Long-Term Neurodevelopmental Outcome of Monochorionic and Matched Dichorionic Twins

Contains fulltext : 79941.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Monochorionic (MC) twins are at increased risk for perinatal mortality and serious morbidity due to the presence of placental vascular anastomoses. Cerebral injury can be secondary to haemodynamic and hematological disorders during pregnancy (especially twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) or intrauterine co-twin death) or from postnatal injury associated with prematurity and low birth weight, common complications in twin pregnancies. We investigated neurodevelopmental outcome in MC and dichorionic (DC) twins at the age of two years. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. Cerebral palsy (CP) was studied in 182 MC infants and 189 DC infants matched for weight and age at delivery, gender, ethnicity of the mother and study center. After losses to follow-up, 282 of the 366 infants without CP were available to be tested with the Griffiths Mental Developmental Scales at 22 months corrected age, all born between January 2005 and January 2006 in nine perinatal centers in The Netherlands. Due to phenotypic (un)alikeness in mono-or dizygosity, the principal investigator was not blinded to chorionic status; perinatal outcome, with exception of co-twin death, was not known to the examiner. FINDINGS: Four out of 182 MC infants had CP (2.2%) - two of the four CP-cases were due to complications specific to MC twin pregnancies (TTTS and co-twin death) and the other two cases of CP were the result of cystic PVL after preterm birth - compared to one sibling of a DC twin (0.5%; OR 4.2, 95% CI 0.5-38.2) of unknown origin. Follow-up rate of neurodevelopmental outcome by Griffith's test was 76%. The majority of 2-year-old twins had normal developmental status. There were no significant differences between MC and DC twins. One MC infant (0.7%) had a developmental delay compared to 6 DC infants (4.2%; OR 0.2, 95% 0.0-1.4). Birth weight discordancy did not influence long-term outcome, though the smaller twin had slightly lower developmental scores than its larger co-twin. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in occurrence of cerebral palsy as well as neurodevelopmental outcome between MC and DC twins. Outcome of MC twins seems favourable in the absence of TTTS or co-twin death

Provider perspectives on patient-provider communication for adjuvant endocrine therapy symptom management

PURPOSE: Providers’ communication skills play a key role in encouraging breast cancer survivors to report symptoms and adhere to long-term treatments such as adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET). The purpose of this study was to examine provider perspectives on patient-provider communication regarding AET symptom management and to explore whether provider perspectives vary across the multi-disciplinary team of providers involved in survivorship care. METHODS: We conducted three one-hour focus groups with a multi-disciplinary group of health care providers including oncology specialists, primary care physicians, and non-physician providers experienced in caring for breast cancer survivors undergoing AET (n = 13). Themes were organized using Epstein and Street’s (2007) Framework for Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care. RESULTS: The findings of this study suggest providers’ communication behaviors including managing survivors’ uncertainty, responding to survivors’ emotions, exchanging information, and enabling self-management influences the quality of patient-provider communication about AET symptoms. Additionally, lack of systematic symptom assessment tools for AET requires providers to use discretion in determining which symptoms to discuss with survivors resulting in approaches that vary based on providers’ discipline. CONCLUSION: There may be AET-specific provider communication skills and behaviors that promote effective patient-provider communication but additional research is needed to identify practices and policies that encourage these skills and behaviors among the many providers involved in survivorship care. Efforts are also needed to coordinate AET symptom assessment across providers, clarify providers’ roles in symptom assessment, and determine best practices for AET symptom communication