Search

Objective: To explore the impact of risk-adjustment on surgical complication rates (CRs) for benchmarking gynaecological oncology centres. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Ten UK accredited gynaecological oncology centres. Population: Women undergoing major surgery on a gynaecological oncology operating list. Methods: Patient co-morbidity, surgical procedures and intra-operative (IntraOp) complications were recorded contemporaneously by surgeons for 2948 major surgical procedures. Postoperative (PostOp) complications were collected from hospitals and patients. Risk-prediction models for IntraOp and PostOp complications were created using penalised (lasso) logistic regression using over 30 potential patient/surgical risk factors. Main Outcome Measures: Observed and risk-adjusted IntraOp and PostOp CRs for individual hospitals were calculated. Benchmarking using colour-coded funnel plots and observed-to-expected ratios was undertaken. Results: Overall, IntraOp CR was 4.7% (95% CI 4.0-5.6) and PostOp CR was 25.7% (95% CI 23.7-28.2). The observed CRs for all hospitals were under the upper 95% control limit for both IntraOp and PostOp funnel plots. Risk-adjustment and use of observed-to-expected ratio resulted in one hospital moving to the >95-98% CI (red) band for IntraOp CRs. Use of only hospital-reported data for PostOp CRs would have resulted in one hospital being unfairly allocated to the red band. There was little concordance between IntraOp and PostOp CRs. Conclusion: The funnel plots and overall IntraOp (≈5%) and PostOp (≈26%) CRs could be used for benchmarking gynaecological oncology centres. Hospital benchmarking using risk-adjusted CRs allows fairer institutional comparison. IntraOp and PostOp CRs are best assessed separately. As hospital under-reporting is common for postoperative complications, use of patient-reported outcomes is important. Tweetable Abstract: Risk-adjusted benchmarking of surgical complications for ten UK gynaecological oncology centres allows fairer comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Most studies use hospital data to calculate postoperative complication rates (PCRs). We report on improving PCR estimates through use of patient-reporting.Methods:A prospective cohort study of major surgery performed at 10 UK gynaecological cancer centres was undertaken. Hospitals entered the data contemporaneously into an online database. Patients were sent follow-up letters to capture postoperative complications. Grade II-V (Clavien-Dindo classification) patient-reported postoperative complications were verified from hospital records. Postoperative complication rate was defined as the proportion of surgeries with a Grade II-V postoperative complication.Results:Patient replies were received for 1462 (68%) of 2152 surgeries undertaken between April 2010 and February 2012. Overall, 452 Grade II-V (402 II, 50 III-V) complications were reported in 379 of the 1462 surgeries. This included 172 surgeries with 200 hospital-reported complications and 231 with 280 patient-reported complications. All (100% concordance) 36 Grade III-V and 158 of 280 (56.4% concordance) Grade II patient-reported complications were verified on hospital case-note review. The PCR using hospital-reported data was 11.8% (172 out of 1462; 95% CI 11-14), patient-reported was 15.8% (231 out of 1462; 95% CI 14-17.8), hospital and verified patient-reported was 19.4% (283 out of 1462; 95% CI 17.4-21.4) and all data were 25.9% (379 out of 1462; 95% CI 24-28). After excluding Grade II complications, the hospital and patient verified Grade III-V PCR was 3.3% (48 out of 1462; 95% CI 2.5-4.3).Conclusion:This is the first prospective study of postoperative complications we are aware of in gynaecological oncology to include the patient-reported data. Patient-reporting is invaluable for obtaining complete information on postoperative complications. Primary care case-note review is likely to improve verification rates of patient-reported Grade II complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: UKCTOCS provides an opportunity to explore symptoms in preclinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (iEOC). We report on symptoms in women with pre-clinical (screen-detected) cancers (PC) compared to clinically diagnosed (CD) cancers., Methods: In UKCTOCS, 202638 postmenopausal women, aged 50-74 were randomly allocated (April 17, 2001-September 29, 2005) 2:1:1 to no screening or annual screening till Dec 31,2011, using a multimodal or ultrasound strategy. Follow-up was through national registries. An outcomes committee adjudicated on OC diagnosis, histotype, stage. Eligible women were those diagnosed with iEOC at primary censorship (Dec 31, 2014). Symptom details were extracted from trial clinical-assessment forms and medical records. Descriptive statistics were used to compare symptoms in PC versus CD women with early (I/II) and advanced (III/IV/unable to stage) stage high-grade-serous (HGSC) cancer. ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032., Results: 1133 (286PC; 847CD) women developed iEOC. Median age (years) at diagnosis was earlier in PC compared to CD (66.8PC, 68.7CD, p = 0.0001) group. In the PC group, 48% (112/234; 90%, 660/730CD) reported symptoms when questioned. Half PC (50%, 13/26PC; 36%, 29/80CD; p = 0.213) women with symptomatic HGSC had >1symptom, with abdominal symptoms most common, both in early (62%, 16/26, PC; 53% 42/80, CD; p = 0.421) and advanced (57%, 49/86, PC; 74%, 431/580, CD; p = 0.001) stages. In symptomatic early-stage HGSC, compared to CD, PC women reported more gastrointestinal (change in bowel habits and dyspepsia) (35%, 9/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.001) and systemic (mostly lethargy/tiredness) (27%, 7/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.017) symptoms., Conclusions: Our findings, add to the growing evidence, that we should reconsider what constitutes alert symptoms for early tubo-ovarian cancer. We need a more nuanced complex of key symptoms which is then evaluated and refined in a prospective trial., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest UM had stock ownership awarded by University College London (UCL) between until October 2021 in Abcodia, which holds the licence for ROCA. She and MP have received grants and AGM, MB, JK and AR have been funded by grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and The Eve Appeal. UM has also received grants from UK Innovate and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australia and salary support from UCL Hospital Biomedical Research Centre. UM, AGM and SA report funded research collaborations with industry - iLOF (intelligent Lab on Fiber), RNA Guardian, Micronoma, MercyBio Analytics and academics -Cambridge University, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute Imperial College London, University of Innsbruck and Dana Farber USA. UM holds patent number EP10178345.4 for Breast Cancer Diagnostics. AGM is a member of ACED Gynaecological Cancer Working Group and is ACED Co-Director Research Domain Trials. MP was an Associate Member of the EME funding committee while the project was active. SJS reports that Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has co-licensed software for ROCA to Abcodia, now owned by GenInCode, with MGH licence revenue to MGH and research laboratories per MGH institutional policies. SJS receives grant support from National Cancer Institute (USA) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (UK). He is paid for service on the clinical advisory board for Guardant Health. He serves on the Scientific Advisory Board for LUNGevity. He has stock options from SISCAPA Assay Technologies for participation on its Scientific Advisory Board. IJJ reports grants from Eve Appeal Charity, MRC, Cancer Research UK, and NIHR during the conduct of the study. He co-invented the ROCA in 1995. Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London granted a licence for the ROCA to Abcodia in 2014. IJJ is non-executive director, shareholder, and consultant to Abcodia and has rights to royalties from sales of the ROCA. He founded (1985), was a trustee of (2012–14), and is now an Emeritus trustee (2015–present) of The Eve Appeal, one of the funding agencies for UKCTOCS. LF reports MRC funding for the psychosocial arm of the UKCTOCS study 2001–13, paid to University of Sussex. NS received honoraria from Astra-Zeneca-MPC and GlaxoSmithKline for participation in advisory boards. AMcG was a member of NIHR HTA and EME Editoral Board (2012 to 2022). RM reports funding from The Eve Appeal, Rosetrees Trust, Barts Charity, Yorkshire Cancer Research, Ovacure, British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS), GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and Honoraria from Astrazeneca and EGL. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ovarian cancer continues to have a poor prognosis with the majority of women diagnosed with advanced disease. Therefore, we undertook the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) to determine if population screening can reduce deaths due to the disease. We report on ovarian cancer mortality after long-term follow-up in UKCTOCS., Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years were recruited from 13 centres in National Health Service trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were bilateral oophorectomy, previous ovarian or active non-ovarian malignancy, or increased familial ovarian cancer risk. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS), annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. Follow-up was through national registries. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian or tubal cancer (WHO 2014 criteria) by June 30, 2020. Analyses were by intention to screen, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening using the versatile test. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type, whereas the outcomes review committee were masked to randomisation group. This study is registered with ISRCTN, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032., Findings: Between April 17, 2001, and Sept 29, 2005, of 1 243 282 women invited, 202 638 were recruited and randomly assigned, and 202 562 were included in the analysis: 50 625 (25·0%) in the MMS group, 50 623 (25·0%) in the USS group, and 101 314 (50·0%) in the no screening group. At a median follow-up of 16·3 years (IQR 15·1-17·3), 2055 women were diagnosed with tubal or ovarian cancer: 522 (1·0%) of 50 625 in the MMS group, 517 (1·0%) of 50 623 in the USS group, and 1016 (1·0%) of 101 314 in the no screening group. Compared with no screening, there was a 47·2% (95% CI 19·7 to 81·1) increase in stage I and 24·5% (-41·8 to -2·0) decrease in stage IV disease incidence in the MMS group. Overall the incidence of stage I or II disease was 39·2% (95% CI 16·1 to 66·9) higher in the MMS group than in the no screening group, whereas the incidence of stage III or IV disease was 10·2% (-21·3 to 2·4) lower. 1206 women died of the disease: 296 (0·6%) of 50 625 in the MMS group, 291 (0·6%) of 50 623 in the USS group, and 619 (0·6%) of 101 314 in the no screening group. No significant reduction in ovarian and tubal cancer deaths was observed in the MMS (p=0·58) or USS (p=0·36) groups compared with the no screening group., Interpretation: The reduction in stage III or IV disease incidence in the MMS group was not sufficient to translate into lives saved, illustrating the importance of specifying cancer mortality as the primary outcome in screening trials. Given that screening did not significantly reduce ovarian and tubal cancer deaths, general population screening cannot be recommended., Funding: National Institute for Health Research, Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests UM has stock ownership awarded by University College London (UCL) in Abcodia, which holds the licence for ROCA. She has received grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and The Eve Appeal. She holds patent number EP10178345.4 for Breast Cancer Diagnostics. MP has received grants and AG-M, MB, AR, CK, GC, and SKM have been funded by grants from MRC, Cancer Research UK, NIHR, and The Eve Appeal. RM has received grants from The Eve Appeal, Rosetrees Charity, and Barts Charity, and personal fees from AstraZeneca. SJS holds the (expired) patent for ROCA, patented and owned by Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London, licenced to Abcodia. He reports stock options from SISCAPA Assay Technologies, and personal fees from Abcodia, Guardant Health, and Freenome, outside the submitted work. IJJ reports grants from Eve Appeal Charity, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, and NIHR during the conduct of the study. He co-invented the ROCA in 1995, it was patented by Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London and is owned by these universities. Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London granted a licence to ROCA to Abcodia in 2014. IJJ is non-executive director, shareholder, and consultant to Abcodia and has rights to royalties from sales of the ROCA. He founded (1985), was a trustee of (2012–14), and is now an Emeritus trustee (2015–present) of The Eve Appeal, one of the funding agencies for UKCTOCS. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: There are widespread efforts to increase symptom awareness of 'pelvic/abdominal pain, increased abdominal size/bloating, difficulty eating/feeling full and urinary frequency/urgency' in an attempt to diagnose ovarian cancer earlier. Long-term survival of women with these symptoms adjusted for known prognostic factors is yet to be determined. This study explored the association of symptoms, routes and interval to diagnosis and long-term survival in a population-based cohort of postmenopausal women diagnosed with invasive epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (iEOC) in the 'no screen' (control) UKCTOCS arm., Methods: Of 101,299 women in the control arm, 574 were confirmed on outcome review to have iEOC between randomisation (2001-2005) and 31 December 2014. Data was extracted from medical notes and electronic records. A multivariable model was fitted for individual symptoms, time interval from symptom onset to diagnosis, route to diagnosis, speciality, morphological Type, age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis (period effect), stage, primary treatment, and residual disease., Results: Women presenting with symptoms listed in the NICE guidelines (HR1.48, 95%CI1.16-1.89, p = 0.001) or the modified Goff Index (HR1·68, 95%CI1·32-2.13, p < 0.0001) had significantly worse survival than those who did not. Each additional presenting symptom decreased survival (HR1·20, 95%CI1·12-1·28, p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, in addition to advanced stage, increasing residual disease and inadequate primary treatment, abdominal pain and loss of appetite/feeling full were significantly associated with increased mortality., Conclusions: The ovarian cancer symptom indices identify postmenopausal women with a poorer prognosis. This study however cannot exclude the possibility of better outcomes in those who are aware and act on their symptoms., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest UM has stocks in Abcodia awarded to her by UCL. IJ and SJS are co-inventors of the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) which has been licensed to Abcodia Ltd. by Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Queen Mary University of London (QMUL). IJ has a financial interest in Abcodia. Ltd. as a shareholder and director and is entitled to a royalty payments via MGH and QMUL from any commercial use of the ROCA. SJS co-developed the ROCA with all rights assigned to MGH and QMUL. SJS receives personal fees from the LUNGevity Foundation and SISCAPA Assay Technologies as member of their Scientific Advisory Boards and from Abcodia as a consultant. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: There is uncertainty about whether cytoreductive surgery (CRS)+hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves survival and/or quality of life compared with standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases who can withstand major surgery., Primary Objectives: To compare the relative benefits and harms of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric cancers eligible to undergo CRS+HIPEC by a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis., Secondary Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective using a model-based cost-utility analysis., Methods and Analysis: We will perform a systematic review of literature by updating the searches from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, Science Citation Index as well as trial registers. Two members of our team will independently screen the search results and identify randomised controlled trials comparing CRS+HIPEC versus SoC for inclusion based on full texts for articles shortlisted during screening. We will assess the risk of bias in the trials and obtain data related to baseline prognostic characteristics, details of intervention and control, and outcome data related to overall survival, disease progression, health-related quality of life, treatment related complications and resource utilisation data. Using IPD, we will perform a two-step IPD, that is, calculate the adjusted effect estimate from each included study and then perform a random-effects model meta-analysis. We will perform various subgroup analyses, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses. We will also perform a model-based cost-utility analysis to assess whether CRS+HIPEC is cost-effective in the NHS setting., Ethics and Dissemination: This project was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (Ethics number: 16023/001). We aim to present the findings at appropriate international meetings and publish the review, irrespective of the findings, in a peer-reviewed journal., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019130504., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The clinical practice of the clinicians in the project: TM, MM, MS, OA and SO may be altered by the findings of the review., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death for women in the UK. Up to 18% of cases can be attributed to germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Identifying patients who carry a BRCA mutation provides important information about potential response to treatment and eligibility for therapies such as poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Implementation of systematic genetic testing of patients with ovarian cancer via oncology clinics (mainstreamed genetic testing, MGT) is increasing., Methods and Results: This service evaluation reports on the first year of MGT at a tertiary oncology centre in London, UK. In total, 122 patients with high-grade non-mucinous ovarian cancer underwent BRCA germline testing via MGT. Eighteen patients (14.8%) were found to carry a deleterious BRCA1 / BRCA2 mutation. Four BRCA carriers did not meet previous criteria for genetic testing and would have been missed. Six BRCA carriers accessed PARP inhibitors post-MGT. Only 22% of patients with a variant of unknown significance (VUS) were referred to clinical genetics services., Conclusions: MGT appears to be a feasible way of providing BRCA testing to patients with ovarian cancer. Greater clarity of how oncologists use VUS results is needed, as well as further research on psychosocial implications of MGT for patients with ovarian cancer, which may include somatic testing in the future., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, with just 40% of patients surviving 5 years. We designed this trial to establish the effect of early detection by screening on ovarian cancer mortality., Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years from 13 centres in National Health Service Trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were previous bilateral oophorectomy or ovarian malignancy, increased risk of familial ovarian cancer, and active non-ovarian malignancy. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer-generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA125 interpreted with use of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian cancer by Dec 31, 2014, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening, ascertained by an outcomes committee masked to randomisation group. All analyses were by modified intention to screen, excluding the small number of women we discovered after randomisation to have a bilateral oophorectomy, have ovarian cancer, or had exited the registry before recruitment. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032., Findings: Between June 1, 2001, and Oct 21, 2005, we randomly allocated 202,638 women: 50,640 (25·0%) to MMS, 50,639 (25·0%) to USS, and 101,359 (50·0%) to no screening. 202,546 (>99·9%) women were eligible for analysis: 50,624 (>99·9%) women in the MMS group, 50,623 (>99·9%) in the USS group, and 101,299 (>99·9%) in the no screening group. Screening ended on Dec 31, 2011, and included 345,570 MMS and 327,775 USS annual screening episodes. At a median follow-up of 11·1 years (IQR 10·0-12·0), we diagnosed ovarian cancer in 1282 (0·6%) women: 338 (0·7%) in the MMS group, 314 (0·6%) in the USS group, and 630 (0·6%) in the no screening group. Of these women, 148 (0·29%) women in the MMS group, 154 (0·30%) in the USS group, and 347 (0·34%) in the no screening group had died of ovarian cancer. The primary analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model gave a mortality reduction over years 0-14 of 15% (95% CI -3 to 30; p=0·10) with MMS and 11% (-7 to 27; p=0·21) with USS. The Royston-Parmar flexible parametric model showed that in the MMS group, this mortality effect was made up of 8% (-20 to 31) in years 0-7 and 23% (1-46) in years 7-14, and in the USS group, of 2% (-27 to 26) in years 0-7 and 21% (-2 to 42) in years 7-14. A prespecified analysis of death from ovarian cancer of MMS versus no screening with exclusion of prevalent cases showed significantly different death rates (p=0·021), with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% (-2 to 40) and a reduction of 8% (-27 to 43) in years 0-7 and 28% (-3 to 49) in years 7-14 in favour of MMS., Interpretation: Although the mortality reduction was not significant in the primary analysis, we noted a significant mortality reduction with MMS when prevalent cases were excluded. We noted encouraging evidence of a mortality reduction in years 7-14, but further follow-up is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ovarian cancer screening., Funding: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, The Eve Appeal., (Copyright © 2016 Jacobs Menon et al. Open Access article published under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To estimate the risk of primary epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and slow growing borderline or Type I and aggressive Type II EOC in postmenopausal women with adnexal abnormalities on ultrasound., Methods: This was a prospective cohort study in the ultrasound group of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening of postmenopausal women with ultrasound-detected abnormal adnexal (unilocular, multilocular, unilocular solid and multilocular solid, solid) morphology on their first scan. Women were followed up through the national cancer registries and by postal questionnaires. Absolute risks of EOC and borderline, Type I and Type II EOC within 3 years of initial scan were calculated., Results: Of 48 053 women who underwent ultrasound examination and had complete scan data, 4367 (9.1% (95% CI, 8.8-9.3%)) had abnormal adnexal morphology. Median follow-up was 7.09 (25(th) -75(th) centiles, 6.03-7.92) years. Forty-seven (32 borderline or Type I, 15 Type II) were diagnosed with EOC. The overall absolute risk of EOC associated with abnormal adnexal morphology was 1.08% (95% CI, 0.79-1.43%); for borderline and Type I it was 0.73% (95% CI, 0.5-1.03%); and for Type II it was 0.34% (95% CI, 0.33-0.79%). In the subgroup (n = 741) with solid elements (unilocular solid, multilocular solid and solid) overall absolute risk was 4.45% (95% CI, 3.08-6.20%), for borderline and Type I it was 3.1% (95% CI, 1.9-4.6%) and for Type II it was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.6-2.4%). 11 982 women had both ovaries visualized and normal annual scans throughout the 3-year follow-up period. In this group, no borderline or Type I and eight Type II cancers were diagnosed., Conclusion: Asymptomatic postmenopausal women with ultrasound-detected adnexal abnormalities with solid elements have a 1 in 22 risk for EOC. Despite the higher prevalence of Type II EOC, the risk of borderline or Type I cancer in women with ultrasound abnormalities seems to be higher than does the risk of Type II cancer. This has important immediate implications for patients with incidental adnexal findings as well as for any future ultrasound-based screening., (Copyright © 2012 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)