Riesenberg H, Lubbe AS (2010) In-patient rehabilitation of lung cancer patients–a prospective study. Support Care Cancer 18(7):877–88219714371 10.1007/s00520-009-0727-y
21. Mehnert A Predictors of fear of recurrence in patients one year after cancer rehabilitation: a prospective study Acta Oncol 2013 52 6 1102 1109 10.3109/0284186X.2013.765063 23384721
Mehnert A et al (2013) Predictors of fear of recurrence in patients one year after cancer rehabilitation: a prospective study. Acta Oncol 52(6):1102–110923384721 10.3109/0284186X.2013.765063
22. Peters E, Mendoza Schulz L, Reuss-Borst M (2016) Quality of life after cancer-how the extent of impairment is influenced by patient characteristics. BMC Cancer 16(1): p. 787
23. Rath HM Psychosocial and physical outcomes of in- and outpatient rehabilitation in prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy Support Care Cancer 2016 24 6 2717 2726 10.1007/s00520-016-3076-7 26803833
Rath HM et al (2016) Psychosocial and physical outcomes of in- and outpatient rehabilitation in prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Support Care Cancer 24(6):2717–272626803833 10.1007/s00520-016-3076-7
24. Lamprecht J, Thyrolf A, Mau W (2017) Health-related quality of life in rehabilitants with different cancer entities. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 26(5)
25. Riedl D Improvement of quality of life and psychological distress after inpatient cancer rehabilitation: results of a longitudinal observational study Wien Klin Wochenschr 2017 129 19–20 692 701 10.1007/s00508-017-1266-z 28916897
Riedl D et al (2017) Improvement of quality of life and psychological distress after inpatient cancer rehabilitation: results of a longitudinal observational study. Wien Klin Wochenschr 129(19–20):692–70128916897 10.1007/s00508-017-1266-z
26. Ture M Short-term effectiveness of inpatient cancer rehabilitation: a longitudinal controlled cohort study J Cancer 2017 8 10 1717 1725 10.7150/jca.19564 28819367
Ture M et al (2017) Short-term effectiveness of inpatient cancer rehabilitation: a longitudinal controlled cohort study. J Cancer 8(10):1717–172528819367 10.7150/jca.19564
27. Klocker J Long-term improvement of the bio-psycho-social state of cancer patients after 3 weeks of inpatient oncological rehabilitation: a long-term study at the Humanomed Zentrum Althofen Wien Med Wochenschr 2018 168 13–14 350 360 10.1007/s10354-018-0619-1 29737478
Klocker J et al (2018) Long-term improvement of the bio-psycho-social state of cancer patients after 3 weeks of inpatient oncological rehabilitation: a long-term study at the Humanomed Zentrum Althofen. Wien Med Wochenschr 168(13–14):350–36029737478 10.1007/s10354-018-0619-1
28. Heim ME Sustained improvement of quality of life following integrative oncological rehabilitation Complement Med Res 2019 26 3 166 173 10.1159/000495421 30947174
Heim ME et al (2019) Sustained improvement of quality of life following integrative oncological rehabilitation. Complement Med Res 26(3):166–17330947174 10.1159/000495421
29. Licht T Evaluation by electronic patient-reported outcomes of cancer survivors’ needs and the efficacy of inpatient cancer rehabilitation in different tumor entities Support Care Cancer 2021 29 10 5853 5864 10.1007/s00520-021-06123-x 33755805
Licht T et al (2021) Evaluation by electronic patient-reported outcomes of cancer survivors’ needs and the efficacy of inpatient cancer rehabilitation in different tumor entities. Support Care Cancer 29(10):5853–586433755805 10.1007/s00520-021-06123-x
30. Nolte S Updated EORTC QLQ-C30 general population norm data for Germany Eur J Cancer 2020 137 161 170 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.06.002 32777715
Nolte S et al (2020) Updated EORTC QLQ-C30 general population norm data for Germany. Eur J Cancer 137:161–17032777715 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.06.002
31. Kocalevent RD Hinz A Brahler E Standardization of the depression screener patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) in the general population Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2013 35 5 551 555 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.04.006 23664569
Kocalevent RD, Hinz A, Brahler E (2013) Standardization of the depression screener patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) in the general population. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 35(5):551–55523664569 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.04.006
32. Herschbach P Group psychotherapy of dysfunctional fear of progression in patients with chronic arthritis or cancer Psychother Psychosom 2010 79 31 38 10.1159/000254903 19887889
Herschbach P et al (2010) Group psychotherapy of dysfunctional fear of progression in patients with chronic arthritis or cancer. Psychother Psychosom 79:31–38. 10.1159/00025490319887889 10.1159/000254903
33. Giesler JM Weis J Patient competence in the context of cancer: its dimensions and their relationships with coping, coping self-efficacy, fear of progression, and depression Support Care Cancer 2021 29 4 2133 2143 10.1007/s00520-020-05699-0 32875374
Giesler JM, Weis J (2021) Patient competence in the context of cancer: its dimensions and their relationships with coping, coping self-efficacy, fear of progression, and depression. Support Care Cancer 29(4):2133–214332875374 10.1007/s00520-020-05699-0
34. Giesler JM Patient competencies, coping self-efficacy, and coping: do they change during oncological inpatient rehabilitation and beyond? Psychooncology 2022 31 4 577 586 10.1002/pon.5839 34676636
Giesler JM et al (2022) Patient competencies, coping self-efficacy, and coping: do they change during oncological inpatient rehabilitation and beyond? Psychooncology 31(4):577–58634676636 10.1002/pon.5839
35. Aaronson NK The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology J Natl Cancer Inst 1993 85 5 365 376 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 8433390
Aaronson NK et al (1993) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):365–3768433390 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365
36. Löwe B Measuring depression outcome with a brief self-report instrument: sensitivity to change of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) J Affect Disord 2004 81 1 61 66 10.1016/S0165-0327(03)00198-8 15183601
Löwe B et al (2004) Measuring depression outcome with a brief self-report instrument: sensitivity to change of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). J Affect Disord 81(1):61–6615183601 10.1016/S0165-0327(03)00198-8
37. Mehnert A Fear of progression in breast cancer patients – validation of the short form of the Fear of Progression Questionnaire (FoP-Q-SF) Z Psychosom Med Psychother 2006 52 3 274 288 17156600
Mehnert A et al (2006) Fear of progression in breast cancer patients – validation of the short form of the Fear of Progression Questionnaire (FoP-Q-SF). Z Psychosom Med Psychother 52(3):274–28817156600
38. Bortz J, Döring N (2006) Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. 4th, revised ed. Heidelberg: Springer-Medizin-Verl. 897
39. Stout NL Long-term survivorship care after cancer treatment: a new emphasis on the role of rehabilitation services Phys Ther 2019 99 1 10 13 10.1093/ptj/pzy115 30329114
Stout NL et al (2019) Long-term survivorship care after cancer treatment: a new emphasis on the role of rehabilitation services. Phys Ther 99(1):10–1330329114 10.1093/ptj/pzy115
40. Bergelt C Long-term survival in cancer: definitions, concepts, and design principles of survivorship programs Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2022 65 4 406 411 10.1007/s00103-022-03518-x 35301545
Bergelt C et al (2022) Long-term survival in cancer: definitions, concepts, and design principles of survivorship programs. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 65(4):406–41135301545 10.1007/s00103-022-03518-x
41. Sleight A Systematic review of functional outcomes in cancer rehabilitation Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2022 103 9 1807 1826 10.1016/j.apmr.2022.01.142 35104445
Sleight A et al (2022) Systematic review of functional outcomes in cancer rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 103(9):1807–182635104445 10.1016/j.apmr.2022.01.142
42. Giesler J Ambulante psychoonkologische Versorgung durch Krebsberatungsstellen – Leistungsspektrum und Inanspruchnahme durch Patienten und Angehörige Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 2015 65 12 450 458 10.1055/s-0035-1554718 26200246
Giesler J et al (2015) Ambulante psychoonkologische Versorgung durch Krebsberatungsstellen – Leistungsspektrum und Inanspruchnahme durch Patienten und Angehörige. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 65(12):450–45826200246 10.1055/s-0035-1554718
