Head-and-neck cancer patients suffer from a broad range of psychosocial problems that become exacerbated with time. The deterioration in quality of life may reflect 'patient burnout' which could be decreased by acquiring adequate coping skills.

The combination of high dose rTNF-alpha and melphalan given via ILP appears to be effective in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma confined to the limb, achieving a high response rate and limb preservation.

This study explored doctor-patient interaction by focusing on a specific type of encounter in an oncology ward, designed to enable discussion of the case by the doctors and informing the patient. In line with the cognitive orientation theory of Kreitler and Kreitler, the encounter's effects were examined in regard to three aspects--disease, treatment, and general state--on four levels: the information the patients have, their feelings, the information they desire, and the information they consider desirable. The patients were 52 men and women with different cancer diagnoses. Comparable questionnaires were administered to the patients before and after the meeting, and to the doctors only after it. The patients responded before and after also to Spielberger's scales of state anxiety and state anger. The results showed that patients claimed they had gained hardly any new information concerning the disease and their overall state. There were no decreases in the desired and desirable information. Their feelings were affected negatively to a slight extent, especially concerning treatment. In a quarter of the subjects, anxiety decreased and was replaced by anger. In regard to all levels and aspects there was a large gap between the evaluations of doctors and patients. The major conclusions were that patients and doctors differ in the meaning they assign to information, and that patients are conflicted in regard to asking for the personally relevant information they want.

Repression is commonly assumed to be a major characteristic of the cancer-prone personality. Main supporting evidence includes studies showing that cancer patients are low in emotional expression and that repressives have shorter survival. The evidence did not seem compelling, mainly because of contrary findings, overlooking the age factor and the assessment instruments. Thus, we examined whether repression is a response to the threat posed by the cancer diagnosis and whether cancer patients are more repressive, using a new assessment method combining anxiety and defensiveness scores and controlling age. The subjects were 98 women comprising three groups comparable in demographic characteristics: (a) breast biopsy showed they were healthy (n = 40), (b) biopsy showed they had breast cancer (n = 32), and (c) underwent surgery unrelated to cancer (n = 26). Only post-surgery groups a and b knew the diagnosis. Questionnaires of information and repression were administered to all women pre-and post-surgery. Before surgery, the groups did not differ in repression, anxiety and defensiveness. Postsurgery, there were no differences in anxiety but MANOVA and x2 analyses showed that, in the malignancy group, defensiveness and the number of repressors increased more than in the other groups. The results indicate that repression could be a response to the threat posed by the cancer diagnosis and a means for keeping anxiety at a tolerable level rather than a personality trait of cancer patients.