Ashley F Haggerty1, David B Sarwer2, Kathryn H Schmitz3, Emily M Ko1, Kelly C Allison4, Christina S Chu5. 1. a Division of Gynecologic Oncology , University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , USA. 2. b College of Public Health , Temple University , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , USA. 3. c Department of Public Health Sciences , Penn State College of Medicine , Hershey , Pennsylvania , USA. 4. d Department of Psychiatry , Center for Weight and Eating Disorders , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , USA. 5. e Division of Gynecology, Department of Surgical Oncology , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The causal link between obesity and endometrial cancer is well established; however obese women's knowledge of this relationship is unknown. Our objective was to explore patients' understanding of this relationship and assess the acceptability of a technology-based weight loss intervention. METHODS/MATERIALS: Obese women with Type I endometrial cancer/hyperplasia were surveyed about their assessment of their body mass, knowledge of the relationship of obesity and endometrial cancer, and eating and activity habits. Interest in participation in an intervention also was assessed. RESULTS: Eighty-one women with early stage (71.6% stage I) and grade (41.7% grade 1) disease completed the survey. The median BMI was 35.4 kg/m2 (IQR 32.2-43.5 kg/m2) and the average age was 59.3 (SD 11.1) yr. 76.25% of women were unable to categorize their BMI correctly and 86.9% of those incorrectly underestimated their BMI category. One-third (35.9%) were unaware of any association between obesity and endometrial cancer and 33.3% responded that obesity decreased or did not significantly increase the risk of endometrial cancer. 59% expressed interest in a weight loss intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Endometrial cancer survivors with obesity underestimated their obesity and lacked knowledge regarding the link between obesity and endometrial cancer. However, the majority expressed interest in electronically delivered weight loss interventions.
OBJECTIVE: The causal link between obesity and endometrial cancer is well established; however obesewomen's knowledge of this relationship is unknown. Our objective was to explore patients' understanding of this relationship and assess the acceptability of a technology-based weight loss intervention. METHODS/MATERIALS: Obesewomen with Type I endometrial cancer/hyperplasia were surveyed about their assessment of their body mass, knowledge of the relationship of obesity and endometrial cancer, and eating and activity habits. Interest in participation in an intervention also was assessed. RESULTS: Eighty-one women with early stage (71.6% stage I) and grade (41.7% grade 1) disease completed the survey. The median BMI was 35.4 kg/m2 (IQR 32.2-43.5 kg/m2) and the average age was 59.3 (SD 11.1) yr. 76.25% of women were unable to categorize their BMI correctly and 86.9% of those incorrectly underestimated their BMI category. One-third (35.9%) were unaware of any association between obesity and endometrial cancer and 33.3% responded that obesity decreased or did not significantly increase the risk of endometrial cancer. 59% expressed interest in a weight loss intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Endometrial cancer survivors with obesity underestimated their obesity and lacked knowledge regarding the link between obesity and endometrial cancer. However, the majority expressed interest in electronically delivered weight loss interventions.
Authors: Meira Epplein; Susan D Reed; Lynda F Voigt; Katherine M Newton; Victoria L Holt; Noel S Weiss Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-08-05 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Kristy K Ward; Nina R Shah; Cheryl C Saenz; Michael T McHale; Edwin A Alvarez; Steven C Plaxe Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Linh M Duong; Reda J Wilson; Umed A Ajani; Simple D Singh; Christie R Eheman Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2011-06-17 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Pamela T Soliman; Roland L Bassett; Erik B Wilson; Stephanie Boyd-Rogers; Kathleen M Schmeler; Michael R Milam; David M Gershenson; Karen H Lu Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Eden R Cardozo; Tanaka J Dune; Lisa M Neff; Maureen E Brocks; Geraldine E Ekpo; Randall B Barnes; Erica E Marsh Journal: J Community Health Date: 2013-04
Authors: Eden R Cardozo; Lisa M Neff; Maureen E Brocks; Geraldine E Ekpo; Tanaka J Dune; Randall B Barnes; Erica E Marsh Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jacqueline A Murtha; Natalie Liu; Jen Birstler; Bret M Hanlon; Manasa Venkatesh; Lawrence P Hanrahan; Tudor Borza; David M Kushner; Luke M Funk Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 5.551
Authors: Laura Burkbauer; Macy Goldbach; Cassie Huang; Julia Lewandowski; Robert Krouse; Kelly Allison; Julia Tchou Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Subhjit Sekhon; L Stewart Massad; Andrea R Hagemann; Rebecca Dick; Andrea Leon; Abigail S Zamorano; Premal H Thaker; Carolyn K McCourt; David G Mutch; Matthew A Powell; Lindsay M Kuroki Journal: Gynecol Oncol Rep Date: 2019-08-10
Authors: Montana O'Hara; Monika Janda; Alexandra L McCarthy; James Nicklin; Graeme Walker; Andreas Obermair Journal: Gynecol Oncol Rep Date: 2021-12-22
Authors: Abigail E Derbyshire; Michelle L MacKintosh; Christina M Pritchard; Arya Pontula; Basil J Ammori; Akheel A Syed; Rebecca J Beeken; Emma J Crosbie Journal: Int J Womens Health Date: 2022-01-28