OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to prospectively assess quality of life (QOL) among women at increased risk of ovarian cancer who are undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) or serial screening. METHODS: Women at increased risk of ovarian cancer who were undergoing RRSO were recruited into the study. At-risk women undergoing serial screening for early detection of ovarian cancer served as a comparison group. Participants completed measures of QOL, sexual functioning, body image, depressive symptoms, and a symptom checklist at baseline (prior to surgery for women obtaining RRSO), and then at 1-month, 6-months, and 12-months post baseline. RESULTS: Women who underwent surgery reported poorer physical functioning, more physical role limitations, greater pain, less vitality, poorer social functioning, and greater discomfort and less satisfaction with sexual activities at 1-month assessment compared to baseline. In contrast, women undergoing screening experienced no significant decrements in QOL or sexual functioning at 1-month assessment. Most QOL deficits observed in the surgical group were no longer apparent by 6-month assessment. Women in the surgery group were more likely to report hot flashes and vaginal dryness, but over time, symptoms of vaginal discomfort decreased to a greater extent in women who had RRSO compared to women undergoing screening. No differences in body image or depressive symptoms were observed between the two groups at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term deficits in physical functioning and other specific domains of QOL were observed following RRSO, but most women recovered baseline functioning by 6- and 12-month assessments. Issues regarding the potential impact of surgery on short-term sexual functioning should be considered and weighed carefully, particularly among younger women.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to prospectively assess quality of life (QOL) among women at increased risk of ovarian cancer who are undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) or serial screening. METHODS:Women at increased risk of ovarian cancer who were undergoing RRSO were recruited into the study. At-risk women undergoing serial screening for early detection of ovarian cancer served as a comparison group. Participants completed measures of QOL, sexual functioning, body image, depressive symptoms, and a symptom checklist at baseline (prior to surgery for women obtaining RRSO), and then at 1-month, 6-months, and 12-months post baseline. RESULTS:Women who underwent surgery reported poorer physical functioning, more physical role limitations, greater pain, less vitality, poorer social functioning, and greater discomfort and less satisfaction with sexual activities at 1-month assessment compared to baseline. In contrast, women undergoing screening experienced no significant decrements in QOL or sexual functioning at 1-month assessment. Most QOL deficits observed in the surgical group were no longer apparent by 6-month assessment. Women in the surgery group were more likely to report hot flashes and vaginal dryness, but over time, symptoms of vaginal discomfort decreased to a greater extent in women who had RRSO compared to women undergoing screening. No differences in body image or depressive symptoms were observed between the two groups at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term deficits in physical functioning and other specific domains of QOL were observed following RRSO, but most women recovered baseline functioning by 6- and 12-month assessments. Issues regarding the potential impact of surgery on short-term sexual functioning should be considered and weighed carefully, particularly among younger women.
Authors: P J C Bresser; C Seynaeve; A R Van Gool; M F Niermeijer; H J Duivenvoorden; S van Dooren; A N van Geel; M B Menke-Pluijmers; J G M Klijn; A Tibben Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2006-11-13 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: José G Guillem; William C Wood; Jeffrey F Moley; Andrew Berchuck; Beth Y Karlan; David G Mutch; Robert F Gagel; Jeffrey Weitzel; Monica Morrow; Barbara L Weber; Francis Giardiello; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; James Church; Stephen Gruber; Kenneth Offit Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nancy K Janz; Mahasin Mujahid; Lynna K Chung; Paula M Lantz; Sarah T Hawley; Monica Morrow; Kendra Schwartz; Steven J Katz Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: P J C Bresser; A R Van Gool; C Seynaeve; H J Duivenvoorden; M F Niermeijer; A N van Geel; M Menke; J G M Klijn; A Tibben Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-07-28 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: K N Gaarenstroom; B van der Hiel; R A E M Tollenaar; G R Vink; F W Jansen; C J van Asperen; G G Kenter Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Kirsten B Kluivers; Jan C M Hendriks; Ben W J Mol; Marlies Y Bongers; Gerard L Bremer; Henrica C W de Vet; Mark E Vierhout; Hans A M Brolmann Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Phuong L Mai; Marion Piedmonte; Paul K Han; Richard P Moser; Joan L Walker; Gustavo Rodriguez; John Boggess; Thomas J Rutherford; Oliver Zivanovic; David E Cohn; J Tate Thigpen; Robert M Wenham; Michael L Friedlander; Chad A Hamilton; Jamie Bakkum-Gamez; Alexander B Olawaiye; Martee L Hensley; Mark H Greene; Helen Q Huang; Lari Wenzel Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Lynne T Shuster; Deborah J Rhodes; Bobbie S Gostout; Brandon R Grossardt; Walter A Rocca Journal: Maturitas Date: 2009-09-05 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Sharon L Bober; Christopher J Recklitis; Jennifer Bakan; Judy E Garber; Andrea F Patenaude Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 3.802