Search

Objectives Patient-centredness of care during wait time before surgery can be improved. In this study we aimed to assess (1) patients’ experiences with and preferences regarding wait time before surgery; (2) the impact of wait time on quality of life (QoL) and (3) which factors influence patients’ wait time experience.Design, setting, participants We performed an exploratory sequential mixed-methods study among women with gynaecological cancer in two tertiary hospitals. We conducted semistructured interviews and identified aspects of QoL and factors that influenced wait time acceptability through thematic analysis. We developed a questionnaire from this thematic analysis which was completed by 97 women. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed.Results Average ideal wait time was 3.5 weeks (±1.7 weeks), minimum and maximum acceptable wait times were 2.2 and 5.6 weeks. Many patients scored above the threshold of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for anxiety (48%) or depression (34%), had sleeping problems (56%) or experienced pain (54%). A number of factors were more common in patients who indicated that their wait time had been too long: low education level (OR 7.4, 95% CI 0.5 to 5.0, p=0.007), time to surgery >4 weeks (OR 7.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 4.4, p=0.002) and experienced sleep disturbance (OR 3.27, 95% CI 0.0 to 3.1, p=0.05). If patients expectation of wait time was >4 weeks (OR 0.20, 95% CI −4.0 to −0.5 p=0008) or if patients experienced pain (OR 0.26, 95% CI −3.6 to −0.3, p=0.03), they less frequently indicated that wait time had been too long.Conclusion To improve patient-centredness of care, healthcare providers should aim to reduce wait time to 3–4 weeks and ensure that patients are well informed about the length of wait time and are aware of high levels of anxiety, depression and pain during this time. Future studies should evaluate what interventions can improve QoL during wait time.

Abstract Background Standard groin treatment in recurrent vulvar cancer consists of uni- or bilateral inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL), whereas in the primary setting women with selected unifocal tumours will undergo a sentinel lymph node (SLN) procedure. The SLN procedure results in fewer short and long-term sequelae compared to IFL, but some concerns must first be considered. Lymph drainage of the vulvar region can be affected by a previous surgery, which might reduce the number of detectable SLN nodes (feasibility) but increase the chance of encountering aberrant lymph drainage patterns such as bilateral SLNs in lateral tumours or SLNs at unexpected locations. Therefore, the SLN procedure potentially carries a higher risk of groin recurrence if a tumour positive node is not retrieved, but may also improve outcomes for women with aberrant drainage patterns. Since the relative benefits and drawbacks of the SLN procedure are still unclear we will investigate the safety of the SLN procedure in women with a first recurrent vulvar cancer. In a simultaneously started registration study we prospectively gather information on women with a first recurrence of vulvar cancer ineligible for the SLN procedure. Method In this prospective multicentre observational study all women with a first recurrence of vulvar cancer will be asked to consent to the collection of information on their diagnostics, treatment and outcome, and to complete quality of life and lymph oedema questionnaires. Women with unifocal tumours smaller than 4 cm and unsuspicious groin nodes will be offered the SLN procedure, with follow-up every 3 months together with imaging at 6 and 12 months when the SLN is tumour negative. The primary outcome is groin recurrence within 2 years of initial surgery. A total of 150 women with negative SLNs will be required to demonstrate safety, a stopping rule will apply and an extensive statistical analysis has been designed. Discussion Should the SLN procedure prove feasible and safe in recurrent vulvar cancer, it will be available for implementation in clinics worldwide. The inclusion of women ineligible for the SLN procedure in the current prospective study will help to bridge knowledge gaps and define future research questions. Trial registration Medical Ethical Committee approval number NL70149.078.19 (trial protocol version 2.0, date March 2nd, 2020). Affiliation: Erasmus Medical Centre. Dutch trial register NL8467 . Date of registration 19.03.2020.

OBJECTIVE: One key aspect of cancer survivorship is return-to-work. Unfortunately, many cancer survivors face problems upon their return-to-work. For that reason, we developed a hospital-based work support intervention aimed at enhancing return-to-work. We studied effectiveness of the intervention compared to usual care for female cancer patients in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Breast and gynaecological cancer patients who were treated with curative intent and had paid work were randomised to the intervention group (n = 65) or control group (n = 68). The intervention involved patient education and support at the hospital and improvement of communication between treating and occupational physicians. In addition, we asked patient's occupational physician to organise a meeting with the patient and the supervisor to make a concrete gradual return-to-work plan. Outcomes at 12 months of follow-up included rate and time until return-to-work (full or partial), quality of life, work ability, work functioning, and lost productivity costs. Time until return-to-work was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Return-to-work rates were 86% and 83% (p = 0.6) for the intervention group and control group when excluding 8 patients who died or with a life expectancy of months at follow-up. Median time from initial sick leave to partial return-to-work was 194 days (range 14-435) versus 192 days (range 82-465) (p = 0.90) with a hazard ratio of 1.03 (95% CI 0.64-1.6). Quality of life and work ability improved statistically over time but did not differ statistically between groups. Work functioning and costs did not differ statistically between groups. CONCLUSION: The intervention was easily implemented into usual psycho-oncological care and showed high return-to-work rates. We failed to show any differences between groups on return-to-work outcomes and quality of life scores. Further research is needed to study which aspects of the intervention are useful and which elements need improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register (NTR) 1658.