Please wait a minute...
European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology  2019, Vol. 40 Issue (5): 781-786    DOI: 10.12892/ejgo4680.2019
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Patients' and physicians' expectations differ significantly during the follow-up period after completion of primary treatment of gynecological or breast cancer
M. Pakiž1, L. Lukman1, N. Kozar1, *()
1Department for Gynecologic and Breast Oncology, Division of Gynecology and Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
Download:  PDF(1448KB)  ( 116 ) Full text   ( 5 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  

Introduction: With increasing incidence, earlier detection, and better treatment of malignant diseases, the number of people with cancer is increasing. After the completion of primary treatment, patients enter the follow-up period. While numerous studies have been published regarding the influence of follow-up on survival, there is a lack of data regarding comparison of patients’ and physicians’ expectations. The aim of the study was to assess patients’ and physicians’ expectations about follow-up and evaluate potential discrepancies. Materials and Methods: This prospective study included 122 patients after gynecological or breast cancer treatment at the Department of Gynecological and Breast Oncology, Maribor, Slovenia, and 72 primary level gynecologists and general practitioners in the Maribor region. A questionnaire was used to compare the expectations of patients and physicians regarding the center and location of follow-up, the prognosis revealed, attitudes towards examinations, and sense of safety and stress. Descriptive statistics and chi-square test were used. The study was approved by the institutional review board. Results: Patients consider it more important to be followed-up at the center of treatment, closest to their home, and to be exactly informed about the prognosis. Unlike their physicians, patients consider the sense of safety and stress caused by regular visits as more important, wish to have consultations with the nurse, and many of them would rather visit the physician when symptoms occur as opposed to on a regular basis. Conclusions: Given the lack of evidence-based improvement of survival with regular follow-up, in accordance with the present results, individualization of scheduling follow-up visits with the lowest acceptable frequency and intermediate nurse consultations might be associated with meeting patients’ expectations without compromising survival outcomes.

Key words:  Patients' and physicians' expectations      Breast cancer      Follow-up     
Published:  10 October 2019     
*Corresponding Author(s):  N. KOZAR     E-mail:  nejc.kozar@gmail.com

Cite this article: 

M. Pakiž, L. Lukman, N. Kozar. Patients' and physicians' expectations differ significantly during the follow-up period after completion of primary treatment of gynecological or breast cancer. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2019, 40(5): 781-786.

URL: 

https://ejgo.imrpress.com/EN/10.12892/ejgo4680.2019     OR     https://ejgo.imrpress.com/EN/Y2019/V40/I5/781

[1] Polyana Barbosa Silva, Millena Prata Jammal, Márcia Antoniazi Michelin, Eddie Fernando Cândido Murta. Phenotypic differences of tecidual TDCs obtained from breast cancer mice[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2020, 41(5): 689-698.
[2] Huifen Zhen, Fan Guo, Xiaojun Zhang, Miaomiao Jia, Haibo Yang, Yarong Yao, Yuandong Li, Jinnan Gao. The effects of chemotherapy with anthracyclines vs capecitabine on tumour size, survival rate and estradiol levels in patients with locally advanced breast cancer[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2020, 41(5): 785-789.
[3] Katselashvili Lika, Jokhadze Natia, Katcharava Margarita, Vardiashvili Nino. Breast Cancer Metastatic to Vulva - a Case Report[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2020, 41(5): 845-848.
[4] Hayal Uzelli Şimşek, Turgay Şimşek, Deniz Şahin, Sertaç Ata Güler, Nuh Zafer Cantürk, Nihat Zafer Utkan. Evaluation of the effect of surgical timing on systemic response to trauma in premenopausal patients by using cytokine levels[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2020, 41(4): 577-582.
[5] Isao Otsuka. Clear cell carcinoma of the vagina followed by breast cancer in a patient without prenatal diethylstilbestrol exposure[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2020, 41(4): 638-639.
[6] Luca Roncati, Maria Vadalà, Pepe Valentina, Veronica Corazzari, Beniamino Palmieri. Genomic profiling in gynaecological oncology: the future is now![J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2020, 41(3): 323-325.
[7] I. Ferreira, C. Estevinho, A. Torgal, C. Carrapatoso, F. Costa. Should we search for high-risk HPV in vaginal vault Pap smear after hysterectomy due to CIN2+?[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2020, 41(2): 157-162.
[8] D. Korfias, J. Contis, M. Frangou-Plemenou, K. Gennatas, A. Kondis, D. Vlachodimitropoulos. Stem cells in ductal breast cancer: immunohistochemical expression of CD44, CD24, CD133, and ALDH-1 markers in 104 cases[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2020, 41(1): 36-41.
[9] A. Conversano, C. Balleyguier, M.K. De Fremicourt, H. Alkhashnam, C. Mazouni, J. Arfi-Rouche, N. Leymarie, F. Rimareix. Magnetic seed localisation for non-palpable lesions in patients undergoing breast conservative surgery[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2020, 41(1): 48-53.
[10] S.Wang, W.J. Chen, Z.M. Song, Q. Li, X. Shen, Y.D. Wu, L. Zhu, Q.X. Ma, D.M. Xing. Long non-coding RNA ROR accelerates the progression of breast cancer via promoting stemness in MCF-10A cells[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2020, 41(1): 106-109.
[11] M. Englert-Golon, B. Burchardt, R. Słopień, N. Smolarek, S. Sajdak. Ovarian and endometrial cancer after breast cancer - three primary malignancies in a single patient[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2020, 41(1): 153-154.
[12] T. Aizawa, T. Maebayashi, N. Ishibashi, M. Sakaguchi. Bilateral organizing pneumonia after radiotherapy for bilateral synchronous breast cancers: a case report and literature review[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2019, 40(6): 1051-1054.
[13] M. El Homsi, A. Barakat, R. Rammal, M. Haidar. Uterine metastasis from invasive ductal breast carcinoma mimicking fibroid features on MRI and detected by FDG PET/CT: role of SUVmax[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2019, 40(6): 1079-1082.
[14] S. Dierckxsens, B. Geerinckx, M.T. Huizing, W.A.A. Tjalma. A review regarding the feasibility and accuracy of a sentinel lymph node biopsy after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2019, 40(5): 714-721.
[15] S. Bertozzi, A. P. Londero, S. Bernardi, C. Cedolini. Applicability of the Notthingham Prognostic Index for predicting the survival of triple-negative invasive breast cancer in a single Italian center[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2019, 40(5): 787-790.
No Suggested Reading articles found!