Search

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) has previously defined and established a list of quality indicators for the surgical treatment of cervical cancer. As a continuation of this effort to improve overall quality of care for cervical cancer patients across all aspects, ESGO and the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) initiated the development of quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE: To develop a list of quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice by giving to practitioners and administrators a quantitative basis to improve care and organizational processes, notably for recognition of the increased complexity of modern external radiotherapy and brachytherapy techniques. METHODS: Quality indicators were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. The development process included a systematic literature search for identification of potential quality indicators and documentation of scientific evidence, consensus meetings of a group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large international panel of clinicians (n = 99). RESULTS: Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are detailed to define how the quality indicators will be measured in practice. Targets were also defined for specifying the level which each unit or center should be aiming to achieve. Nineteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were defined. Quality indicators 1-6 are general requirements related to pretreatment workup, time to treatment, upfront radiation therapy, and overall management, including active participation in clinical research and the decision making process within a structured multidisciplinary team. Quality indicators 7-17 are related to treatment indicators. Quality indicato

Background: The CovidSurg-Cancer Consortium aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 in surgical patients and services for solid cancers at the start of the pandemic. The CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer subgroup was particularly concerned about the magnitude of adverse outcomes caused by the disrupted surgical gynecologic cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are currently unclear. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the changes in care and short-term outcomes of surgical patients with gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic had led to a delay in surgical cancer care, especially in patients who required more extensive surgery, and such delay had an impact on cancer outcomes. Study Design: This was a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients with gynecologic cancers who were initially planned for nonpalliative surgery, were recruited from the date of first COVID-19-related admission in each participating center for 3 months. The follow-up period was 3 months from the time of the multidisciplinary tumor board decision to operate. The primary outcome of this analysis is the incidence of pandemic-related changes in care. The secondary outcomes included 30-day perioperative mortality and morbidity and a composite outcome of unresectable disease or disease progression, emergency surgery, and death. Results: We included 3973 patients (3784 operated and 189 nonoperated) from 227 centers in 52 countries and 7 world regions who were initially planned to have cancer surgery. In 20.7% (823/3973) of the patients, the standard of care was adjusted. A significant delay (>8 weeks) was observed in 11.2% (424/3784) of patients, particularly in those with ovarian cancer (213/1355; 15.7%; P<.0001). This delay was associated with a composite of adverse outcomes, including disease progression and death (95/424; 22.4% vs 601/3360; 17.9%; P=.024) compared with those who had operat

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multi-disciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

Background Optimizing and ensuring the quality of surgical care is essential to improve the management and outcome of patients with cervical cancer. To develop a list of quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice. Methods Quality indicators were developed using a four-step evaluation process that included a systematic literature search to identify potential quality indicators, in-person meetings of an ad hoc group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large panel of European clinicians and patient representatives. Results Fifteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were selected. Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are also detailed to define how the indicator will be measured in practice. Each indicator has a target which gives practitioners and health administrators a quantitative basis for improving care and organizational processes. Discussion Implementation of institutional quality assurance programs can improve quality of care, even in high-volume centers. This set of quality indicators from the European Society of Gynaecological Cancer may be a major instrument to improve the quality of surgical treatment of cervical cancer.

The National Cancer Survivorship Initiative through the National Health Service (NHS) improvement in the UK started the implementation of stratified pathways of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) across various tumor types. Now the initiative is continued through the Living With and Beyond Cancer program by NHS England. Evidence from non-randomized studies and systematic reviews does not demonstrate a survival advantage to the long-established practice of hospital-based follow-up regimens, traditionally over 5 years. Evidence shows that patient needs are inadequately met under the traditional follow-up programs and there is therefore an urgent need to adapt pathways to the needs of patients. The assumption that hospital-based follow-up is able to detect cancer recurrences early and hence improve patient prognosis has not been validated. A recent survey demonstrates that follow-up practice across the UK varies widely, with telephone follow-up clinics, nurse-led clinics and PIFU becoming increasingly common. There are currently no completed randomized controlled trials in PIFU in gynecological malignancies, although there is a drive towards implementing PIFU. PIFU aims to individualize patient care, based on risk of recurrence and holistic needs, and optimizing resources. The British Gynaecological Cancer Society wishes to provide the gynecological oncology community with guidance and a recommendations statement regarding the value, indications, and limitations of PIFU in endometrial, cervical, ovarian, and vulvar cancers in an effort to standardize practice and improve patient care. [Abstract copyright: © IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.]

Objective: This study aimed to analyze the prognostic factors for overall and progression-free survival in patients with vulvar cancer. Methods: This international, multicenter, retrospective study included 2453 patients diagnosed with vulvar cancer at 100 different institutions. Inclusion criteria were institutional review board approval from each collaborating center, pathologic diagnosis of invasive carcinoma of the vulva, and primary treatment performed at the participating center. Patients with intraepithelial neoplasia or primary treatment at non-participating centers were excluded. Global survival analysis and squamous cell histology subanalysis was performed. Results: After excluding patients due to incomplete data entry, 1727 patients treated for vulvar cancer between January 2001 and December 2005 were registered for analysis (1535 squamous, 42 melanomas, 38 Paget's disease and 112 other histologic types). Melanomas had the worse prognosis (p=0.02). In squamous vulvar tumors, independent factors for increase in local recurrence of vulvar cancer were: no prior radiotherapy (p<0.001) or chemotherapy (p=0.006), and for distant recurrence were the number of positive inguinal nodes (p=0.025), and not having undergone lymphadenectomy (p=0.03) or radiotherapy (p<0.001), with a HR of 1.1 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.21), 2.9 (95% CI 1.4 to 6.1), and 3.1 (95% CI 1.7 to 5.7), respectively. Number of positive nodes (p=0.008), FIGO stage (p<0.001), adjuvant chemotherapy (p=0.001), tumor resection margins (p=0.045), and stromal invasion >5 mm (p=0.001) were correlated with poor overall survival, and large case volume (≥9 vs <9 cases per year) correlated with more favorable overall survival (p=0.05). Conclusions: Advanced patient age, number of positive inguinal lymph nodes, and lack of adjuvant treatment are significantly associated with a higher risk of relapse in patients with squamous cell vulvar cancer. Case volume per treating institution, FIGO stage, and strom

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine oncological outcomes and incidence of lymph node (LN) metastases in women who underwent systematic pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy for surgical staging of apparent stage I low-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (LGEOC). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed at nine institutions across Europe and the US, and patients who underwent surgical staging for presumed stage I LGEOC between 2000 and 2016 were included. To ensure surgical quality, a minimum number of ≥10 pelvic and ≥10 paraaortic LNs was required. Patients with preoperative radiologic or clinical evidence of extraovarian or LN disease, and those with nonepithelial histology, were excluded. Results: The overall incidence of LN metastases was 4.3% in the 163 evaluated patients, and the incidence of LN involvement in serous, endometrioid, and mucinous subtypes was 10.7, 1.5, and 0%, respectively. However, Upstaging due to LN involvement alone occurred in only 2.4% of the patients. Eighty-nine (54.6%) patients received adjuvant chemotherapy due to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC or higher disease. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 93.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 89.4–97.1%) and 94.5% (95% CI 90.9–98.0%), respectively. There was no significant difference in PFS or OS between LN-negative and LN-positive patients. However, fewer patients received adjuvant chemotherapy in the LN-negative group. Multivariate analysis did not identify any independent prognostic factor of survival. Conclusion: The risk of LN involvement in nonserous apparent stage I LGEOC appears low, with a rate of <1% in this retrospective analysis, raising questions about the value of lymphadenectomy in those patients. Larger-scale prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the oncologic safety of omitting systematic LN staging in apparent stage I nonserous

High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) accounts for 70-80% of ovarian cancer deaths, and overall survival has not changed significantly for several decades. In this Opinion article, we outline a set of research priorities that we believe will reduce incidence and improve outcomes for women with this disease. This 'roadmap' for HGSOC was determined after extensive discussions at an Ovarian Cancer Action meeting in January 2015.