Search

Background: Studies have shown a mismatch between published cancer screening and genetic counseling referral recommendations and physician-reported screening and referral practices. Inaccurate cancer risk assessment is one potential cause of this mismatch., Objective: To assess U.S. physicians' ability to accurately determine a woman's colon and ovarian cancer risk level., Design, Participants: Cross-sectional survey of U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists. A twelve-page questionnaire with a vignette of a woman's annual examination included a question about the patient's level of colon and ovarian cancer risk. The final study sample included 1,555 physicians weighted to represent practicing U.S. physicians nationally., Main Measure: Accuracy of physicians' ovarian and colon cancer risk assessments., Key Results: Overall, most physicians accurately assessed women's risk of ovarian (57.0%, CI 54.3, 59.6) and colon cancer (62.0%, CI 59.4, 64.6). However, 27.1% (CI 23.0, 31.6) of physicians overestimated the ovarian cancer risk among women at the same risk as the general population, and 65.1% (CI 60.2, 69.7) underestimated ovarian cancer risk among women at much higher risk than the general population. Physicians overestimated colon more than ovarian cancer risk (38.0%, CI 35.4, 40.6 vs. 27.1%, CI 23.0, 31.6) for women at the same risk as the general population., Conclusions: Physicians' misestimation of patient ovarian and colon cancer risk may put average risk patients in jeopardy of unnecessary screening and higher risk patients in jeopardy of missed opportunities for prevention or early detection of cancers.

Background: No professional society or group recommends routine ovarian cancer screening, yet physicians' enthusiasm for several cancer screening tests before benefit has been proven suggests that some women may be exposed to potential harms., Objective: To provide nationally representative estimates of physicians' reported nonadherence to recommendations against ovarian cancer screening., Design: Cross-sectional survey of physicians offering women's primary care. The 12-page questionnaire contained a woman's annual examination vignette and questions about offers or orders for transvaginal ultrasonography (TVU) and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125)., Setting: United States., Participants: 3200 physicians randomly sampled equally from the 2008 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile lists of family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists; 61.7% responded. After exclusions, 1088 respondents were included; their responses were weighted to represent the specialty distribution of practicing U.S. physicians nationally., Measurements: Reported nonadherence to screening recommendations (defined as sometimes or almost always ordering screening TVU or CA-125 or both)., Results: Twenty-eight percent (95% CI, 24.5% to 32.9%) of physicians reported nonadherence to screening recommendations for women at low risk for ovarian cancer; 65.4% (CI, 61.1% to 69.4%) did so for women at medium risk for ovarian cancer. Six percent (CI, 4.4% to 8.9%) reported routinely ordering or offering ovarian cancer screening for low-risk women, as did 24.0% (CI, 20.5% to 28.0%) for medium-risk women (P ≤ 0.001). Thirty-three percent believed TVU or CA-125 was an effective screening test. In adjusted analysis, actual and physician-perceived patient risk, patient request for ovarian cancer screening, and physician belief that TVU or CA-125 was an effective screening test were the strongest predictors of physician-reported nonadherence to published recommendations., Limitation: The results are limited by their reliance on survey methods; there may be respondent-nonrespondent bias., Conclusion: One in 3 physicians believed that ovarian cancer screening was effective, despite evidence to the contrary. Substantial proportions of physicians reported routinely offering or ordering ovarian cancer screening, thereby exposing women to the documented risks of these tests., Primary Funding Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute.

Objective: To identify the factors associated with inclusion of a gynecologic oncologist in managing the care of a woman with suspected ovarian cancer., Methods: A vignette-based survey was mailed to 3,200 physicians aged 64 and younger who were randomly sampled from family physician, general internist, and obstetrician-gynecologist (ob-gyn) lists from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. The vignette described a 57-year-old woman with pain, bloating, and a suspicious right adnexal mass with ascites. Using multivariable analysis we evaluated patient, physician, and practice characteristics associated with a self-reported referral or inclusion of a gynecologic oncologist in the patient's care., Results: The response rate was 61.7%. After exclusions we included 569 ob-gyns, 591 family physicians, and 414 general internists. Gynecologic oncologist referral and consultation was self reported by 39.3% of family physicians and 51.0% of general internists (P=.01). Among ob-gyns, 33.7% indicated they would perform surgery and 66.3% recommended consultation or referral. Factors associated with not referring and consulting included patients having Medicaid insurance (family physicians), providers' weekly average number of patients being more than 91 (family physicians and general internists), male sex (family physicians), a rural practice location (general internists), and solo practice (general internists). Factors associated with primary surgical management for ob-gyns were small and remote rural practice locations and Census division., Conclusion: When presented with a patient with a suspicious ovarian mass, the majority of primary care physicians do not self-report direct referral to a gynecologic oncologist. This may contribute to the high rates of noncomprehensive surgery for ovarian cancer patients in the United States., Level of Evidence: II.

Background: Providing appropriate surgical treatment for women with ovarian cancer is one of the most effective ways to improve ovarian cancer outcomes. In this study, the authors identified factors that were associated with a measure of comprehensive surgery, so that interventions may be targeted appropriately to improve surgical care., Methods: Using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project hospital discharge data from 1999 to 2002 for 9 states, the authors identified 10,432 admissions of women who had an International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision (ICD-9) primary diagnosis of ovarian cancer and who had undergone oophorectomy. Based on National Institutes of Health Consensus Panel recommendations, surgeries were categorized as comprehensive by using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes. Logistic regression analysis using data from 5 states with a full set of variables (n = 6854 patients)was used to identify factors that were associated with the receipt of comprehensive surgical care., Results: Overall, 66.9% of admissions (range, 46.3-80.8% of admissions) received comprehensive surgery. Factors that were associated independently with comprehensive surgical care included age (ages 21-50 years vs ages 71-80 years or > or = 81 years), race (Caucasian vs African American or Hispanic), payer (private insurance vs Medicaid), cancer stage (advanced vs early), annual surgeon volume (low/medium [2-9 surgeries per year] or high [>10 surgeries per year] vs very low [1 surgery per year]), and surgeon specialty (gynecologic oncologists vs obstetrician gynecologists or general surgeons). Among nonteaching hospitals, medium-volume hospitals (10-19 ovarian cancer surgeries per year) and high-volume hospitals (> or = 20 surgeries per year) had significantly higher comprehensive surgery rates than low-volume facilities (1-9 surgeries per year). Volume did not influence comprehensive surgery rates in teaching hospitals., Conclusions: Many women with ovarian cancer, especially those in poor, elderly, or minority groups, are not receiving recommended comprehensive surgery. Efforts should be made to ensure that all women with ovarian cancer, especially those in vulnerable populations, have the opportunity to receive care from centers or surgeons with higher comprehensive surgery rates.

Objective: To describe the primary surgical procedures and procedures for intraoperative and postoperative complications, and factors associated with these procedures, in women with ovarian cancer., Methods: Using hospital discharge data from nine states, obtained from the Heath Care Cost and Utilization Project from 1999 to 2002, we evaluated 10,432 women with a primary diagnosis of ovarian cancer who underwent at least an oophorectomy for additional procedural ICD-9 codes during their initial hospitalization., Results: Surgical procedures performed in addition to oophorectomy included: omentectomy/debulking 81.9%, hysterectomy 73.4%, lymph node dissection 41.4%, appendectomy 23.8%, bowel procedures 19.8%, laparoscopy 5.6%, diaphragmatic procedures 4.9%, colostomy 3.5%, and splenectomy 1.2%. Transfusions were given to 15.5% of patients. Intraoperative and postoperative procedures for complications were coded in 7.4% of patients, including repair of surgical injury 3.5%, procedures for cardiopulmonary complications 2.8%, reoperation 1.1%, and infection treatment 0.3%. In early stage disease 21.4% of women received no additional staging procedures and 46.8% did not have nodal sampling. In bivariate analysis of crude rates, factors associated with lymph node dissection were patient age, race, payer, teaching hospital status, hospital and surgeon volume, and surgeon specialty, p<.01. for all observations. Colostomies were performed by general surgeons in 23.1% of cases, by gynecologic oncologists in 2.7% of cases, and by obstetrician/gynecologists in no cases, p<.001. Complications were associated with age, payer, median household income, and stage, p<.001 for all observations. Complication rates were similar for low- and high-volume hospitals and surgeons. However, in higher volume settings, significantly more patients received debulking procedures, lymph node dissections, and additional surgical procedures, p<.001 for all observations., Conclusions: A significant percentage of women with ovarian cancer did not receive recommended surgical procedures. Almost 50% of women with early stage disease were not adequately staged and in women with advanced disease, the percentage who had additional surgical procedures such as bowel resections was much lower than in institutions that report high optimal cytoreduction rates.