Search

To explore the value of multiple clinical endpoints in the unique setting of ovarian cancer.A clinical trial workgroup was established by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology to develop a consensus statement via multiple conference calls, meetings and white paper drafts.Clinical trial endpoints have profound effects on late phase clinical trial design, result interpretation, drug development, and regulatory approval of therapeutics. Selection of the optimal clinical trial endpoint is particularly provocative in ovarian cancer where long overall survival (OS) is observed. The lack of new regulatory approvals and the lack of harmony between regulatory bodies globally for ovarian cancer therapeutics are of concern. The advantages and disadvantages of the numerous endpoints available are herein discussed within the unique context of ovarian cancer where both crossover and post-progression therapies potentially uncouple surrogacy between progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, the two most widely supported and utilized endpoints. The roles of patient reported outcomes (PRO) and health related quality of life (HRQoL) are discussed, but even these widely supported parameters are affected by the unique characteristics of ovarian cancer where a significant percentage of patients may be asymptomatic. Original data regarding the endpoint preferences of ovarian cancer advocates is presented.Endpoint selection in ovarian cancer clinical trials should reflect the impact on disease burden and unique characteristics of the treatment cohort while reflecting true patient benefit. Both OS and PFS have led to regulatory approvals and are clinically important. OS remains the most objective and accepted endpoint because it is least vulnerable to bias; however, the feasibility of OS in ovarian cancer is compromised by the requirement for large trial size, prolonged time-line for final analysis, and potential for unintended loss of treatment effect from active post-progression therapies. A large magnitude of effect in PFS improvement should establish benefit, and further communication with regulatory authorities to clarify acceptable endpoints should be undertaken.

Objective To design an endometrial cancer (EC) alternative payment (ECAP) model focused on surgical management of EC, as well as identify drivers of cost in order to develop opportunities for cost-savings while maintaining quality of care. Methods National practice patterns and reimbursements were compared between private payers (MarketScan data, years 2009–13) and public payers (Medicare, year 2014) of EC patients who underwent hysterectomy. An episode of care for EC included the hysterectomy, stratified by surgical approach (laparotomy versus robotic versus laparoscopy), and in- and outpatient reimbursements from 30days preoperatively to 60days postoperatively. Reimbursements were categorized into cost centers. A decision model informed modifiable components influencing overall reimbursements for EC surgical care. Variations in length of stay (LOS), emergency department (ED visits), and readmissions were analyzed to create an optimal care model. Results A total of MarketScan (n=29,558) and Medicare (n=377) patients were included. Mean total reimbursement for an episode of care was $19,183 (SD $10,844) for Medicare and $30,839 (SD $19,911) for MarketScan. Mean reimbursements were greatest for abdominal cases in Medicare ($25,553; SD $11,870) and MarketScan ($35,357; SD $21,670), followed by robotic and laparoscopic. Among MarketScan patients, 7.6% of women were readmitted within 60days after surgery and 11.7% had an evaluation in the ED. The median reimbursement per patient for readmission was $14,474 (IQR $8584 to $26,149), and for ED visit was $6327 (IQR $1369 to $29,153). In an optimized care model, increasing the rate of minimally invasive surgery by 5% while reducing LOS by 10% and ED visits/readmissions by 10%, lowered the average case reimbursement by $903 (2.9%) for MarketScan and $1243 (5.9%) for Medicare. Conclusion An ECAP model demonstrates that reimbursements vary by public versus commercial payers in the U.S. for the surgical management of endometrial cancer patients, and that opportunities for cost savings exist. Nominal increases in the rate of minimally invasive surgery and reduction in the rate of ED visits/readmissions and length of stay can result in substantial savings for endometrial cancer care.

Objective To assess current practice, advise minimum standards, and identify educational gaps relevant to genetic screening, counseling, and testing of women affected by gynecologic cancers. Methods The Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) organized a multidisciplinary summit that included representatives from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Society Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), and patient advocacy groups, BrightPink and Facing our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE). Three subject areas were discussed: care delivery models for genetic testing, barriers to genetic testing, and educational opportunities for providers of genetic testing. Results The group endorsed current SGO, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and NSGC genetic testing guidelines for women affected with ovarian, tubal, peritoneal cancers, or DNA mismatch repair deficient endometrial cancer. Three main areas of unmet need were identified: timely and universal genetic testing for women with ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers; education regarding minimum standards for genetic counseling and testing; and barriers to implementation of testing of both affected individuals as well as cascade testing of family members. Consensus building among all stakeholders resulted in an action plan to address gaps in education of gynecologic oncology providers and delivery of cancer genetics care.

Ovarian cancer is a heterogeneous, rapidly progressive, highly lethal disease of low prevalence. The etiology remains poorly understood. Numerous risk factors have been identified, the most prominent involving an inherited predisposition in 10% of cases. Women with germline mutations associated with Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer and Lynch syndromes have dramatically elevated risks (up to 46% and 12%, respectively). Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is the best method to prevent ovarian cancer in these high-risk women. Significant risk reduction is also seen in the general population who use oral contraceptives. Since up to 89% patients with early-stage disease have symptoms prior to diagnosis, increased awareness of the medical community may facilitate further workup in patients who otherwise would have had a delay. Despite enormous effort, there is no proof that routine screening for ovarian cancer in either the high-risk or general populations with serum markers, sonograms, or pelvic examinations decreases mortality. Further evaluation is needed to determine whether any novel biomarkers, or panels of markers, have clinical utility in early detection. Prospective clinical trials have to be designed and completed prior to offering of any of these new diagnostic tests. CA125 is currently the only biomarker recommended for monitoring of therapy as well as detection of recurrence. This commentary provides an overview on the background, screening and surveillance of ovarian cancer.

Health care in the United States is in the midst of a significant transformation from a "fee for service" to a "fee for value" based model. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has only accelerated this transition. Anticipating these reforms, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology developed the Future of Physician Payment Reform Task Force (PPRTF) in 2015 to develop strategies to ensure fair value based reimbursement policies for gynecologic cancer care. The PPRTF elected as a first task to develop an Alternative Payment Model for thesurgical management of low risk endometrial cancer. The history, rationale, and conceptual framework for the development of an Endometrial Cancer Alternative Payment Model are described in this white paper, as well as directions forfuture efforts.