(Poster 101) A Virtual Pelvic Health Program After Breast or Gynecological Cancer Treatments

Objectives: Urogenital symptoms (incontinence, vulvovaginal pain) are frequent among individuals treated for breast or gynecological cancer (BGC). Pelvic health physiotherapy interventions can help alleviate these symptoms, but several barriers limit access to such care. To address this issue, a 12-week virtual pelvic health program was developed with the collaboration of a person with lived experience (PWLE), and a pilot study is currently underway. This abstract describes the characteristics and participation of the first 10 participants in the program, treated for BGC and presenting with urogenital symptoms, at baseline and at 6 weeks (halfway into the program).

Methods: Eligibility criteria: Individuals aged >18 years, treated for BGC within the past 4 years, and presenting urogenital symptoms (>2 on the Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire). Intervention: The first 6 weeks of the program included access to resources on an online platform, 6 educational sessions with a pelvic health physiotherapist, and 3 individual sessions to personalize exercises. Measures: Participation in the sessions, previous access to pelvic health services, urinary function (ICIQ-FLUTS), vulvar pain (VPAQ), and sexual function (FSFI) were measured. Analysis: Characteristics of participants are described using descriptive statistics (median, range).

Results: Ten participants who self-identified as women and Caucasian took part in the French-language groups. Most (7/10) were aged 35–54 years, diagnosed with breast cancer (9/10) and ovarian cancer (1/10), for which 8/10 were undergoing active cancer treatment. Nine participants reported facing difficulties in addressing their pelvic health needs, particularly due to a lack of opportunities or time to discuss these issues during medical appointments (6/9). Four participants missed one of the six sessions but caught up through another group (n=1) or video replay (n=2). All participants attended their sessions in full when present. At E1, 8/10 participants reported pain, identifying its location on an anatomical diagram as either at the vulva (n=5/8) or at the vaginal opening (n=3/8). Most participants (n=6/8) identified sexual activities as the primary context for their vulvar pain, particularly during attempted penetration (n=7/8). Five out of 8 participants considered the term “burning” as mostly (n=3/8) or very much (n=2/8) accurate for describing their typical vulvar pain. At baseline, the ICIQ-FLUTS score was 12/48 [1-22]; the VPAQ interference with sexual function score was 3.42 [1.7-4]; and the FSFI score was 9.2/36 [1.5-23.8]. After 6 weeks of the program, the ICIQ-FLUTS score was 8/48 [4-16]; the VPAQ interference with sexual function score was 3.3 [0.8-4]; and the FSFI score was 4.8/36 [2.4-29.7].

Conclusions: Preliminary baseline results reveal that most participants experienced difficulties accessing pelvic health care, with several reporting vulvovaginal pain and urinary symptoms. Completion of the program will provide further insights into its potential impact on urogenital symptoms.