OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess and describe the emotional, sexual, and QOL concerns of women with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing radical surgery. METHODS: Seventy-one women who were consented for radical trachelectomy (RT) or radical hysterectomy (RH) were enrolled preoperatively in this 2-year study; 52 women (33 RT; 19 RH) were actively followed. Patients completed self-report surveys composed of 4 empirical measures in addition to exploratory items. Data analyses for the 2 years of prospective data are presented. RESULTS: At preoperative assessment, women choosing RH reported greater concern about cancer recurrence (x=7.27 [scale from 0 to 10]) than women choosing RT (x=5.66) (P=0.008). Forty-eight percent undergoing RH compared to 8.6% undergoing RT reported having adequate "time to complete childbearing" (P<0.001). Both groups demonstrated scores suggestive of depression (based on the CES-D scale) and distress (based on the IES scale) preoperatively; over time, however, CES-D and IES scores generally improved. Scores on the Female Sexual Functioning Inventory (FSFI) for the total sample were below the mean cut-off (26.55), suggestive of sexual dysfunction; however, the means increased from 16.79 preoperatively to 23.78 by 12 months and 22.20 at 24 months. CONCLUSION: Measurements of mood, distress, sexual function, and QOL did not differ significantly by surgical type, and instead reflect the challenges faced by young cervical cancer patients treated by RT or RH without adjuvant treatment. Points of vulnerability were identified in which patients may benefit from preoperative consultation or immediate postoperative support. Overall, patients improved during the first year, reaching a plateau between Year-1 and Year-2, which may reflect a new level of functioning in survivorship.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess and describe the emotional, sexual, and QOL concerns of women with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing radical surgery. METHODS: Seventy-one women who were consented for radical trachelectomy (RT) or radical hysterectomy (RH) were enrolled preoperatively in this 2-year study; 52 women (33 RT; 19 RH) were actively followed. Patients completed self-report surveys composed of 4 empirical measures in addition to exploratory items. Data analyses for the 2 years of prospective data are presented. RESULTS: At preoperative assessment, women choosing RH reported greater concern about cancer recurrence (x=7.27 [scale from 0 to 10]) than women choosing RT (x=5.66) (P=0.008). Forty-eight percent undergoing RH compared to 8.6% undergoing RT reported having adequate "time to complete childbearing" (P<0.001). Both groups demonstrated scores suggestive of depression (based on the CES-D scale) and distress (based on the IES scale) preoperatively; over time, however, CES-D and IES scores generally improved. Scores on the Female Sexual Functioning Inventory (FSFI) for the total sample were below the mean cut-off (26.55), suggestive of sexual dysfunction; however, the means increased from 16.79 preoperatively to 23.78 by 12 months and 22.20 at 24 months. CONCLUSION: Measurements of mood, distress, sexual function, and QOL did not differ significantly by surgical type, and instead reflect the challenges faced by young cervical cancerpatients treated by RT or RH without adjuvant treatment. Points of vulnerability were identified in which patients may benefit from preoperative consultation or immediate postoperative support. Overall, patients improved during the first year, reaching a plateau between Year-1 and Year-2, which may reflect a new level of functioning in survivorship.
Authors: Yukio Sonoda; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mary L Gemignani; Dennis S Chi; Carol L Brown; Elizabeth A Poynor; Richard R Barakat Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Edward L Nelson; Lari B Wenzel; Kathryn Osann; Aysun Dogan-Ates; Nissa Chantana; Astrid Reina-Patton; Amanda K Laust; Kevin P Nishimoto; Alexandra Chicz-DeMet; Nefertiti du Pont; Bradley J Monk Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Margaret H Einstein; Kay J Park; Yukio Sonoda; Jeanne Carter; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-10-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: John P Diaz; Yukio Sonoda; Mario M Leitao; Oliver Zivanovic; Carol L Brown; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: L M Wiltink; M King; F Müller; M S Sousa; M Tang; A Pendlebury; J Pittman; N Roberts; L Mileshkin; R Mercieca-Bebber; M-A Tait; R Campbell; C Rutherford Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kelly M Trevino; Paul K Maciejewski; Karen Fasciano; Joseph Greer; Ann Partridge; Elizabeth L Kacel; Susan Block; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2012-01-29
Authors: P K Flora; J L Bender; A S Miller; L Parvin; S Soheilipour; N Maharaj; E Milosevic; A Matthew; A Kazanjian Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Karen Roberts; Travis Chong; Emma Hollands; Jason Tan; Ganendra Raj Kader Ali Mohan; Paul A Cohen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-05-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: N D Fleming; P T Ramirez; P T Soliman; K M Schmeler; G B Chisholm; A M Nick; S N Westin; M Frumovitz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: P Harter; I Schrof; L M Karl; R Hils; V Kullmann; A Traut; H Scheller; A du Bois Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Jeanne Carter; Helen Huang; Dana M Chase; Joan L Walker; David Cella; Lari Wenzel Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.437