Krista S Pfaendler1, Lari Wenzel2, Mindy B Mechanic3, Kristine R Penner4. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California at Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California. 2. Program in Public Health, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California; Department of Medicine and Program in Public Health, Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California. 3. Department of Psychology, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California. 4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California at Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California. Electronic address: kpennerk@uci.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy are the mainstays of cervical cancer treatment. Many patients receive multiple treatment modalities, each with its own long-term effects. Given the high 5-year survival rate for cervical cancer patients, evaluation and improvement of long-term quality of life are essential. METHODS: Pertinent articles were identified through searches of PubMed for literature published from 1993 to 2014. We summarize quality of life data from long-term follow-up studies of cervical cancer patients. We additionally summarize small group interviews of Hispanic and non-Hispanic cervical cancer survivors regarding social support and coping. FINDINGS: Data are varied in terms of the long-term impact of treatment on quality of life, but consistent in suggesting that patients who receive radiotherapy as part of their treatment have the highest risk of increased long-term dysfunction of bladder and bowel, as well as sexual dysfunction and psychosocial consequences. Rigorous investigations regarding long-term consequences of treatment modalities are lacking. IMPLICATIONS: Continued work to improve treatment outcomes and survival should also include a focus on reducing adverse long-term side effects. Providing supportive care during treatment and evaluating the effects of supportive care can reduce the prevalence and magnitude of long-term sequelae of cervical cancer, which will in turn improve quality of life and quality of care.
PURPOSE: Surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy are the mainstays of cervical cancer treatment. Many patients receive multiple treatment modalities, each with its own long-term effects. Given the high 5-year survival rate for cervical cancerpatients, evaluation and improvement of long-term quality of life are essential. METHODS: Pertinent articles were identified through searches of PubMed for literature published from 1993 to 2014. We summarize quality of life data from long-term follow-up studies of cervical cancerpatients. We additionally summarize small group interviews of Hispanic and non-Hispanic cervical cancer survivors regarding social support and coping. FINDINGS: Data are varied in terms of the long-term impact of treatment on quality of life, but consistent in suggesting that patients who receive radiotherapy as part of their treatment have the highest risk of increased long-term dysfunction of bladder and bowel, as well as sexual dysfunction and psychosocial consequences. Rigorous investigations regarding long-term consequences of treatment modalities are lacking. IMPLICATIONS: Continued work to improve treatment outcomes and survival should also include a focus on reducing adverse long-term side effects. Providing supportive care during treatment and evaluating the effects of supportive care can reduce the prevalence and magnitude of long-term sequelae of cervical cancer, which will in turn improve quality of life and quality of care.
Authors: A Pinto; P Fidalgo; M Cravo; J Midões; P Chaves; J Rosa; M dos Anjos Brito; C N Leitão Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Ida J Korfage; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Floortje Mols; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Roy Kruitwagen; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-09-25 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Diana S Hoover; Claire A Spears; Damon J Vidrine; Joan L Walker; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; David W Wetter Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2019-05-01
Authors: Gwendolyn P Quinn; Julian A Sanchez; Steven K Sutton; Susan T Vadaparampil; Giang T Nguyen; B Lee Green; Peter A Kanetsky; Matthew B Schabath Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Sarah Abboud; Emily De Penning; Bridgette M Brawner; Usha Menon; Karen Glanz; Marilyn S Sommers Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Shi-Yi Wang; Sylvia H Hsu; Cary P Gross; Tara Sanft; Amy J Davidoff; Xiaomei Ma; James B Yu Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 5.725