scholarly journals Quality of life, function, and symptom scores following referral of obese women with endometrial cancer and complex atypical hyperplasia to a bariatric specialist

2016 ◽  
Vol 141 ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
A.M. Jernigan ◽  
K. Maurer ◽  
K.R. Cooper ◽  
P.G. Rose ◽  
P.R. Schauer ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adi Sofer ◽  
Racheli Magnezi ◽  
Ram Eitan ◽  
Oded Raban ◽  
Orna Tal ◽  
...  

Abstract Background This retrospective study compared perioperative measures, costs, quality of life and survival after open vs. robotic surgery, among obese women diagnosed with low-grade endometrial cancer. Methods Obese women (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30) who underwent open or robotic surgery for endometrial cancer, in one of two tertiary medical centers in the center of Israel, 2013–2016, postoperative grade 1–2, were included. Costs per patient, including 30-days post-surgery were calculated. Quality of life was evaluated by Physical and Mental Components of the SF-36 and a recovery from surgery questionnaire. Overall survival outcomes were obtained from patients’ files. Surgical outcomes, including operating and anesthesia times, length of hospital stay, and intraoperative and postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification scale were reviewed. Results In all, 138 women with BMI ≥30 underwent open (n = 61) or robotic surgery (n = 77) during the study period. The groups had similar BMI, comorbidities, demographics and tumor characteristics. Robotic surgery was associated with shorter hospital stays (mean 1.7 vs. 4.8 days; P < .0001) and fewer postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo > 2, 5.2% vs. 19.7%; P = .0008), but longer operating theater time (3.8 vs. 2.8 h; P < .001). Costs are equivalent when at least 350 robotic surgeries are performed annually, not including the initial system costs. Quality of life measures were better after robotic surgery. SF-36 showed better measures for robotic surgery (Physical 56 vs. 39 and Mental 73 vs. 56; P < .01). After robotic surgery, patients tended to recover quicker when compared to open surgery, as they returned to normal activities earlier, with less need for family and governmental assistance (mean recovery time, 23 vs. 70 days; P < 0.006 and mean change in preoperative total functioning score, − 1.5 vs. -3.9: P < 0.05, respectively). Overall, 5-year survival was 89.8% for the open surgery group vs. 94% for the robotic surgery group (log rank, P = 0.330). Conclusions Obese women with low-grade endometrial cancer had better quality of life after robotic vs. open surgery. They also had shorter hospital stays and fewer postoperative complications. Centers with high volumes of robotic surgery can achieve similar costs when comparing both methods. These results were achieved without jeopardizing survival. Our results further emphasize the need for the Israeli healthcare system to include specific reimbursement for robotic procedures in the population we studied.


2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (6) ◽  
pp. 843-854
Author(s):  
Olga Novikova ◽  
Yelena Ulrikh ◽  
V. Nosov ◽  
A. Charkhifalakyan

There is presented the review of domestic and foreign references on the conserved oncological safety of the use of menopausal hormone therapy after treatment for endometrial cancer, cervical cancer, borderline and malignant ovarian tumors, various variants of sarcomas of the uterus, vulva and vaginal cancer. To the opinion of the authors the refusal to prescribe menopausal hormone therapy to patients with oncogynecologic diseases in the anamnesis is usually not justified, the category of patients, to whom hormone replacement therapy is contraindicated, is well described and mentioned in the text. In other cases sex hormones can be used to treat menopausal symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients.


2022 ◽  
Vol 164 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-26
Author(s):  
Megan Lander ◽  
Kate Dugan ◽  
Jaden Kohn ◽  
Stephanie Wethington ◽  
Edward Tanner ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS5608-TPS5608
Author(s):  
Toon Van Gorp ◽  
Mansoor Raza Mirza ◽  
Alain Lortholary ◽  
David Cibula ◽  
Axel Walther ◽  
...  

TPS5608 Background: Pembrolizumab, a selective humanized anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody, has demonstrated activity in patients with previously treated mismatch repair (MMR) deficient (dMMR; 57.1% ORR as monotherapy and 63.6% ORR as combination therapy with lenvatinib) and MMR proficient (pMMR; 36.2% ORR as combination therapy with lenvatinib) endometrial cancer (EC). ENGOT-en11/GOG-3053/KEYNOTE-B21 is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of pembrolizumab or placebo in combination with adjuvant chemotherapy with/without radiotherapy in patients with EC. Methods: Eligible patients are ≥18 years old with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed high-risk (stage I/II non-endometrioid, stage III/IVa, p53 abnormality) EC (carcinoma or carcinosarcoma) following surgery with curative intent with no evidence of disease post-operatively or on imaging, and without prior systemic therapy/radiotherapy. In total, ̃990 patients are randomized to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo Q3W for 6 cycles + chemotherapy (carboplatin area under the curve [AUC] 5 or 6 + paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 Q3W or carboplatin AUC 2 or 2.7 + paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 QW) in stage 1. Patients receive pembrolizumab 400 mg or placebo Q6W for 6 cycles in stage 2 per their treatment assignment. At the investigator’s discretion, radiotherapy (external beam radiotherapy [EBRT] and/or brachytherapy) ± radiosensitizing cisplatin 50 mg/m2 (days 1 and 29) may be administered after completion of chemotherapy. Randomization is stratified by MMR status (pMMR vs dMMR) and, within pMMR, by planned radiation therapy (cisplatin-EBRT vs EBRT vs no EBRT), histology (endometrioid vs non-endometrioid), and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) surgical stage (I/II vs III/IVA). Dual primary endpoints are disease-free survival (DFS; per investigator assessment) and overall survival (OS), both estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, with a stratified log-rank test to assess treatment differences and a Cox proportional hazard model with Efron’s method of tie handling to assess the magnitude of treatment differences. Secondary endpoints include DFS (per blinded independent central review), DFS (per investigator assessment) and OS by biomarker status (PD-L1 and tumor mutational burden), safety (per National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0) and quality of life (per European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 [EORTC QLQ-C30] and Endometrial Cancer Module [EORTC QLQ-EN24]). The study began enrollment in December 2020. Clinical trial information: NCT04634877.


2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 857-864 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander R. Lucas ◽  
Brian C. Focht ◽  
David E. Cohn ◽  
Maryanna D. Klatt ◽  
Janet Buckworth

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document