Sentinel Lymph Node Impact on the Quality of Life of Patients with Endometrial Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Given the improvement in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer with the inclusion of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), our aim was to evaluate the impact of this minimally invasive and tailored nodal assessment on patients' quality of life (QoL). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a single-centre, tertiary-level hospital. Patients diagnosed with preoperative early-stage endometrial cancer, who underwent primary surgical treatment between August 2015 and November 2021, were included. The enrolled patients were divided into two cohorts according to the nodal staging performed: the first group underwent only SLNB (SLNB group); the second group underwent pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy (LND group). We evaluated the overall QoL using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life core 30-item questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and a sexual health questionnaire (EORTC SHQ-C20). The scores were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Ninety patients were enrolled in the study: 61 (67.8%) in the SLNB group and 29 (32.2%) in the LND group. In the LND group, 24 (82.7%) patients underwent pelvic and para-aortic LND, while 5 (17.3%) patients underwent pelvic LND. The assessment of the functional scales showed better results for the SLNB group than for the LND group, with a significantly lower impact on physical status (8.2% vs. 25%, respectively; p = 0.031). In terms of the symptom scales, the SLNB group reported a significantly lower negative impact on sleep quality (4.9% vs. 27.6%, respectively; p < 0.01), pain (1.6% vs. 13.8%, respectively; p = 0.019), and dyspnoea (0% vs. 10.3%, respectively; p = 0.011) than the LND group. The SLNB group had better results for all analysed items regarding sexual QoL. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a surgical technique with SLNB improved patients' overall QoL by increasing their well-being in the functional and symptom spheres.

Challenges in lower limb lymphoedema assessment based on limb volume change: Lessons learnt from the SENTIX prospective multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Lower limb lymphoedema (LLL) is the most disabling adverse effect of surgical staging of pelvic lymph nodes. However, the lack of standardisation of volumetric LLL assessment hinders direct comparison between the studies and makes LLL reporting unreliable. The aim of our study is to report outcomes from a prospective trial that have implications for LLL assessment standardisation. METHODS: In the prospective international multicentre trial SENTIX, a group of 150 patients with stage IA1-IB2 cervical cancer treated by uterine surgery with bilateral sentinel lymph node biopsy was prospectively evaluated by objective LLL assessment, based on limb volume change (LVC) using circumferrential limb measurements and subjective patient-reported swelling. The assessments were conducted in six-month periods over 24 months post-surgery. RESULTS: Patient LVC substantially fluctuated in both positive and negative directions, which were comparable in frequency up to ±14% change. Thirty-eight patients experienced persistent LVC increase >10% classified as LLL, with nine months median time to onset. Some 34.2% of cases experienced onset later than one year after the surgery. Thirty-three patients (22%) experienced transient oedema characterised as LVC >10%, which resolved without intervention between two consequent follow-up visits. No significant correlation between LVC >10% and a patient-reported swelling was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Given that we observed comparable fluctuations of the the lower-limb volumes after surgical treatment of cervical cancer in both positive and negative direction up to ±14%, the diagnostic threshold for LLL diagnosis based on LVC should be increased to >15% LVC. The distinction of transient oedema from persistent LLL requires repeated measurements. Also, as one-third of LLL cases are diagnosed >1-year post-surgery, a sufficient follow-up duration needs to be ensured. Patient-reported swelling correlated poorly with LVC and should only be used as an adjunct to objective LLL assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02494063.

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).

BACKGROUND: 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.