In a cross-sectional study design, a disease free sample of 57 lung, 117 colon, and 104 prostate cancer survivors who represented short, intermediate and long-term survivors completed a detailed assessment of quality of life (QOL) and rehabilitation needs using the CAncer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES). Demographic and medical data, social support, and a global QOL rating were also assessed. Lung cancer patients showed no differences in QOL with respect to their period of survival. QOL improved for survivors of colon cancer as they lived for longer periods, but declined with time for survivors of prostate cancer. The best predictor of QOL for all groups was KPS, although other variables such as type of hospital, gender, and work status were predictive for survivors of colon cancer. For survivors of prostate cancer comorbidity with other medical illnesses, time since diagnosis and comorbidity due to psychiatric difficulties were predictive of QOL. All groups had significant rehabilitation problems in the domains of physical, psychosocial, sexual, medical interaction, and marital relationships. Lung cancer survivors had more problems than the other cancer survivors. We conclude that patients who survive cancer do not return to a state of normal health. They demonstrate a variety of difficulties with which they must cope as they continue to survive. Greater efforts need to be made early in diagnosis and treatment to understand rehabilitation problems and target interventions in the hope of reducing later sequelae.

The CAncer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES) (CARES Consultants, Santa Monica, CA) a rehabilitation and quality of life instrument with well‐documented reliability and validity, has been shortened. This report describes the development and psychometric properties of the new instrument, the CAncer Rehabilitation Evaluation System—Short Form (CARES‐SF). The data from four existing samples of cancer patients demonstrate that the CARES‐SF is highly related to the CARES (r = 0.98), has excellent test‐retest reliability (86% agreement), concurrent validity with related measures, and acceptable internal consistency of summary scales (alpha = 0.85 to 0.61). In a new sample of breast cancer patients evaluated at three points in time (1 month, 7 months, and 13 months after diagnosis) the instrument appears to be sensitive to change and is highly related to the Functional Living Index—Cancer (FLIC), an existing quality of life instrument. The authors conclude that the CARES‐SF has excellent potential as a quality of life instrument for use in clinical trials.

The detailed listing of problems provided by the CARES may be helpful to clinicians in their interactions with patients. The need for preventive and early intervention for the at-risk patients is underscored.