A randomized pilot of eHealth mindful movement and breathing to improve gynecologic surgery outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pilot randomized controlled trial of eHealth Mindful Movement and Breathing (eMMB) compared to an empathic attention control (AC). PARTICIPANTS: Women undergoing surgery for a suspected gynecologic malignancy. METHODS: eMMB is a brief yoga intervention delivered remotely during the perioperative timeframe. We assessed feasibility and participants completed assessments (baseline, weeks 2 and 4 postoperatively). We summarized feasibility, participant characteristics, and outcomes by intervention group and time. FINDINGS: Forty-three percent of eligible patients approached participated (n = 31). Adherence to the interventions was 77%. Percent of participants to complete outcomes was 81% at Week 2 and 84% at Week 4 (>70%; retention was the primary feasibility indicator). Average reductions in the primary outcome of pain intensity were larger in the eMMB group than AC group (Week 2 d = -0.38; Week 4 d = -0.46). IMPLICATIONS: This pilot study of eMMB supported feasibility and improvements in pain intensity that warrant a future efficacy study.

A qualitative study on the impact of long-distance travel for gynecologic cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Women with gynecologic malignancies experience improved clinical outcomes when they are treated by gynecologic oncologists and in high-volume cancer centers. However, geography is a major barrier to high-volume care for patients. This qualitative study was undertaken to identify facilitators and barriers to patients traveling long distances for gynecologic cancer care. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 women with gynecologic malignancies traveling >50 miles for treatment at Wake Forest Comprehensive Cancer Center. Eight interviews included caregivers. Four interview domains focused on personal challenges and coping strategies related to accessing cancer care. RESULTS: Mean distance traveled for care was 87 miles (range: 54-218). Most participants reported that recommendations from physicians, friends, and family motivated travel. 10/19 participants were aware of closer sites for cancer care; 5 had unfavorable experiences elsewhere. Barriers to travel included time, cost, childcare, difficulty navigating, and physical discomfort. Social support was an important facilitator of travel for care; some patients utilized loaned money or vehicles. Participants reported significant energy expenditure scheduling travel, coordinating time off work, and arranging overnight stays near the cancer center. Suggestions for care improvement included travel vouchers, transportation assistance, signage and personnel to help with navigation, and appointments later in the day. Participants supported in-person oncologist outreach to rural areas and appointments via telemedicine; few preferred the current infrastructure. CONCLUSION: Patients who travel long distances for gynecologic cancer care encounter significant burdens and rely heavily on social and financial support. Interventions should be developed and evaluated to reduce the burden of long-distance travel and develop efficient methods of outreach, including telemedicine.

Does surgical treatment of atypical endometrial hyperplasia require referral to a gynecologic oncologist?

Patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia in the United States are commonly referred to a gynecologic oncologist, given a moderate risk of concurrent carcinoma. However, selective referral of patients to nononcologic gynecologic surgeons for surgical treatment of atypical endometrial hyperplasia may offer increased access to care without compromising clinical outcomes. Nononcologic surgeons who consider providing surgical treatment for atypical endometrial hyperplasia must be able to offer minimally invasive surgery when appropriate and have sufficient surgical volume to deliver optimal clinical outcomes. Patients considering referral to a nononcologic surgeon must be thoroughly counseled regarding the risk of occult malignancy, the possibility of a second surgery for lymph node evaluation and/or oophorectomy, and the risk of morbidity that may accompany a second surgery. Available data suggest that approximately 2-6% of patients will have postoperative risk factors meriting consideration of a second surgery. Patients who are high-risk surgical candidates or who may desire nonsurgical or fertility-sparing treatment should universally be referred for consultation with a gynecologic oncologist.