The Harvard study collected data from over 51,000 patients who were diagnosed with a form of head or neck cancer between 2007 and 2010, via the National Cancer Institute's epidemiology program, SEERS.
While the main focus of the research was marital status, it also looked at other factors such as tumour site, race, income, insurance status, age and sex. The study authors found married people were 28% to 47% less likely to present with cancer that had spread to other areas in the body, which is a key determinant in treatment success.
The importance of having a spouse appears to come from their ability to detect the early signs of cancer. This may include visual changes in their partner but also audio clues like hoarseness when speaking, difficulty swallowing or other changes in their voice. After picking up these signs, spouses tend to encourage their partner to visit a doctor, which leads to earlier diagnosis and treatment.
The study authors suggest the continuing support provided by spouses also plays a key role in their partners' treatment success. Married patients were more likely to listen to their doctors' advice and adhere to their medication schedules.
While the study examines the importance of spousal influence, it doesn't elaborate on the importance of other factors such as whether the patients were regular smokers, consumed high levels of alcohol or were at risk of cancer from other causes, such as human papilloma virus (HPV).
It also didn't analyse the role of other health professionals in the early detection of neck and head cancer. People who have regular medical and dental check-ups can also be expected to have their cancers found earlier, and so have a higher rate of treatment success.
Although the Harvard researchers identify limitations in their work, several other studies have demonstrated a similar link between marriage status and cancer treatment outcome.
A study of prostate cancer patients showed married men survived significantly longer after diagnosis and had a lower risk of dying from their cancer than those who were divorced, single, separated or widowed. Another study that also used the SEERS program found a survival advantage for married women with uterine cancer, compared to unmarried and widowed women.
Learning from research
As noted above, while all the studies described here looked at people who were formally married, it's likely the treatment outcomes would be similar for anyone diagnosed with cancer who lives in a committed relationship, whether same-sex, de facto or who lives with an extended, but close, family unit.
But what about the people who don't have a significant other with whom they live? Research points to the importance of good surveillance and follow-up of single people, particularly those in high-risk groups such as smokers or heavy drinkers. Routine visits to doctors and dentists may be an extremely effective stand-in.
The Harvard study also highlights the need for targeted social support that can be integrated into the care of cancer patients for the duration of their treatment. Initiatives can and should include regular home visits or calls from health workers, communal accommodation so single people can live together, or cancer patient support groups.
Almost 128,000 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed this year in Australia alone. That number is likely to increase to 150,000 by 2020. Early diagnosis and effective treatment will always be a key element in curing this disease - no matter who facilitates it.
Nial Wheate is a Friend of The Conversation. Senior Lecturer in Pharmaceutics at University of Sydney. Parth J. Upadhyay is Master of Philosophy Candidate at University of Sydney.
Dr Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance for research into platinum drugs. Dr Wheate is a named inventor on two international patents dealing with the drug delivery of platinum drugs.
Parth J. Upadhyay does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.
