Τόμος 36 (2022) – Τεύχος 1 – Άρθρο 2 – Review of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacokinetics -Διεθνής Έκδοση – Volume 36 (2022) – Issue 1 – Article 2 – Review of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacokinetics – International Edition

By | | Πλήρες Κείμενο στα Αγγλικά - Full Text in English
Title

Case study of a patient family with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome. Evaluation of Stress levels
Author

Olga Gioldasi1, Chrisi Vlachou1, Alexandros Argyriadis1, Agathi Argyriadi2

1 School of Health Sciences, Frederick University, Cyprus

2 Department of Psychology, School of Education and Social Sciences, Frederick University, Cyprus
Citation

O. Gioldasi, C. Vlachou, A. Argyriadis, A. Argyriadi.Case study of a patient family with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome. Evaluation of Stress levels. Review Clin. Pharmacol. Pharmacokinet. 2022, 36,1, 11-16. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.10050359
Publication Date
Republication Date
03-05-2022
28-10-2023
Full Text Language

English

Open access article

DOI:10.5281/zenodo.10050359
Keywords
stress, family, evaluation, MEN syndrome
Other Terms

Case Study
Summary
 Introduction: Multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) syndrome is a rare genetic disorder with a strong hereditary factor. Patients who have this specific disorder present particularly intense psychopathological symptoms. Since their relatives also develop this disorder, their psychological needs should also be studied.
Aim: The aim of this research was to evaluate the stress of a patient with MEN syndrome and that of his brother.
Method: The present qualitative research, which refers to a case study, examined the family of a patient with this specific genetic disorder. The interviews were carried out by the patient (a 28-year-old man) and his three years younger brother. For the collection of data relevant to stress a semi-structured guide of 10 questions was used. The research participants were informed about the anonymity and confidentiality of their participation and signed a consent document. The data analysis was carried out through thematic analysis.
Results: The diagnosis of the disease causes a stress increase to both siblings, to the patient as well as to his brother, because of the possibility of the brother developing the disease, since it is hereditary. The chemotherapy procedure was a stressful experience for both siblings. Likewise, the fear about life and its quality in the future causes stress. Cognitive reevaluation and mutual support of family members were reported as ways to manage stress. The creation of a patients’ association from people suffering from MEN was also suggested.
Conclusions: Patients with this specific syndrome and their relatives experience increased stress levels which are associated with the diagnosis of the disease, with the experience of the chemotherapy, and also with the fear about the future. Mutual support, cognitive reevaluation, and participation in associations seem to be satisfactory ways to manage stress. The need for family support in order to develop stress self-management skills, as well as the need for primary health care support emerged from the present study.
References 1. Tadman M, Martin L. Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia. In: Llahana S, Follin C, Yedinak C, Grossman A. (eds), Advanced Practice in Endocrinology Nursing. Springer, Cham; 2019. p.1259-1278. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99817-6_66
2. Moline J, Eng C. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2: an overview. Genetics in Medicine. 2011; 13(9): 755-764. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e318216cc6d.
3. Thakker R V. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). Best practice & research Clinical endocrinology & metabolism. 2010; 24(3): 355-370. DOI: 10.1016/j.beem.2010.07.003.
4. Mathiesen J S, Effraimidis G, Rossing M, Rasmussen Å K, Hoejberg L, Bastholt L, Godballe C, Oturai P, Feldt-Rasmussen U. Seminars in Cancer Biology. 2022; 79:163-179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2021.03.035.
5. Mathiesen J S, Kroustrup J P, Vestergaard P, Madsen M, Stochholm K, Poulsen P L, Hahn C H. Incidence and prevalence of multiple endocrine neoplasia 2B in Denmark: a nationwide study. Endocrine-Related Cancer 2017; 24(7): L39-L42. DOI: 10.1530/ERC-17-0122
6. Al-Salameh A, Cadiot G, Calender A, Goudet P, Chanson P. Clinical aspects of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2021; 17: 207–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-021-00468-3
7. Hughes M S, Feliberti E, Perry R R, Vinik A. Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 2A (including Familial Medullary Carcinoma) and Type 2B. In: Endotext. MDText.com, Inc., South Dartmouth (MA); 2000. PMID: 29465928.
8. Grey J, Winter K. Patient quality of life and prognosis in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. Endocrine-Related Cancer. 2018; 25(2): 69-77.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1530/ERC-17-0335
9. Rodrigues K C, Toledo R A, Coutinho F L, Nunes A B, Maciel R M, Hoff A O, LourençoJr D M. Assessment of depression, anxiety, quality of life, and coping in long-standing multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 patients. Thyroid. 2017; 27(5): 693-706.
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2016.0148.
10. Mongelli M N, Peipert B J, Goswami S, Helenowski I, Yount S E, Sturgeon C. Quality of life in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2A compared with normative and disease populations. Surgery. 2018; 164(3): 546-552. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2018.04.036
11. Goswami S, Peipert B J, Helenowski I, Yount S E, Sturgeon C. Disease and treatment factors associated with lower quality of life scores in adults with multiple endocrine neoplasia type I. Surgery. 2017; 162(6): 1270-1277. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2017.07.023.
12. Thakker R V. Multiple endocrine neoplasia—syndromes of the twentieth century. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 1998; 83(8): 2617-2620. DOI:10.1210/jcem.83.8.5045
13. Chrousos G P. Stress and disorders of the stress system. Nature reviews endocrinology. 2009; 5(7): 374. DOI: 10.1038/nrendo.2009.106
14. McEwen B S. Central effects of stress hormones in health and disease: Understanding the protective and damaging effects of stress and stress mediators. European journal of pharmacology. 2008; 583(2-3): 174-185. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2007.11.071
15. Christensen L B. Experimental methodology. Boston: Rearson/Allyn & Bacon; 2004.
16. Babbie E R. The basics of social research. Cengage Learning; 2013.
17. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology. 2006; 3(2): 77-101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
18. Giarelli E. Spiraling out of control: one case of pathologic anxiety as a response to a genetic risk of cancer. Cancer nursing. 1999; 22(5): 327-339.
19. Winter K, Grey J. Psychosocial impact of multiple endocrine neoplasia disorders. Endocrine Abstracts. 2016; 44: 121. DOI: 10.1530/endoabs.44.P121
20. New York – Mid – Atlantic Consortium for Genetic and Newborn Screening Services. Understanding genetics: a New York, mid-Atlantic guide for patients and health professionals. Washington, DC: Genetic Alliance; 2009.
21. Grosfeld F J, Lips C J, Ten Kroode H F, Beemer F A, Van Spijker H G, Brouwers-Smalbraak G J. Psychosocial consequences of DNA analysis for MEN type 2. Oncology (Williston Park). 1996; 10(2): 141-6.
22. Golden W L, Gersh W D, Robbins D M. Psychological treatment of cancer patients: A cognitive-behavioral approach. Macmillan Publishing Company; 1992.
23. Ussher J, Kirsten L, Butow P, Sandoval M. What do cancer support groups provide which other supportive relationships do not? The experience of peer support groups for people with cancer. Social science & medicine. 2006; 62(10): 2565-2576. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.034.
24. Argyriadis Α, Argyriadi A. Socio-Cultural Discrimination and the Role of Media in the Case of the Coronavirus: Anthropological and Psychological Notes through a Case Study. International Journal of Caring Sciences. 2020; 13(2): 1449-1454. Available from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/socio-cultural-discrimination-role-media-case/docview/2462488615/se-2
25. Patelarou A, Saliaj A, Galanis P, Pulomenaj V, Prifti V, Sopjani I, Mechili E A, Laredo-Aguilera J A, Kicaj E, Kalokairinou A, Cobo-Cuenca A I, Celaj J, Carmona-Torres J M, Bucaj J, Asimakopoulou E, Argyriadi A, Argyriadis A, Patelarou E. Predictors of nurses’ intention to accept COVID‐19 vaccination: A cross‐sectional study in five European countries. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2021. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15980
26. Patelarou E, Galanis P, Mechili E A, Argyriadi A, Argyriadis A, Asimakopoulou E, Brocaj S, Bucaj J, Carmona-Torres J M, Cobo-Cuenca A I, Dolezel J, Finotto S, Jarosova D, Kalokairikou A, Mecugni D, Pulomenaj V, Saliaj A, Sopjani I, Zahaj M, Patelarou A. Factors influencing nursing students’ intention to accept COVID-19 vaccination: A pooled analysis of seven European countries. Nurse Education Today. 2021; 104:105010.
DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105010.
Relative Papers
pISSN 1011-6583 • eISSN 2945-1922
Tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.