Search

Introduction: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership demonstrated international differences in ovarian cancer survival, particularly for women aged 65-74 with advanced disease. These findings suggest differences in treatment could be contributing to survival disparities., Objective: To compare clinical practice guidelines and patterns of care across seven high-income countries., Methods: A comparison of guidelines was performed and validated by a clinical working group. To explore clinical practice, a patterns of care survey was developed. A questionnaire regarding management and potential health system-related barriers to providing treatment was emailed to gynecological specialists. Guideline and survey results were crudely compared with 3-year survival by 'distant' stage using Spearman's rho., Results: Twenty-seven guidelines were compared, and 119 clinicians completed the survey. Guideline-related measures varied between countries but did not correlate with survival internationally. Guidelines were consistent for surgical recommendations of either primary debulking surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery with the aim of complete cytoreduction. Reported patterns of surgical care varied internationally, including for rates of primary versus interval debulking, extensive/'ultra-radical' surgery, and perceived barriers to optimal cytoreduction. Comparison showed that willingness to undertake extensive surgery correlated with survival across countries (r s =0.94, p=0.017). For systemic/radiation therapies, guideline differences were more pronounced, particularly for bevacizumab and PARP (poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors. Reported health system-related barriers also varied internationally and included a lack of adequate hospital staffing and treatment monitoring via local and national audits., Discussion: Findings suggest international variations in ovarian cancer treatment. Characteristics relating to countries with higher stage-specific survival included higher reported rates of primary surgery; willingness to undertake extensive/ultra-radical procedures; greater access to high-cost drugs; and auditing., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To report the interim findings of an audit of the outcomes of sentinel node (SN) biopsy performed as a replacement for groin node dissection in women with early stage vulvar cancer in routine clinical practice in Australia and New Zealand., Methods: A prospective multi-center study in 8 participating centers. Eligible patients had squamous cell carcinomas clinically restricted to the vulva <4 cm in diameter. SN procedures and pathological assessment were to be performed in accordance with the methods published by the GROINSS-V collaboration [1]., Results: 130 women with apparent early stage vulvar cancer were enrolled. Seventeen women subsequently did not meet the eligibility criteria and were excluded. SNs were identified in 111/113 of the remaining women. Twenty-two women had positive nodes. Sixteen of these women had at least 12 months follow up and 7 (44%) had recurrent disease. Eighty-nine women had only negative nodes. Seventy-four of these women had at least 12 months follow up and 6 (8%) had recurrent disease (including 2 [2.7%] with recurrence in the groin). On subsequent review of the two women with negative SNs who had groin recurrences, it was found that the recommended pathology protocol had not been followed. In both cases, SN metastases were identified following serial sectioning of the nodes., Conclusions: SN biopsy is feasible in routine clinical practice. However, undetected metastases in a removed SN may be associated with groin recurrence. To ensure patient safety, strict adherence to the pathology protocol is an essential component in the utilization of the sentinel lymph node technique in vulvar cancer., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)