| 2. |
- Pinto, Patrícia, et al.
(author)
-
Patient satisfaction with ultrasound, whole-body CT and whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for pre-operative ovarian cancer staging : a multicenter prospective cross-sectional survey
- 2024
-
In: International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. - 1048-891X.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background In addition to the diagnostic accuracy of imaging methods, patient-reported satisfaction with imaging methods is important. Objective To report a secondary outcome of the prospective international multicenter Imaging Study in Advanced ovArian Cancer (ISAAC Study), detailing patients’ experience with abdomino-pelvic ultrasound, whole-body contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), and whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (WB-DWI/MRI) for pre-operative ovarian cancer work-up. Methods In total, 144 patients with suspected ovarian cancer at four institutions in two countries (Italy, Czech Republic) underwent ultrasound, CT, and WB-DWI/ MRI for pre-operative work-up between January 2020 and November 2022. After having undergone all three examinations, the patients filled in a questionnaire evaluating their overall experience and experience in five domains: preparation before the examination, duration of examination, noise during the procedure, radiation load of CT, and surrounding space. Pain perception, examination-related patient-perceived unexpected, unpleasant, or dangerous events (‘adverse events’), and preferred method were also noted. Results Ultrasound was the preferred method by 49% (70/144) of responders, followed by CT (38%, 55/144), and WB-DWI/MRI (13%, 19/144) (p<0.001). The poorest experience in all domains was reported for WB-DWI/ MRI, which was also associated with the largest number of patients who reported adverse events (eg, dyspnea). Patients reported higher levels of pain during the ultrasound examination than during CT and WB-DWI/MRI (p<0.001): 78% (112/144) reported no pain or mild pain, 19% (27/144) moderate pain, and 3% (5/144) reported severe pain (pain score >7 of 10) during the ultrasound examination. We did not identify any factors related to patients' preferred method.for diagnosing malignant ovarian tumors3 but has rarely been used for pre-operative ovarian cancer work-up.4–7 In 2022, the results of a prospective single-unit study indicated that ultrasound might be an alternative to CT and whole-body diffusion-weighted (WB-DWI)/ MRI for ovarian cancer work-up and prediction of tumor resectability.8 In the recently published European Society of Gynecological Oncology/European Society of Medical Oncology/European Society of Pathology (ESGO/ESMO/ESP) consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer, ultrasound is suggested to be an effective alternative to CT, MRI and PET-CT to assess tumor extent and tumor resectability in the pelvis and abdomen.2 In addition to diagnostic accuracy and costs of an imaging method, patient acceptance and preference are important before an imaging test is implemented in clinical practice.9 10 Although there is evidence regarding patients’ experience of and satisfaction with ultrasound,11 12 CT,13–17 and WB-DWI/MRI,16 18–20 little is known about how these three imaging modalities compare when applied in the same patient. Many factors can influence a patient’s experience with an imaging examination—for example, preparation for, and duration of, the examination; use of contrast agent (especially iodinated contrast agent); radiation dose (which depends on the duration of radiation exposure, distance from the radiation source, and physical shielding); noise, feeling of claustrophobia, and occurrence of unexpected unpleasant or dangerous events (adverse events).21–25 The aim of this study is to report a secondary outcome of the prospective, multicentric Imaging Study in Advanced ovArian Cancer (ISAAC Study)—namely, patients’ experience with ultrasound, CT, and WB-DWI/MRI for pre-operative estimation of the extent of ovarian cancer.
|
|
| 3. |
- Salvo, Gloria, et al.
(author)
-
Open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer : International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study
- 2022
-
In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-9378 .- 1097-6868. ; 226:1, s. 1-97
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Minimally invasive radical trachelectomy has emerged as an alternative to open radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer desiring future fertility. Recent data suggest worse oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy than after open radical hysterectomy in stage I cervical cancer. Objective: We aimed to compare 4.5-year disease-free survival after open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. Study Design: This was a collaborative, international retrospective study (International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study) of patients treated during 2005–2017 at 18 centers in 12 countries. Eligible patients had squamous carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma; had a preoperative tumor size of ≤2 cm; and underwent open or minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) radical trachelectomy with nodal assessment (pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or sentinel lymph node biopsy). The exclusion criteria included neoadjuvant chemotherapy or preoperative pelvic radiotherapy, previous lymphadenectomy or pelvic retroperitoneal surgery, pregnancy, stage IA1 disease with lymphovascular space invasion, aborted trachelectomy (conversion to radical hysterectomy), or vaginal approach. Surgical approach, indication, and adjuvant therapy regimen were at the discretion of the treating institution. A total of 715 patients were entered into the study database. However, 69 patients were excluded, leaving 646 in the analysis. Endpoints were the 4.5-year disease-free survival rate (primary), 4.5-year overall survival rate (secondary), and recurrence rate (secondary). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate disease-free survival and overall survival. A post hoc weighted analysis was performed, comparing the recurrence rates between surgical approaches, with open surgery being considered as standard and minimally invasive surgery as experimental. Results: Of 646 patients, 358 underwent open surgery, and 288 underwent minimally invasive surgery. The median (range) patient age was 32 (20–42) years for open surgery vs 31 (18–45) years for minimally invasive surgery (P=.11). Median (range) pathologic tumor size was 15 (0–31) mm for open surgery and 12 (0.8–40) mm for minimally invasive surgery (P=.33). The rates of pelvic nodal involvement were 5.3% (19 of 358 patients) for open surgery and 4.9% (14 of 288 patients) for minimally invasive surgery (P=.81). Median (range) follow-up time was 5.5 (0.20–16.70) years for open surgery and 3.1 years (0.02–11.10) years for minimally invasive surgery (P<.001). At 4.5 years, 17 of 358 patients (4.7%) with open surgery and 18 of 288 patients (6.2%) with minimally invasive surgery had recurrence (P=.40). The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates were 94.3% (95% confidence interval, 91.6–97.0) for open surgery and 91.5% (95% confidence interval, 87.6–95.6) for minimally invasive surgery (log-rank P=.37). Post hoc propensity score analysis of recurrence risk showed no difference between surgical approaches (P=.42). At 4.5 years, there were 6 disease-related deaths (open surgery, 3; minimally invasive surgery, 3) (log-rank P=.49). The 4.5-year overall survival rates were 99.2% (95% confidence interval, 97.6–99.7) for open surgery and 99.0% (95% confidence interval, 79.0–99.8) for minimally invasive surgery. Conclusion: The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates did not differ between open radical trachelectomy and minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. However, recurrence rates in each group were low. Ongoing prospective studies of conservative management of early-stage cervical cancer may help guide future management.
|
|
