F chemotherapy on employment outcomes. In a study of patients diagnosed

F chemotherapy on employment outcomes. In a study of patients diagnosed with lymphoma, endometrial, or prostate cancer from 1989?998 in the Netherlands, chemotherapy receipt appeared to increase the risk of work loss (36). In contrast, researchers who interviewed breast cancer patients diagnosed in Quebec in 1996 and 1997 three years later found no association between receipt of chemotherapy and employment status (21). The contrast with our findings may result from changes in chemotherapy regimens and dose intensity by the time of the current study or differences in social 1-Deoxynojirimycin price policies and employer accommodations in the two countries. The timing of our study, which spanned a period of national economic recession, may also have accentuated the adverse impact of chemotherapy upon employment outcomes. In a recent study of a low-income sample of patients in the U.S., chemotherapy receipt was an independent predictor of long-term failure to return to work, consistent with the current study.(20) Our study has a number of strengths, including its large, diverse sample, longitudinal design, and access to both clinical data and patient reports of treatment, socioeconomic characteristics, and policy-relevant outcomes. Several limitations also merit comment. First, the study was located in two large metropolitan areas, which may limit the generalizability of the findings, particularly to more rural areas. Second, many of our measures were drawn from patient self-report, which may have CyclopamineMedChemExpress Cyclopamine introduced bias. However, evidence supports the validity of self-report in this context (37). Third, although we had access to some clinical information, we did lack information on the specific chemotherapy regimens utilized, precluding our ability to differentiate whether certain approaches have greater impact upon employment outcomes. We also lacked sufficient detail on the nature of women’s jobs to include this in the analysis, nor did we have information on spousal employment. Fourth, although the response rate to our surveys was high, it is possible that response bias may also have influenced our results. However, we believe it is very unlikely that correcting nonresponse bias would attenuate the association of chemotherapy with long-term employment status observed in our study. Although we did not have valid information about chemotherapy receipt at time of sampling, patients who received chemotherapy may have been less likely to complete our baseline survey because it was administered during the treatment period. However, we do not believe that chemotherapy patients who did not respond were less vulnerable to work loss than those who responded. In fact, the opposite may be more plausible, to the extent that those experiencing the greatest acute toxicity from chemotherapy might have been less likely to complete a survey at 9 months post-diagnosis and might in fact have been those most vulnerable to employment loss related to treatment. Thus, we may actually have under-estimated the negative impact of chemotherapy on paid work outcomes. Finally, we also lacked information on the employment outcomes of women without cancer during the time of our study, which spanned a major recession. Although this information was not necessary to address our primary research question regarding the association between adjuvant chemotherapy and long-term employment outcomes, it might have provided potentially interesting context if available. Moreover, as noted above, because the rece.F chemotherapy on employment outcomes. In a study of patients diagnosed with lymphoma, endometrial, or prostate cancer from 1989?998 in the Netherlands, chemotherapy receipt appeared to increase the risk of work loss (36). In contrast, researchers who interviewed breast cancer patients diagnosed in Quebec in 1996 and 1997 three years later found no association between receipt of chemotherapy and employment status (21). The contrast with our findings may result from changes in chemotherapy regimens and dose intensity by the time of the current study or differences in social policies and employer accommodations in the two countries. The timing of our study, which spanned a period of national economic recession, may also have accentuated the adverse impact of chemotherapy upon employment outcomes. In a recent study of a low-income sample of patients in the U.S., chemotherapy receipt was an independent predictor of long-term failure to return to work, consistent with the current study.(20) Our study has a number of strengths, including its large, diverse sample, longitudinal design, and access to both clinical data and patient reports of treatment, socioeconomic characteristics, and policy-relevant outcomes. Several limitations also merit comment. First, the study was located in two large metropolitan areas, which may limit the generalizability of the findings, particularly to more rural areas. Second, many of our measures were drawn from patient self-report, which may have introduced bias. However, evidence supports the validity of self-report in this context (37). Third, although we had access to some clinical information, we did lack information on the specific chemotherapy regimens utilized, precluding our ability to differentiate whether certain approaches have greater impact upon employment outcomes. We also lacked sufficient detail on the nature of women’s jobs to include this in the analysis, nor did we have information on spousal employment. Fourth, although the response rate to our surveys was high, it is possible that response bias may also have influenced our results. However, we believe it is very unlikely that correcting nonresponse bias would attenuate the association of chemotherapy with long-term employment status observed in our study. Although we did not have valid information about chemotherapy receipt at time of sampling, patients who received chemotherapy may have been less likely to complete our baseline survey because it was administered during the treatment period. However, we do not believe that chemotherapy patients who did not respond were less vulnerable to work loss than those who responded. In fact, the opposite may be more plausible, to the extent that those experiencing the greatest acute toxicity from chemotherapy might have been less likely to complete a survey at 9 months post-diagnosis and might in fact have been those most vulnerable to employment loss related to treatment. Thus, we may actually have under-estimated the negative impact of chemotherapy on paid work outcomes. Finally, we also lacked information on the employment outcomes of women without cancer during the time of our study, which spanned a major recession. Although this information was not necessary to address our primary research question regarding the association between adjuvant chemotherapy and long-term employment outcomes, it might have provided potentially interesting context if available. Moreover, as noted above, because the rece.