Kelley C Wood1, Jessica Bertram2, Tiffany Kendig3, Mary Hidde3,4, Aliza Leiser5, Alexandre Buckley de Meritens5, Mackenzi Pergolotti3. 1. Select Medical, ReVital Cancer Rehabilitation, 4714 Gettysburg Rd, Mechanicsburg, PA, 17055, USA. kecwood@selectmedical.com. 2. Baylor Scott and White Institute for Rehabilitation, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. Select Medical, ReVital Cancer Rehabilitation, 4714 Gettysburg Rd, Mechanicsburg, PA, 17055, USA. 4. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 5. Division Gynecologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NB, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Women with gynecologic cancers often experience functional impairments impacting quality of life. Physical and occupational therapy (PT/OT) treat functional impairment; however, the acceptability and impact of these services for women with gynecologic cancer are unknown. METHODS: We reviewed rehabilitation charts of women with gynecologic cancer who received PT/OT (i.e., patients) in 2019 and completed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) selected by their therapist at intake (pre) and discharge (post). We calculated descriptive statistics for patient, rehabilitation, and acceptability (0-10) data. For PROM data, we used paired samples t-tests to evaluate pre-post change, and then calculated effect size (Hedge's g) and the proportion who achieved a minimal detectable change (MDC). RESULTS: PT/OT patients (N = 84) were 64.63 ± 11.04 years old with predominant diagnoses of ovarian (41.7%) or endometrial (32.1%) cancer. They attended a median of 13 sessions (IQR = 8.0-19.0). Sessions were predominantly PT (86%) vs. OT (14%). Median acceptability was 10 (IQR = 9.8-10.0). Pre-post improvement was observed for each of the 17 PROMs used by therapists. Significant improvement (p < .05) was observed for four PROMs: the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (M∆ = 2.93 ± 2.31, g = 1.47, 71% achieved MDC), the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (M∆ = 12.88 ± 12.31, g = 0.61, 60% achieved MDC), the Lymphedema Life Impact Scale (M∆ = 20.50 ± 20.61, g = 1.18, 58% achieved MDC), and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (M∆ = 6.55 ± 9.69, g = 0.33, 7% achieved MDC). CONCLUSION: PT/OT was acceptable and improved patient-reported outcomes for women with gynecologic cancers. Future research is needed to establish gynecologic-specific guidelines for referral and PT/OT practice.
OBJECTIVE: Women with gynecologic cancers often experience functional impairments impacting quality of life. Physical and occupational therapy (PT/OT) treat functional impairment; however, the acceptability and impact of these services for women with gynecologic cancer are unknown. METHODS: We reviewed rehabilitation charts of women with gynecologic cancer who received PT/OT (i.e., patients) in 2019 and completed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) selected by their therapist at intake (pre) and discharge (post). We calculated descriptive statistics for patient, rehabilitation, and acceptability (0-10) data. For PROM data, we used paired samples t-tests to evaluate pre-post change, and then calculated effect size (Hedge's g) and the proportion who achieved a minimal detectable change (MDC). RESULTS: PT/OT patients (N = 84) were 64.63 ± 11.04 years old with predominant diagnoses of ovarian (41.7%) or endometrial (32.1%) cancer. They attended a median of 13 sessions (IQR = 8.0-19.0). Sessions were predominantly PT (86%) vs. OT (14%). Median acceptability was 10 (IQR = 9.8-10.0). Pre-post improvement was observed for each of the 17 PROMs used by therapists. Significant improvement (p < .05) was observed for four PROMs: the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (M∆ = 2.93 ± 2.31, g = 1.47, 71% achieved MDC), the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (M∆ = 12.88 ± 12.31, g = 0.61, 60% achieved MDC), the Lymphedema Life Impact Scale (M∆ = 20.50 ± 20.61, g = 1.18, 58% achieved MDC), and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (M∆ = 6.55 ± 9.69, g = 0.33, 7% achieved MDC). CONCLUSION: PT/OT was acceptable and improved patient-reported outcomes for women with gynecologic cancers. Future research is needed to establish gynecologic-specific guidelines for referral and PT/OT practice.
Authors: Nathalie Zandbergen; Belle H de Rooij; M Caroline Vos; Johanna M A Pijnenborg; Dorry Boll; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Nicole P M Ezendam Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Brian D Gonzalez; Sharon L Manne; Jerod Stapleton; Shannon Myers-Virtue; Melissa Ozga; David Kissane; Carolyn Heckman; Mark Morgan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Henrica C de Vet; Caroline B Terwee; Raymond W Ostelo; Heleen Beckerman; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2006-08-22 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Jeanne Carter; Helen Q Huang; Jane Armer; Jay W Carlson; Suzy Lockwood; Susan Nolte; James Kauderer; Alan Hutson; Joan L Walker; Aimee C Fleury; Albert Bonebrake; John T Soper; Cara Mathews; Oliver Zivanovic; William Edward Richards; Annie Tan; David S Alberts; Richard R Barakat; Lari B Wenzel Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-10-24 Impact factor: 5.482