RESUMEN

Effective communication between gynecologic oncology providers and patients is vital to patient-centered care. Skilled communication improves the patient's knowledge retention, builds trust in providers, enhances shared decision-making, and alleviates anxiety of both patients and caregivers. Effective communication is also associated with reduced provider burnout due to improved comfort from possessing the skills to handle emotionally charged situations. Therefore, training in serious illness communication skills is critically important to gynecologic oncology practice and benefits patients, providers, and the healthcare system. Like surgical skills, communication skills can be learned and improved upon, particularly by making use of communication skills courses and other resources. While the purpose of each conversation will vary based on the medical setting, most communication roadmaps incorporate four basic components: 1) Assess patient knowledge and understanding, 2) inform patient in accordance with her communication preferences, 3) recognize and respond to emotion 4) elicit patient values, and create a plan that aligns with those values. Improved patient outcomes associated with addressing patient emotions underscore a critical need to recognize and address emotional cues during difficult conversations. We present strategies for delivering serious news, and for discussing prognosis and goals of care. In each strategy, we highlight skills for recognizing and responding to patient and family emotional cues.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: We previously reported on the feasibility of a Web-based system to capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the immediate postoperative period. The purpose of this study was to update the experience of these patients and assess patient and provider satisfaction and feedback regarding the system. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of patients scheduled to undergo laparotomy for presumed gynecologic malignancy. Patients completed a Web-based Symptom Tracking and Reporting (STAR) questionnaire preoperatively and weekly during a 6-week postoperative period. Email alerts were sent to study nurses when concerning patient responses were entered. The patient and the nurse assessments of STAR's usefulness were measured via an exit survey. RESULTS: The study enrolled 96 eligible patients. Of these, 71 patients (74%) completed at least four of seven total sessions. Of the patients who completed the exit satisfaction survey, 98% found STAR easy to use; 84% found it useful; and 82% would recommend it to other patients. Despite positive feedback from patients, clinical personnel found that the STAR system increased their current workload without enhancing patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Application of an electronic program for PROs in those recovering from major gynecologic cancer surgery is feasible, and acceptable to most patients. While most clinicians did not find STAR clinically helpful, the majority of patients reported a positive experience with the system and would recommend its use. The program helped many patients feel more empowered in their postoperative recovery.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Little prospective data exist on quality of life (QOL) after pelvic exenteration (PE). This ongoing study prospectively examines the QOL changes following this radical procedure using a comprehensive battery of psychological instruments. METHODS: Since 2005, enrolled patients were interviewed (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-CR38, EORTC QLQ-BLM30, BFI, BPI-SF, IADL, CES-D, IES-R) preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months after PE for physical/psychological symptoms. Data were examined using repeated measure ANOVA. RESULTS: Sixteen women (3 anterior, 1 posterior, and 12 total PEs), with more than 1 year of follow-up, completed all scheduled interviews. Median age was 58 years (range, 28-76 years). Overall QOL (F = 6.3, p < 0.02), ability to perform instrumental daily activities (F = 6.8, p < 0.02), body image (F = 11.9, p < 0.00), and sexual function (F = 8.0, p < 0.01) all declined at 3 months but were near baseline by 12 months after PE. Although, overall, physical function followed a similar trend (F = 14.8, p < 0.00), it did not return to baseline. At the 12-month interview, patients reported increased gastrointestinal symptoms (F = 8.9, p < 0.01) but significantly less stress-related ideation (F = 6.1, p < 0.03) compared to baseline. Pain levels did not change significantly during the study period (F = 0.4, p < 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients report lingering gastrointestinal symptoms and some persistent decline in physical function after PE, most adjust well, returning to almost baseline functioning within a year. Providers can counsel patients that many, though not all, symptoms in the first 3 months following exenteration are likely to improve as they adapt to their changed health status. These preliminary results await confirmation of a larger analysis.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study are to evaluate the feasibility of capturing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) electronically and to identify the most common distressing symptoms in women recovering from major gynecologic cancer surgery. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-arm pilot study. Eligible participants included those scheduled for a laparotomy for presumed or known gynecologic malignancy. Patients completed a Web-based "STAR" (Symptom Tracking and Reporting for Patients) questionnaire once preoperatively and weekly during the 6-week postoperative period. The questionnaire consisted of the patient adaptation of the NCI CTCAE 3.0 and EORTC QLQ-C30 3.0. When a patient submitted a response that was concerning, an automated email alert was sent to the clinician. The patient's assessment of STAR's usefulness was measured via an exit survey. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients completed the study. The procedures included the following: hysterectomy±staging (67%), resection of tumor (22%), salpingo-oophorectomy (6%), and other (4%). Most patients (82%) completed at least 4 sessions in STAR. The CTC generated 43 alerts. These alerts resulted in 25 telephone contacts with patients, 2 ER referrals, one new appointment, and one pharmaceutical prescription. The 3 most common patient-reported symptoms generating an alert were as follows: poor performance status (19%), nausea (18%), and fatigue (17%). Most patients found STAR useful (80%) and would recommend it to others (85%). CONCLUSION: Application of a Web-based, electronic STAR system is feasible in the postoperative period, highly accepted by patients, and warrants further study. Poor performance status, nausea, and fatigue were the most common distressing patient-reported symptoms.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

It is reasonable to perform complete lymphadenectomy in patients at significant risk of lymph node metastases, and use the results to guide adjuvant treatment decisions.(24,25) Criteria for staging based on intraoperative pathology should be determined in consultation with the pathologist, preferably with an institution-specific quality-assurance review.(34) Patients with more aggressive histologies should undergo a staging procedure including an omental biopsy whenever possible, with the understanding that most require systemic adjuvant therapy. Minimally invasive surgery is associated with shorter recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open endometrial cancer staging,(4,5,45) with preliminary data showing similar oncologic outcomes (Walker and colleagues, late breaking abstract SGO 2010 Annual Meeting). Whenever feasible, patients should be offered minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer staging. Retrospective data support an attempt at complete cytoreduction in patients with advanced endometrial cancer and a good performance status.(8-12) The decision to perform aggressive cytoreductive surgery should be individualized, taking into account the patient's comorbidities, her performance status, her symptoms, and the risks associated with more aggressive surgical procedures.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes observed with pelvic exenteration with curative intent for recurrent uterine malignancies in the modern era. METHODS: We reviewed the records of all patients who underwent this procedure at our institution between 1/1997 and 03/2011. Postoperative complications up to 90 days after surgery were analyzed and graded as per our institution grading system. Survivals were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: During the study period, 21 patients were identified. Median age at the time of exenteration was 57 years (range, 36-75). Median tumor size was 6 cm (range, microscopic - 14.5). Tumor histology was: endometrioid, 10 cases; mixed, serous, and carcinosarcoma, 7 cases; and sarcomas, 4 cases. The type of exenteration was: total, 14 cases; anterior, 6 cases and posterior, 1 case. There were no intra- or postoperative mortalities. Seven patients (33%) developed at least one grade 2 complication, and 10 patients (48%) developed at least one grade 3 complication. Five (24%) patients had to be re-operated on in the first 90 days post surgery. The median follow up time after exenteration was 39 months (range, 5-112). The 5-year survival of the entire cohort was 40% (95% CI: 18-63). An improved survival was observed in patients with endometrioid tumors and sarcomas (5-year survival rates of 50% and 66%, respectively). The presence of pelvic sidewall involvement and/or hydronephrosis did not negatively affect survival. CONCLUSION: Pelvic exenteration for recurrent uterine malignancies can be associated with long-term survival in properly selected patients. A high rate of postoperative complications remains a hallmark of this procedure and should be discussed carefully with patients facing this decision.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to quantify the impact (utility) of common complications of early cervical cancer treatment on quality of life (QOL). Utilities assigned by survivors were compared to those assigned by providers. METHODS: 30 survivors of early cervical cancer identified from our Tumor Registry and 10 gynecologic oncology providers were interviewed. Participants evaluated complications (health states) using the standard gamble (SG) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Each participant was randomly assigned to rate 5 of 13 health states. Mixed-effects linear models were used to generate confidence intervals for utility means, and evaluate the effect of group (survivors versus providers). Higher utilities indicate the health state is closer to perfect health. RESULTS: Survivors and providers mean ages were similar (44 and 40). Mean time from diagnosis was 6.7 years. 28 of 30 survivors had no evidence of disease. 56% of survivors had complications. Using SG, providers consistently assigned utilities 7% higher than survivors (p=0.035) for all health states except "ileostomy", which survivors rated higher than providers. Survivors assigned the lowest utility to small bowel obstruction (SBO) (fixable without an ostomy) and ureteral obstruction (UO). Survivors rated SBO 16% and UO 21% lower than providers. Personal history of complications or higher stage did not have a consistent effect on QOL adjustments. DISCUSSION: Providers assign higher utilities than survivors to health states. Providers and survivors diverge on which complications impact QOL the most. Data on patient preferences should be considered when weighing treatment options with similar survival but different associated complications.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a quality improvement protocol for venous thromboembolism prevention in postoperative gynecologic cancer patients. METHODS: On January 1, 2006, we initiated a universal protocol of dual prophylaxis with sequential compression devices and three times daily heparin (or daily low molecular weight heparin) until discharge in gynecologic cancer patients having major surgery. Patients with both malignancy and age over 60 years (or history of prior clot) were discharged on 2 weeks of anticoagulant. Before January 2006, all patients were given sequential compression devices starting before the induction of anesthesia, continuing until discharge from the hospital. Records of gynecologic cancer service patients admitted in 2005 and 2006 were reviewed, excluding patients with a history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia or those admitted on an anticoagulant. Any pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis diagnosed within 6 weeks of surgery was identified. We performed chi2 and Wilcoxon rank sum tests as well as multivariable regression analysis for confounders. RESULTS: Six of the 311 women meeting inclusion criteria in 2006 (1.9%) and 19 of 294 (6.5%) in 2005 had venous thromboembolism (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.12-0.88, multivariable analysis adjusting for baseline differences between the groups). Heparin was given to 98.1% of patients in the hospital in 2006, and 91.1% of those meeting high-risk criteria were discharged on an anticoagulant. No differences in major bleeding complications were seen between years. CONCLUSION: A protocol of dual prophylaxis with prolonged prophylaxis in high-risk patients was successfully implemented and was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of venous thromboembolism without increasing bleeding complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Advanced age, pelvic surgery, and the presence of malignancy place gynecologic oncology patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study was designed to systematically analyze the world's literature on VTE in these patients and determine the optimal prophylaxis regimen. METHODS: Computerized searches of Pubmed, Ovid, DARE, ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry 1966-2005 were performed, as well as EMBASE 1980-2005. Major conferences and target references were hand-searched. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating VTE prophylaxis with heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and sequential compression devices (SCD). The search yielded 278 articles; 11 met inclusion criteria. Data were abstracted by one author and analyzed with the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: The analysis of heparin-versus-control revealed a significant decrease in DVT in patients receiving heparin (RR=0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.95). There were no significant differences in EBL or transfusions between the two groups. In the 320 patients in the heparin vs. LMWH studies, there was no significant difference in DVT (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.38-2.17), although power analysis demonstrated insufficient numbers to show a difference. No patient in either group required re-exploration for bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: All gynecologic cancer patients should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although heparin, LMWH, and SCD have been shown to be safe and effective, due to the paucity of data in the gynecologic oncology literature, no one prevention modality can be considered superior at this time. Adequately powered RCTs are urgently needed to determine the optimal regimen in these high-risk patients.

Asunto(s)