Search

Objectives: Discordance between frozen section diagnosis and the definite histopathological diagnosis and the fact that the frozen section result is not always unambiguous, may contribute to differences in clinical practice regarding perioperative treatment and follow-up of borderline ovarian tumours (BOTs) patients amongst gynaecologic oncologists, which may lead to over- and undertreatment. The aim of the study was to map the Dutch gynaecologists' preferred treatment and follow-up strategy in case of BOTs., Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all Dutch gynaecologists involved in ovarian surgery with perioperative frozen section analysis, and the outcomes were assessed using descriptive statistics., Results: Nearly half of the respondents (41.0%) would not perform a staging procedure in case of a BOT. In case of an ambiguous frozen section diagnosis, tending towards invasive carcinoma, a considerable number (sBOT 56.4%; mBOT 30.8%) would perform a lymph node sampling as part of the staging procedure. A relaparotomy/relaparoscopy, to perform a lymph node sampling in case of a serous or mucinous carcinoma after a BOT frozen section diagnosis, would be performed by 97.4% and 48.7% of the respondents, respectively., Conclusions: A considerable number of gynaecologists would perform a staging procedure that is recommended for ovarian cancer in case of an ambiguous BOT frozen section diagnosis, especially for serous tumours. In addition, nearly all gynaecologists would perform a second procedure including a lymph node sampling in case of a serous invasive carcinoma after a BOT frozen section diagnosis, which applies to half of the gynaecologists in case of a mucinous carcinoma.

Background: Standard treatment of advanced ovarian cancer is surgery and chemotherapy. The goal of surgery is to remove all macroscopic tumour, as the amount of residual tumour is the most important prognostic factor for survival. When removal off all tumour is considered not feasible, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in combination with interval debulking surgery (IDS) is performed. Current methods of staging are not always accurate in predicting surgical outcome, since approximately 40% of patients will have more than 1 cm residual tumour after primary debulking surgery (PDS). In this study we aim to assess whether adding laparoscopy to the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of advanced ovarian carcinoma may prevent unsuccessful primary debulking surgery for ovarian cancer., Methods: Multicentre randomized controlled trial, including all gynaecologic oncologic centres in the Netherlands and their affiliated hospitals. Patients are eligible when they are planned for PDS after conventional staging. Participants are randomized between direct PDS or additional diagnostic laparoscopy. Depending on the result of laparoscopy patients are treated by PDS within three weeks, followed by six courses of platinum based chemotherapy or with NACT and IDS 3-4 weeks after three courses of chemotherapy, followed by another three courses of chemotherapy. Primary outcome measure is the proportion of PDS's leaving more than one centimetre tumour residual in each arm. In total 200 patients will be randomized. Data will be analysed according to intention to treat., Discussion: Patients who have disease considered to be resectable to less than one centimetre should undergo PDS to improve prognosis. However, there is a need for better diagnostic procedures because the current number of debulking surgeries leaving more than one centimetre residual tumour is still high. Laparoscopy before starting treatment for ovarian cancer can be an additional diagnostic tool to predict the outcome of PDS. Despite the absence of strong evidence and despite the possible complications, laparoscopy is already implemented in many countries. We propose a randomized multicentre trial to provide evidence on the effectiveness of laparoscopy before primary surgery for advanced stage ovarian cancer patients., Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register number NTR2644.

Objective: To compare the accuracy measures of the random glucose test and the 50-g glucose challenge test as screening tests for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)., Research Design and Methods: In this prospective cohort study, pregnant women without preexisting diabetes in two perinatal centers in the Netherlands underwent a random glucose test and a 50-g glucose challenge test between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation. If one of the screening tests exceeded predefined threshold values, the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed within 1 week. Furthermore, the OGTT was performed in a random sample of women in whom both screening tests were normal. GDM was considered present when the OGTT (reference test) exceeded predefined threshold values. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the performance of the two screening tests. The results were corrected for verification bias., Results: We included 1,301 women. The OGTT was performed in 322 women. After correction for verification bias, the random glucose test showed an area under the ROC curve of 0.69 (95% CI 0.61-0.78), whereas the glucose challenge test had an area under the curve of 0.88 (0.83-0.93). There was a significant difference in area under the curve of the two tests of 0.19 (0.11-0.27) in favor of the 50-g glucose challenge test., Conclusions: In screening for GDM, the 50-g glucose challenge test is more useful than the random glucose test.