Psychological impact of referral to an oncology hospital on patients with an ovarian mass.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with an ovarian mass, a risk of malignancy assessment is used to decide whether referral to an oncology hospital is indicated. Risk assessment strategies do not perform optimally, resulting in either referral of patients with a benign mass or patients with a malignant mass not being referred. This process may affect the psychological well-being of patients. We evaluated cancer-specific distress during work-up for an ovarian mass, and patients' perceptions during work-up, referral, and treatment. METHODS: Patients with an ovarian mass scheduled for surgery were enrolled. Using questionnaires we measured (1) cancer-specific distress using the cancer worry scale, (2) patients' preferences regarding referral (evaluated pre-operatively), and (3) patients' experiences with work-up and treatment (evaluated post-operatively). A cancer worry scale score of ≥14 was considered as clinically significant cancer-specific distress. RESULTS: A total of 417 patients were included, of whom 220 (53%) were treated at a general hospital and 197 (47%) at an oncology hospital. Overall, 57% had a cancer worry scale score of ≥14 and this was higher in referred patients (69%) than in patients treated at a general hospital (43%). 53% of the patients stated that the cancer risk should not be higher than 25% to undergo surgery at a general hospital. 96% of all patients were satisfied with the overall work-up and treatment. No difference in satisfaction was observed between patients correctly (not) referred and patients incorrectly (not) referred. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively many patients with an ovarian mass experienced high cancer-specific distress during work-up. Nevertheless, patients were satisfied with the treatment, regardless of the final diagnosis and the location of treatment. Moreover, patients preferred to be referred even if there was only a relatively low probability of having ovarian cancer. Patients' preferences should be taken into account when deciding on optimal cut-offs for risk assessment strategies.

How distressing is referral to colposcopy in cervical cancer screening?: a prospective quality of life study.

OBJECTIVE: Referral for colposcopy because of abnormal Pap test results is likely to be distressing, but the extent and duration of these effects are unknown. We aimed to fill this gap. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study at two departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology (an academic and a non-academic setting). Women referred for colposcopy completed questionnaires before colposcopy, and at 1, 3, and 6 months afterwards. A reference group of 706 screen participants, aged 29-60 years old, was included and completed questionnaires once. Main outcome measures were generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL), assessed through the EQ-5D and the SF-12 physical and mental scores (PCS-12 and MCS-12); anxiety as assessed by STAI-6, and screen-specific anxiety as assessed by the psychological consequences questionnaire (PCQ). RESULTS: 154 women responded to the questionnaire, of whom 132 were included in the analyses. Histological results were CIN 1 in 17/115 women (15%) and CIN 2+ in 62 (54%). In 36 women (31%) there was no histologically confirmed neoplasia. Before colposcopy physical HRQoL scores were similar or slightly better than in the reference group, while mental HRQoL (MSC-12) and (screen-specific) anxiety were worse (p<0.001). Irrespective of CIN-grades, anxiety washed out during follow-up (p<0.001), with changes being clinically relevant. CONCLUSIONS: Referral for gynecological evaluation because of abnormal PAP-test results was distressing. Anxiety--and not the physical burden of management--seemed to be the most bothersome to women. For all CIN-grades, distress disappeared over six months following colposcopy, suggesting a reassuring effect of gynecological management.

Assessment of Chlamydia trachomatis infection of semen specimens by ligase chain reaction.

Diagnostic potential of the Chlamydia trachomatis ligase chain reaction system (LCx) to assess the presence of C. trachomatis in urine and semen specimens was evaluated. Paired urine and semen specimens from 153 asymptomatic male partners of subfertile couples attending our Center for Reproductive Medicine were examined by LCx. As controls, 19 semen samples from four donors who were participating in the programme for artificial insemination were used. Of these, 12 samples had previously been shown to be C. trachomatis-positive by an in-house PCR. C. trachomatis was detected by LCx in seven of 153 (5 %) urine samples. None of the 153 semen samples tested positive by LCx. Also, none of the 12 C. trachomatis-containing control semen samples were positive by LCx. By in-house PCR, seven urine specimens and two of 153 (1 %) semen samples tested positive. The corresponding urine samples of these male partners were also C. trachomatis-positive, as well as the 12 C. trachomatis-containing samples from donors. In conclusion, LCx is not sensitive enough to assess the presence of C. trachomatis in semen specimens; therefore, this method is not recommended to routinely screen semen specimens from donors who participate in programmes for artificial insemination or male partners of subfertile couples for C. trachomatis.