Quality of breaking bad news to patients diagnosed with neoplasia of the uterine cervix.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the quality of receiving bad news (BN) for women diagnosed with cervical neoplasia. We evaluated adherence to the SPIKES protocol in three cohorts of women with different stages of the disease and treatment modalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included women with cervical cancer who underwent radical vaginal trachelectomy (RVT group, n = 110), radical hysterectomy or chemo-radiation (HE/RCT group, n = 101), and women with CIN 3 treated by loop excision (CIN group, n = 108). We asked the participants about how they received the bad news delivery in reality and how they would envision an ideal communication process based on the main items of the SPIKES protocol. The participants filled out a questionnaire with 38 items of the Marburg Breaking Bad News (MABBAN) Scale representing the six SPIKES subscales. RESULTS: Only 72% of all patients reported being satisfied with their BBN experience. The following factors were considered important by 90% of the patients: an undisturbed atmosphere, taking enough time, coherent explanation of the disease, and the possibility to ask questions. However, the reality of their experiences fell significantly short of their expectations. Asking about the patient's knowledge of the disease, addressing their concerns, allowing them to show emotions, providing clarity about the change in quality of life, informing them about alternative therapies, and involving them in further planning were also significantly lacking in the actual BBN encounters compared to the patients' preferences. The experience of RVT patients was more negative compared to the HE/RCT patients (p = 0.036). The CIN patients had an overall satisfactory impression (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The process of breaking bad news in German women diagnosed with cervical neoplasia requires substantial improvement. The SPIKES protocol can be used as a guideline for enhancement but should be supplemented by incorporating a second consultation as the norm rather than the exception. Continuous monitoring and improvement of the quality of BBN is recommended for all oncologic institutions, utilizing the MABBAN questionnaire as a valuable tool.

Loop Excision for Precancers of the Uterine Cervix: Local or General Anaesthetic?

Aim: In Germany, treatment of HSIL or AIS of the uterine cervix by loop excision is performed almost exclusively under general anaesthesia (GA). International studies and guidelines show high acceptance of local anaesthesia (LA) due to hermeneutic, medical, and economic factors. We performed an observational comparative study aiming to prove advantages of local anaesthesia within the German health system. Patients and Methods: In a prospective observational study, patients diagnosed with HSIL or AIS of the uterine cervix were treated at the Institute for Cytology and Dysplasia, Berlin, by loop excision in 2021. We started with a feasibility study : 303 patients diagnosed with HSIL/AIS of the uterine cervix and her colposcopist answered an electronic questionnaire with respect to loop excision under LA. Since we found a high acceptance for LA in patients and colposcopists, we initiated a comparative study LA vs. GA: 322 patients underwent loop excision and selected their mode of anaesthesia: n = 206 LA vs. n = 116 GA. 114 patients of the feasibility study had to undergo loop excision and became part of the comparative study (n = 79 for the LA group, n = 35 for the GA group). All patients received a standardised questionnaire to document their pain score within 24 h after treatment on a visual analogue scale, i.e. VAS, between 0 and 100. 178 patients of the LA group and 80 patients of the GA group completed and returned the questionnaire and form the cohort for our comparison of LA vs. GA. With 191 of these 258 patients, i.e. 74%, a telephone survey was performed to ask for patient satisfaction and the rates of recurrence after a mean interval of 1 year post surgery. We postulate that there will be no clinically relevant significant difference in satisfaction and postoperative pain between patients in the LA group and the GA group. Results: In the feasibility study , 90% (272 of 303) of patients diagnosed with HSIL or AIS were considered eligible for LA by their colposcopists. 75% (227 of 303) of patients were open to loop excision under LA. In the comparative study , 63 of 206 women of the LA group were interviewed preoperatively: 89% would accept a pain score above 20 during the procedure, 33% a pain score above 50 and 11% of max. 20. Postoperatively, the median VAS pain score for loop excision under local anaesthesia was 13.1 in 178 patients, and pain during injection of local anaesthesia was 20.9 (p < 0.001). The VAS pain score 20 minutes post surgery did not differ significantly between 178 patients after local anaesthesia versus 80 patients after general anaesthesia (p = 0.09). The surgeons estimated the patient's pain significantly less than the patients themselves with an underestimate of -14.63 points on the VAS (p < 0.001). Within 7 days following loop excision under LA, 95.5% of 178 patients would choose local anaesthesia as their preferred method for a potential repeat loop excision, 8.8% of which would like additional painkillers, and 4.5% would choose general anaesthesia.In a telephone follow-up survey of 133 women from the LA group after a mean of 12 months post surgery, 97% were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the treatment carried out. For patient satisfaction and postoperative pain, no clinically relevant significant difference was seen between the LA and the GA group.The rate of secondary bleeding (6.7% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.72), recurrence of HSIL/AIS (3.6% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.62), and the distribution of the histopathological R status (R0 89.5% vs. 81.1%, p = 0.73; R1 5.3% vs.12.2%, p = 0.57, Rx 4.1% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.65) showed no significant difference when comparing the LA group versus the GA group. Conclusion: Following loop excision under local anaesthesia, more than 95% of patients would choose this method again for repeat surgery. One year post surgery, 97% of the patients were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the treatment under local anaesthesia. Offering local anaesthesia for loop excision to patients should be mandatory and included in current guidelines.