Search

Abstract Objectives Sexuality is an important dimension of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in cancer patients. Studies evidence that most patients report impairments of their sexual health related to their disease or its treatment. The Quality of Life Group of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) developed a patient reported outcome measure assessing multidimensional aspects of sexual health. The validation study for this instrument revealed heterogenous results for patients in palliative oncological treatment. The aim of this secondary analyses is to examine differences in patient related sexual health outcomes between palliative patients with good performance status (GPS) and those with poor performance status (PPS). Methods In this observational cohort study, self-reported sexual health issue scores were compared between the two groups of patients in palliative oncological treatment with GPS vs PPS status. Results Patients with GPS experienced significantly more sexual satisfaction than patients with PPS (p = 0.015). They reported significantly more treatment effects on their sexual activity (p = 0.005) and suffer more from decreased libido (p = 0.008). Patients with PPS reported significantly more fatigue (p = 0.03) and regarded preservation of sexual activity of higher importance than did patients with GPS (p = 0.049). Conclusions Our study demonstrates the importance of sexuality for patients in palliative oncological treatment, especially for those with limited performance status. Considering the patients´ perspective, sexual health reaches beyond physical functioning. Patients in a palliative phase of disease report high levels of psychosexual problems while sexual performance deteriorates. Sexuality is an important aspect of HRQOL for these patients, needs to be addressed by health care providers and sensitively integrated into palliative care plans.

Abstract Objectives The main objective of this review was to evaluate the methodological design in studies reporting resource use and costs related to robotic surgery in gynecology. Methods Systematic searches were performed in the databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database for relevant studies before May 2016. The quality of the methodological design was assessed with items regarding methodology from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). The systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results Thirty-two relevant studies were included. None of the reviewed studied fully complied with the CHEERS methodological checklist. Background and objectives, Target population and subgroups and Setting and location were covered in sufficient details in all studies whereas the Study perspective, Justification of the time horizon, Discount rate, and Estimating resources and costs were covered in less than 50%. Most of the studies (29/32) used the health care sector perspective whereas the societal perspective was applied in three studies. The time horizon was stated in 18/32 of the studies. Conclusions The methodological quality of studies evaluating costs of robotic surgery was low. The longest follow-up was 4 months and in general, the use of detailed cost data were lacking in most of the investigations. Key determinants, such as purchasing, maintenance costs of the robotic platform, and the use of surgical equipment, were rarely reported. If health care cost analyses lack transparency regarding cost drivers included it may not provide a true foundation for decision-making.