Search

BackgroundPhysical symptoms, anxiety, depression, fear of recurrence, sexual dysfunction, and social withdrawal are common in women after treatment for ovarian cancer. Most patients would like and need help dealing with these symptoms. The traditional model of follow-up care is unstructured and largely focused on diagnosing recurrent disease, and most oncologists lack skills to identify and manage psychosocial issues. No high quality prospective clinical trials have been conducted to determine the optimal follow-up regimen or the cost effectiveness of ovarian cancer surveillance strategies.Primary Objective(s)To assess emotional wellbeing, acceptability, safety, and cost effectiveness of nurse led follow-up via telehealth for women with ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment.Study HypothesisWe hypothesize that compared with routine clinic based follow-up, nurse led follow-up via telehealth, including serum CA125 monitoring and completion of a patient reported outcome instrument, the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns-Surveillance (MOST-S26), will improve emotional wellbeing in women with ovarian cancer; be feasible, safe, acceptable, and not delay the time to diagnosis of recurrent disease; will result in greater patient satisfaction; will identify more patients with psychological distress, lead to better care, and improved psychological outcomes; and be cost-effective.Trial DesignPhase II multicenter randomized trial comparing 3 monthly nurse led telehealth consultations that include serum CA125 monitoring and completion of the MOST-S26, with routine clinic based follow-up. The allocation ratio will be 1:1.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaEligible patients will be women with high grade epithelial ovarian cancer who have normalized serum CA125 (to Primary Endpoint(s)Emotional wellbeing at 12 months.Sample Size150 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsJuly 2023. Results expected in 2025, 24 months after the last participant is enrolled.Trial RegistrationACTRN12620000332921

Objective Fear of recurrence is common following treatment for cancer. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) to treat fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) in ovarian cancer survivors. Methods Investigator initiated, single-arm, open-label, pilot study. Women were eligible after completing adjuvant treatment. The intervention was an 8-week MBCT course of weekly 2-h group sessions. The primary outcome was FCR measured by the FCR inventory. Secondary outcomes were depression and anxiety measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The study is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000213549. Results Between May 8, 2015, and May 6, 2019, 33 participants were enrolled. Ten women withdrew. Data were evaluable for 19 participants. There was a significant decrease in FCR at 8 weeks (FCR inventory mean 63.00, SD 27.90) compared to pre-intervention (FCR inventory mean 71.03, SD 31.01) but not at 6 months (FCR inventory mean 63.65, SD 30.08). No differences in depression were observed at baseline (HADS mean 3.42, SD 2.41), 8 weeks (HADS mean 3.10, SD 1.79) and 6 months (HADS mean 2.73, SD 1.88). Anxiety decreased from baseline (HADS mean 8.72, SD 3.99) at both 8 weeks (HADS mean 6.89, SD 2.98) and 6 months (HADS mean 7.06, SD 3.87). Conclusions MBCT may be effective as a treatment for FCR and anxiety in women following diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer. A randomised controlled trial is required to assess the efficacy of MBCT for FCR but may not be feasible due to high rates of withdrawal.

Objective Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the cervix is a precursor to cervical adenocarcinoma. When AIS is detected by cervical screening an excision biopsy is mandatory to exclude invasion. We aimed to compare margins status, specimen size and fragmentation after loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) and ‘cold knife cone biopsy’ (CKC). Methods The EXCISE Trial was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomized study. Patients were enrolled at seven hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. We randomly assigned women aged ≥18 to ≤45 years with screen detected AIS to LEEP or CKC. Co-primary endpoints were margin status, specimen size and fragmentation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Results Between August 2, 2017 and September 6, 2019, 40 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to LEEP or CKC. Margin status was evaluable in 36 cases. The proportion of patients with involved margins did not differ between groups. 25 of 26 LEEP and all 14 CKC biopsies were excised as single specimens (p = 1·00). There were no differences in specimen dimensions. Patients in the CKC group had more post-operative complications (64.3% compared to 15.4% for LEEP p = ·00). There were no differences in grade three complications (p = ·65). Conclusions LEEP was not associated with a greater likelihood of positive margins, specimen fragmentation or smaller excision compared to CKC when performed according to a standardized protocol. However, the study was not powered to establish non-inferiority of LEEP and a definitive phase 3 trial to compare margin status and rates of treatment failure after LEEP and CKC is warranted.

Background: Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the cervix is a precursor to cervical adenocarcinoma. When AIS is detected by cervical screening an excision biopsy is mandatory to exclude invasion. Two common procedures are loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) and ‘cold knife cone biopsy’ (CKC), yet no randomised trials have compared these modalities. We aimed to compare margins status, specimen size and fragmentation after LEEP and CKC. Methods: The EXCISE Trial was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomised study. Patients were enrolled at seven hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. We randomly assigned women aged ≥18 to ≤45 years with screen detected AIS to LEEP or CKC by computer generated random numbers. Co-primary endpoints were margin status, specimen size and fragmentation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Findings: Between August 2, 2017 and September 6, 2019, 40 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to LEEP or CKC. All patients were included in the analysis. Margin status was evaluable in 36 cases. The proportion of patients with involved margins did not differ between groups. 25 of 26 LEEP and all 14 CKC biopsies were excised as single specimens (p=1.00). There were no differences in specimen dimensions. Patients in the CKC group had more post-operative complications (64.3% compared to 15.4% for LEEP p=.00). There were no differences in grade three complications (p=.65). Interpretation: LEEP was not associated with a greater likelihood of positive margins, specimen fragmentation or smaller excision compared to CKC when performed according to a standardised protocol. However, the study was not powered to establish non-inferiority of LEEP and a definitive phase 3 trial to compare margin status and rates of treatment failure after LEEP and CKC is warranted. Trial Registration: The study is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR registration number ACTRN12617000132347). Funding Statement: Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group [#FNR2016/03]. Declaration of Interests: PAC and CDHW have received honoraria from Seqirus unrelated to this work. All other authors declare no competing interests. Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the St John of God Healthcare Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference number #1137) and approvals were obtained at all participating sites.