• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Quality of life after extended pelvic exenterations

D. Cibula, Š. Lednický, E. Höschlová, J. Sláma, M. Wiesnerová, P. Mitáš, Z. Matějovský, M. Schneiderová, P. Dundr, K. Němejcová, A. Burgetová, L. Zámečník, M. Vočka, R. Kocián, F. Frühauf, L. Dostálek, D. Fischerová, M. Borčinová

. 2022 ; 166 (1) : 100-107. [pub] 20220512

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22017891

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare health-related quality of life (QoL) and oncological outcome between gynaecological cancer patients undergoing pelvic exenteration (PE) and extended pelvic exenteration (EPE). EPEs were defined as extensive procedures including, in addition to standard PE extent, the resection of internal, external, or common iliac vessels; pelvic side-wall muscles; large pelvic nerves (sciatic or femoral); and/or pelvic bones. METHODS: Data from 74 patients who underwent PE (42) or EPE (32) between 2004 and 2019 at a single tertiary gynae-oncology centre in Prague were analysed. QoL assessment was performed using EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC CX-24, and QOLPEX questionnaires specifically developed for patients after (E)PE. RESULTS: No significant differences in survival were observed between the groups (P > 0.999), with median overall and disease-specific survival in the whole cohort of 45 and 49 months, respectively. Thirty-one survivors participated in the QoL surveys (20 PE, 11 EPE). No significant differences were observed in global health status (P = 0.951) or in any of the functional scales. The groups were not differing in therapy satisfaction (P = 0.502), and both expressed similar, high willingness to undergo treatment again if they were to decide again (P = 0.317). CONCLUSIONS: EPEs had post-treatment QoL and oncological outcome comparable to traditional PE. These procedures offer a potentially curative treatment option for patients with persistent or recurrent pelvic tumour invading into pelvic wall structures without further compromise of patients ́ QoL.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22017891
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220804134439.0
007      
ta
008      
220720s2022 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.04.022 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)35568583
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Cibula, D $u Gynaecologic oncology centre, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: dc@davidcibula.cz
245    10
$a Quality of life after extended pelvic exenterations / $c D. Cibula, Š. Lednický, E. Höschlová, J. Sláma, M. Wiesnerová, P. Mitáš, Z. Matějovský, M. Schneiderová, P. Dundr, K. Němejcová, A. Burgetová, L. Zámečník, M. Vočka, R. Kocián, F. Frühauf, L. Dostálek, D. Fischerová, M. Borčinová
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare health-related quality of life (QoL) and oncological outcome between gynaecological cancer patients undergoing pelvic exenteration (PE) and extended pelvic exenteration (EPE). EPEs were defined as extensive procedures including, in addition to standard PE extent, the resection of internal, external, or common iliac vessels; pelvic side-wall muscles; large pelvic nerves (sciatic or femoral); and/or pelvic bones. METHODS: Data from 74 patients who underwent PE (42) or EPE (32) between 2004 and 2019 at a single tertiary gynae-oncology centre in Prague were analysed. QoL assessment was performed using EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC CX-24, and QOLPEX questionnaires specifically developed for patients after (E)PE. RESULTS: No significant differences in survival were observed between the groups (P > 0.999), with median overall and disease-specific survival in the whole cohort of 45 and 49 months, respectively. Thirty-one survivors participated in the QoL surveys (20 PE, 11 EPE). No significant differences were observed in global health status (P = 0.951) or in any of the functional scales. The groups were not differing in therapy satisfaction (P = 0.502), and both expressed similar, high willingness to undergo treatment again if they were to decide again (P = 0.317). CONCLUSIONS: EPEs had post-treatment QoL and oncological outcome comparable to traditional PE. These procedures offer a potentially curative treatment option for patients with persistent or recurrent pelvic tumour invading into pelvic wall structures without further compromise of patients ́ QoL.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a exenterace pánve $x metody $7 D010385
650    12
$a nádory pánve $x chirurgie $7 D010386
650    _2
$a kvalita života $7 D011788
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a průzkumy a dotazníky $7 D011795
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Lednický, Š $u Gynaecologic oncology centre, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Höschlová, E $u Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Sláma, J $u Gynaecologic oncology centre, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Wiesnerová, M $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Mitáš, P $u Second surgical clinic - cardiovascular surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Matějovský, Z $u Department of Orthopaedics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Hospital Na Bulovce, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Schneiderová, M $u Department of General Surgery, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Dundr, P $u Department of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Němejcová, K $u Department of Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Burgetová, A $u Department of radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Zámečník, L $u Clinic of urology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Vočka, M $u Department of Oncology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kocián, R $u Gynaecologic oncology centre, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Frühauf, F $u Gynaecologic oncology centre, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Dostálek, L $u Gynaecologic oncology centre, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Fischerová, D $u Gynaecologic oncology centre, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Borčinová, M $u Gynaecologic oncology centre, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00001958 $t Gynecologic oncology $x 1095-6859 $g Roč. 166, č. 1 (2022), s. 100-107
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35568583 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220720 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220804134433 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1821811 $s 1169134
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 166 $c 1 $d 100-107 $e 20220512 $i 1095-6859 $m Gynecologic oncology $n Gynecol Oncol $x MED00001958
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220720

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace