Long-term improvement of quality of life in patients with breast cancer: supporting patient-physician communication by an electronic tool for inpatient and outpatient care.

PURPOSE: The effectiveness of a pathway with quality of life (QoL) diagnosis and therapy has been already demonstrated in an earlier randomized trial (RCT) in patients with breast cancer. We refined the pathway by developing and evaluating an electronic tool for QoL assessment in routine inpatient and outpatient care. METHODS: In a single-arm study, patients with breast cancer with surgical treatment in two German hospitals were enrolled. QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23) was measured with an electronic tool after surgery and during aftercare in outpatient medical practices (3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months) so that results (QoL-profile) were available immediately. Feedback by patients and physicians was analyzed to evaluate feasibility and impact on patient-physician communication. RESULTS: Between May 2016 and July 2018, 56 patients were enrolled. Physicians evaluated the QoL pathway as feasible. Patients whose physician regularly discussed QoL-profiles with them reported significantly more often that their specific needs were cared for (p < .001) and that their physician had found the right treatment strategy for these needs (p < .001) compared with patients whose doctor never/rarely discussed QoL-profiles. The latter significantly more often had no benefit from QoL assessments (p < .001). CONCLUSION: The QoL pathway with electronic QoL assessments is feasible for inpatient and outpatient care. QoL results should be discussed directly with the patient. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT04334096, date of registration 06.04.2020.

Pregnancy management in women within the bladder-exstrophy-epispadias complex (BEEC) after continent urinary diversion.

BACKGROUND: Management of operative delivery in pregnant women after reconstruction of the bladder-exstrophy-epispadias complex (BEEC) using bowel segments remains a challenge. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report urological history, pregnancy and delivery course of two BEEC patients after previous abdominal bowel surgeries. One had an ileocecal pouch after previously failed reconstruction, and the other had an ileum augmentation and a catheterizable Mitrofanoff stoma after functional reconstruction of the exstrophic bladder. RESULTS: Frequent bacteriuria and hydronephrosis warranted low-dose prophylaxis throughout pregnancy in one female, bilateral mild upper tract dilatation sonographic monitoring in both patients. Both were successfully delivered by cesarean section. No complications or clinical and sonographic signs for prolapse occurred. However, our operative experience revealed the importance of the abdominal incision type after different reconstructed reservoirs. CONCLUSION: Though care should be intense in pregnant BEEC individuals, patients should not be discouraged to have own children. To facilitate successful pregnancy outcome operative delivery should be done as a interdisciplinary team work and emergency situations should be avoided by meticulous planning and counseling of the BEEC patients.