Are patients and physicians willing to accept less-radical procedures for cervical cancer?
Jazyk angličtina Země Jižní Korea Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, multicentrická studie
PubMed
29770621
PubMed Central
PMC5981102
DOI
10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e50
PII: 29.e50
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Morbidity, Quality of Life, Surgery, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms,
- MeSH
- adjuvantní chemoterapie psychologie statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- hodnocení rizik MeSH
- hysterektomie psychologie statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- kvalita života * MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- lokální recidiva nádoru prevence a kontrola psychologie MeSH
- lymfadenektomie psychologie statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- nádory děložního čípku psychologie chirurgie MeSH
- postoj zdravotnického personálu * MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- průzkumy a dotazníky MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- staging nádorů MeSH
- zdraví - znalosti, postoje, praxe MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- multicentrická studie MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Česká republika MeSH
- Turecko MeSH
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the opinions of women who underwent surgery for cervical cancer (CC) and physicians who treat CC about the acceptability of increased oncological risk after less-radical surgery. METHODS: One hundred eighty-two women who underwent surgery for CC and 101 physicians participated in a structured survey in 3 tertiary cancer centers in Czech Republic and Turkey. Patients and physicians were asked whether they would accept any additional oncological risks, which would be attributable to the omission of parametrectomy (radical hysterectomy/trachelectomy vs. simple hysterectomy/trachelectomy) or pelvic lymph node dissection (systematic resection vs. sentinel lymph node sampling). RESULTS: Although 52.2% of patients reported morbidity related to their previous treatment, the majority of patients would not accept less-radical surgical treatment if it was associated with any increased risk of recurrence (50%-55%, no risk; 17%-24%, risk <0.1%). Physicians tended to accept a significantly higher risk than patients in the Czech Republic, but not in Turkey. Patients with higher education levels, more advanced-stage of disease, or adverse events related to previous cancer treatment, and patients who received adjuvant therapy were significantly more likely to accept an increased oncological risk. CONCLUSION: Patients, even if they suffered from morbidity related to previous CC treatment, do not want to choose between oncological safety and a better quality of life. Physicians tend to accept the higher oncological risk associated with less-radical surgical procedures, but attitudes differ regionally. Professionals should be aware of this tendency when counselling the patients before less-radical surgery.
Department of Gynecologic Oncology Etlik Zübeyde Hanım Education and Research Hospital Ankara Turkey
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Barakat RR, Berchuck A, Markman M, Randall ME. Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, Placa F, Milani R, Perego P, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib–IIa cervical cancer. Lancet. 1997;350:535–540. PubMed
Cibula D, Sláma J, Svárovský J, Fischerova D, Freitag P, Zikán M, et al. Abdominal radical trachelectomy in fertility-sparing treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19:1407–1411. PubMed
Rema P, Ahmed I. Conservative surgery for early cervical cancer. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2016;7:336–340. PubMed PMC
Ye S, Yang J, Cao D, Zhu L, Lang J, Chuang LT, et al. Quality of life and sexual function of patients following radical hysterectomy and vaginal extension. J Sex Med. 2014;11:1334–1342. PubMed
Xue Z, Zhu X, Teng Y. Comparison of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2016;38:1841–1850. PubMed
Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Schover LR, Munsell MF, Jhingran A, Wharton JT, et al. Quality of life and sexual functioning in cervical cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7428–7436. PubMed
Baiocchi G, de Brot L, Faloppa CC, Mantoan H, Duque MR, Badiglian-Filho L, et al. Is parametrectomy always necessary in early-stage cervical cancer? Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146:16–19. PubMed
Landoni F, Maneo A, Zapardiel I, Zanagnolo V, Mangioni C. Class I versus class III radical hysterectomy in stage IB1–IIA cervical cancer. A prospective randomized study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:203–209. PubMed
Plante M, Renaud MC, Sebastianelli A, Gregoire J. Simple vaginal trachelectomy: a valuable fertility-preserving option in early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27:1021–1027. PubMed
de Hullu JA, Ansink AC, Tymstra T, van der Zee AG. What doctors and patients think about false-negative sentinel lymph nodes in vulvar cancer. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;22:199–203. PubMed
Deeks JJ, Higgins JP. Statistical algorithms in review manager 5. Statistical Methods Group of The Cochrane Collaboration. London: Cochrane; 2010.
Pagano M, Gauvreau K. Principles of biostatistics. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury; 2000.
Available from: http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/view?cdrid=737208&version=HealthProfessional.
Oonk MH, van Os MA, de Bock GH, de Hullu JA, Ansink AC, van der Zee AG. A comparison of quality of life between vulvar cancer patients after sentinel lymph node procedure only and inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:301–305. PubMed
Farrell R, Gebski V, Hacker NF. Quality of life after complete lymphadenectomy for vulvar cancer: do women prefer sentinel lymph node biopsy? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:813–819. PubMed
van der Voort HP, Grundmeijer HG, Hendrick JM. General practitioner and accurate treatment policies. Huisarts Wet. 1995;38:351–354.
