Sentry Page Protection


Submission To Be Reviewed


Journal Section


Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) being the most common type of lung cancer. Advanced NSCLC is not curable and carries a poor prognosis. It also is associated with the highest burden on mental and physical health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of all patients with cancer. Patients’ subjective experience with their illness and treatment (eg, illness perceptions) can influence treatment decision making and health outcomes, including HRQoL. Illness perception studies on patients with lung cancer are reviewed. Using Leventhal and colleagues’ Self-Regulation Model to better understand the impact of advanced stage lung cancer on the patients’ experience and coping responses, a cross-sectional study of patients with advanced stage NSCLC (N=72) assessed illness perceptions (Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised [BIPQ]) and HRQoL (EuroQol-visual analogue scale [EQ-VAS]). Summary statistics showed patients reporting high perceived consequences and stress (concern) with a NSCLC diagnosis along with moderate levels of symptoms (identity) and belief in their ability to manage their NSCLC (personal control). Patients reported low HRQoL compared to population norms. The illness perceptions of consequences, concern, and identity were negatively correlated with HRQoL, while personal control was positively correlated with HRQoL. Assessment of illness perceptions could provide a nuanced clinical understanding of coping with cancer diagnosis. Future studies should prospectively assess illness perceptions to better understand patients’ low HRQoL and how they cope to newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC.


Key words: 

Non-small-cell lung cancer, illness perceptions, stress, quality of life, cancer diagnosis

Review Schedule

Editor's request 20-03-2019

Your Response 

Review Submitted 

Review Due 


1) Does this paper present new ideas or results that have not been previously published? 2) Is the research presented in the article new or build upon existing research? 3) Does the article point out differences from related research?
Does the article make a considerable contribution to the oncology field?
1) Does the title clearly express the content of the article? Is 2) Is the abstract sufficiently informative and provides a good perspective on the final message of the aricle?
1) Are the methods used clearly explained? 2) Are they a recognized approach? 3) Are the data and statistics used reliable?
1) Are they clearly presented? 2) Do they avoid misinterpretation? 3) Do they sufficiently avoid assumptions and speculations?
1) Do they reflect the latest research in the area? 2) Are they correctly indicated in article? 3) Are they correctly formatted according to the author guidelines?
1) Are the tables correctly name and numbered? 2) Are the data presented in the table correctly interpreted in the article?
1) Are the figures correctly named and numbered? 2) Do they properly illustrate what is discussed in the article? 3) Are they correctly interpreted in the article?
1) Is the article clearly written?
1) Does the article fit the guidelines for the section as outlined in the instructions to authors?
Please rate the article in priority for publication based on the interest to our readership and contribution to the oncology field. (5) Being of hieghest priority and (1) being the lowest.