6 research outputs found
Perspectives, fears and expectations of patients with gynaecological cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A Pan-European study of the European Network of Gynaecological Cancer Advocacy Groups (ENGAGe)
No full textBackground: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on European gynaecological cancer patients under active treatment or follow-up has not been documented. We sought to capture the patient perceptions of the COVID-19 implications and the worldwide imposed treatment modifications. Methods: A patient survey was conducted in 16 European countries, using a new COVID-19-related questionnaire, developed by ENGAGe and the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale questionnaire (HADS). The survey was promoted by national patient advocacy groups and charitable organisations. Findings: We collected 1388 forms; 592 online and 796 hard-copy (May, 2020). We excluded 137 due to missing data. Median patients’ age was 55 years (range: 18–89), 54.7% had ovarian cancer and 15.5% were preoperative. Even though 73.2% of patients named cancer as a risk factor for COVID-19, only 17.5% were more afraid of COVID-19 than their cancer condition, with advanced age (>70 years) as the only significant risk factor for that. Overall, 71% were concerned about cancer progression if their treatment/follow-up was cancelled/postponed. Most patients (64%) had their care continued as planned, but 72.3% (n = 892) said that they received no information around overall COVID-19 infection rates of patients and staff, testing or measures taken in their treating hospital. Mean HADS Anxiety and Depression Scores were 8.8 (range: 5.3–12) and 8.1 (range: 3.8–13.4), respectively. Multivariate analysis identified high HADS-depression scores, having experienced modifications of care due to the pandemic and concern about not being able to visit their doctor as independent predictors of patients’ anxiety. Interpretation: Gynaecological cancer patients expressed significant anxiety about progression of their disease due to modifications of care related to the COVID-19 pandemic and wished to pursue their treatment as planned despite the associated risks. Healthcare professionals should take this into consideration when making decisions that impact patients care in times of crisis and to develop initiatives to improve patients’ communication and education
Comparison of intraoperative frozen section consultation and hysterectomy characteristics in patients diagnosed with EIN in endometrial biopsies
No full textObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the likelihood of detecting cancer in final pathology and evaluate the accuracy of intraoperative frozen-section assessment in cases of endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN).Material and methodsWe included patients diagnosed with EIN at Hacettepe University Hospital who subsequently underwent hysterectomy at the same center between January 2011 and March 2023. EIN diagnoses made at other institutions were re-evaluated and confirmed by co-author gynecopathologists.ResultsA total of 354 patients diagnosed with EIN underwent hysterectomy. The majority of patients (68.5%) had a final diagnosis of EIN. Endometrial cancer (EC) was identified in 11.3% (n = 40) of patients in the final pathology. Advanced age (≥50 years) (OR = 2.52; 95% CI: [1.27–4.96]; p = 0.006) and menopausal status (OR = 2.62; 95% CI: [1.34–5.11]; p = 0.004) were significantly associated with an increased risk of EC. Among 263 patients who underwent intraoperative frozen-section assessment, EC was detected in 12.9% (n = 34). The sensitivity and specificity of frozen-section assessment for EC detection were 41.1% and 100%, respectively. The frozen-section assessment failed to identify only one of the seven patients who required staging surgery.ConclusionOur study demonstrates that a preoperative EIN diagnosis carries an 11.3% risk of concurrent EC. Additionally, the likelihood of EC is significantly higher in older and postmenopausal patients. The majority of patients requiring staging surgery were identified by frozen-section assessment. Our findings indicate that frozen-section assessment provides the necessary information for adequate surgical treatment in EIN cases
Supplementary Material for: Impact of Human Papillomavirus on Wnt/Beta-Catenin Signaling in Morphological Inconspicuous Cervicovaginal Cells
No full textIntroduction: The aim of this study was to identify early changes in the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway in high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infected cervicovaginal cells and to correlate these changes with cell proliferation, apoptosis, and autophagic processes. Methods: We evaluated 91 cervicovaginal smears of women with (n = 41) and without (n = 50) HPV-DNA. Smears were stained against beta-catenin, c-myc, secreted frizzled-related protein 4 (sFRP4), cleaved caspase-3, and the autophagy markers Beclin-1 and light chain 3B. In addition, sFRP-1, -2, -3, -4, -5 mRNA levels were determined by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR in primary keratinocytes and FaDu cells expressing HPV16-E6, -E7, or -E6E7. Results: Our data indicated that the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling is activated in HPV (+) cervicovaginal cells that can already be detected in cells with no obvious changes in cellular morphology (HPV [+]/cyto [−]). These cells also had significantly higher sFRP4 levels when compared to HPV-negative samples. In primary keratinocytes, sFRP4 was found to be absent and sFRP1 and sFRP2 to be repressed in the presence of HPV16-E6 and E7. Interestingly, sFRP4 is expressed in FaDu cells and can be upregulated in the presence of E6E7. Curiously, SFRP4 expression correlated with an increase in the level of autophagic markers in HPV (+)/cyto (−) smears. Conclusion: In conclusion, the activation of the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway and upregulation of sFRP4, paralleled by an activation of the autophagic pathway may represent predisposing cellular factors early after HPV infection which need to be further determined in larger study
Perspectives, fears and expectations of patients with gynaecological cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A Pan-European study of the European Network of Gynaecological Cancer Advocacy Groups (ENGAGe)
No full textBackground: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on European gynaecological cancer patients under active treatment or follow-up has not been documented. We sought to capture the patient perceptions of the COVID-19 implications and the worldwide imposed treatment modifications. Methods: A patient survey was conducted in 16 European countries, using a new COVID-19-related questionnaire, developed by ENGAGe and the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale questionnaire (HADS). The survey was promoted by national patient advocacy groups and charitable organisations. Findings: We collected 1388 forms; 592 online and 796 hard-copy (May, 2020). We excluded 137 due to missing data. Median patients’ age was 55 years (range: 18–89), 54.7% had ovarian cancer and 15.5% were preoperative. Even though 73.2% of patients named cancer as a risk factor for COVID-19, only 17.5% were more afraid of COVID-19 than their cancer condition, with advanced age (>70 years) as the only significant risk factor for that. Overall, 71% were concerned about cancer progression if their treatment/follow-up was cancelled/postponed. Most patients (64%) had their care continued as planned, but 72.3% (n = 892) said that they received no information around overall COVID-19 infection rates of patients and staff, testing or measures taken in their treating hospital. Mean HADS Anxiety and Depression Scores were 8.8 (range: 5.3–12) and 8.1 (range: 3.8–13.4), respectively. Multivariate analysis identified high HADS-depression scores, having experienced modifications of care due to the pandemic and concern about not being able to visit their doctor as independent predictors of patients’ anxiety. Interpretation: Gynaecological cancer patients expressed significant anxiety about progression of their disease due to modifications of care related to the COVID-19 pandemic and wished to pursue their treatment as planned despite the associated risks. Healthcare professionals should take this into consideration when making decisions that impact patients care in times of crisis and to develop initiatives to improve patients’ communication and education. © 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
No full textBACKGROUND: Surgical services are preparing to scale up in areas affected by COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the association between preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective cancer surgery. METHODS: This international cohort study included adult patients undergoing elective surgery for cancer in areas affected by SARS-CoV-2 up to 19 April 2020. Patients suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection before operation were excluded. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pulmonary complications at 30 days after surgery. Preoperative testing strategies were adjusted for confounding using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Of 8784 patients (432 hospitals, 53 countries), 2303 patients (26.2 per cent) underwent preoperative testing: 1458 (16.6 per cent) had a swab test, 521 (5.9 per cent) CT only, and 324 (3.7 per cent) swab and CT. Pulmonary complications occurred in 3.9 per cent, whereas SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in 2.6 per cent. After risk adjustment, having at least one negative preoperative nasopharyngeal swab test (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; P = 0.040) was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications. Swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in areas with a high 14-day SARS-CoV-2 case notification rate, but not before minor surgery or in low-risk areas. To prevent one pulmonary complication, the number needed to swab test before major or minor surgery was 18 and 48 respectively in high-risk areas, and 73 and 387 in low-risk areas. CONCLUSION: Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in high SARS-CoV-2 risk areas. There was no proven benefit of swab testing before minor surgery in low-risk areas
