Patients' preferences for follow-up after endometrial cancer surgery.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Linn Renman, Lotta Andréen, Sahruh Turkmen
{"title":"Patients' preferences for follow-up after endometrial cancer surgery.","authors":"Linn Renman, Lotta Andréen, Sahruh Turkmen","doi":"10.2340/1651-226X.2026.45981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>To compare follow-up preferences and health-related quality of life between newly operated endometrial cancer patients and those already enrolled in a traditional hospital-based follow-up program, and to explore whether preferences differ depending on follow-up experience. Patient/material and methods: In this prospective cross-sectional study, patients who underwent primary surgery for endometrial cancer in northern Sweden were included. Group 1 consisted of newly operated patients recruited before entering follow-up, and Group 2 included patients already participating in the standard hospital-based follow-up program. Participants completed questionnaires on sociodemographic characteristics, follow-up preferences, and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30). Clinical data were obtained from medical records. The primary outcome was follow-up preference; secondary outcomes included quality of life and associations with clinical and demographic variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 121 invited patients, 92 (76%) responded, and 90 were included in the analysis (48 in Group 1; 42 in Group 2). The groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. Newly operated patients demonstrated more diverse follow-up preferences, with 51.1% preferring physician-led hospital visits compared to 82.9% in Group 2 (p = 0.035). Global quality of life did not differ significantly (p = 0.165), although Group 1 reported lower functional scores, particularly in role and emotional functioning. Appetite loss was the only symptom that differed significantly between groups.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Newly operated patients are more open to alternative follow-up models despite similar overall quality of life. Integrating patient preferences into follow-up care may enhance personalization and sustainability.</p>","PeriodicalId":7110,"journal":{"name":"Acta Oncologica","volume":"65 ","pages":"624-631"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13421151/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Oncologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2026.45981","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: To compare follow-up preferences and health-related quality of life between newly operated endometrial cancer patients and those already enrolled in a traditional hospital-based follow-up program, and to explore whether preferences differ depending on follow-up experience. Patient/material and methods: In this prospective cross-sectional study, patients who underwent primary surgery for endometrial cancer in northern Sweden were included. Group 1 consisted of newly operated patients recruited before entering follow-up, and Group 2 included patients already participating in the standard hospital-based follow-up program. Participants completed questionnaires on sociodemographic characteristics, follow-up preferences, and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30). Clinical data were obtained from medical records. The primary outcome was follow-up preference; secondary outcomes included quality of life and associations with clinical and demographic variables.

Results: Of the 121 invited patients, 92 (76%) responded, and 90 were included in the analysis (48 in Group 1; 42 in Group 2). The groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. Newly operated patients demonstrated more diverse follow-up preferences, with 51.1% preferring physician-led hospital visits compared to 82.9% in Group 2 (p = 0.035). Global quality of life did not differ significantly (p = 0.165), although Group 1 reported lower functional scores, particularly in role and emotional functioning. Appetite loss was the only symptom that differed significantly between groups.

Interpretation: Newly operated patients are more open to alternative follow-up models despite similar overall quality of life. Integrating patient preferences into follow-up care may enhance personalization and sustainability.

子宫内膜癌术后随访患者的偏好。
背景与目的:比较新手术子宫内膜癌患者与已参加传统医院随访项目的患者的随访偏好和健康相关的生活质量,并探讨随访经历是否会导致随访偏好的差异。患者/材料和方法:在这项前瞻性横断面研究中,瑞典北部接受子宫内膜癌初次手术的患者被纳入研究对象。第1组包括随访前招募的新手术患者,第2组包括已经参加标准医院随访计划的患者。参与者完成了关于社会人口特征、随访偏好和生活质量的问卷调查(EORTC QLQ-C30)。临床资料来源于医疗记录。主要结局为随访偏好;次要结局包括生活质量以及与临床和人口统计学变量的关联。结果:121例受邀患者中,92例(76%)应答,90例纳入分析(组1 48例,组2 42例)。两组的基线特征具有可比性。新手术患者表现出更多样化的随访偏好,51.1%的患者更喜欢医生主导的医院就诊,而第2组为82.9% (p = 0.035)。总体生活质量没有显著差异(p = 0.165),尽管第一组的功能评分较低,特别是在角色和情感功能方面。食欲减退是两组之间唯一显著不同的症状。解释:尽管总体生活质量相似,但新手术患者对其他随访模式更开放。将患者偏好纳入后续护理可提高个性化和可持续性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Oncologica
Acta Oncologica 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
301
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Acta Oncologica is a journal for the clinical oncologist and accepts articles within all fields of clinical cancer research. Articles on tumour pathology, experimental oncology, radiobiology, cancer epidemiology and medical radio physics are also welcome, especially if they have a clinical aim or interest. Scientific articles on cancer nursing and psychological or social aspects of cancer are also welcomed. Extensive material may be published as Supplements, for which special conditions apply.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书