FARGO-360: a multi-disciplinary survey of practice and perspectives on provision of care for patients with frailty presenting with gynecological cancers in the UK and Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty has been associated with worse cancer-related outcomes for people with gynecological cancers. However, the lack of clear guidance on how to assess and modify frailty prior to instigating active treatments has the potential to lead to large variations in practice and outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate current practice and perspectives of healthcare practitioners on the provision of care for patients with frailty and a gynecological cancer. METHODS: Data were collected via a questionnaire-based survey distributed by the Audit and Research in Gynecological Oncology (ARGO) collaborative to healthcare professionals who identified as working with patients with gynecological malignancies in the United Kingdom (UK) or Ireland. Study data were collected using REDCap software hosted at the University of Manchester. Responses were collected over a 16 week period between January and April 2021. RESULTS: A total of 206 healthcare professionals (30 anesthetists (14.6%), 30 pre-operative nurses (14.6%), 51 surgeons (24.8%), 34 cancer specialist nurses (16.5%), 21 medical/clinical oncologists (10.2%), 25 physiotherapists/occupational therapists (12.1%) and 15 dieticians (7.3%)) completed the survey. The respondents worked at 19 hospital trusts across the UK and Ireland. Frailty scoring was not routinely performed in 63% of care settings, yet the majority of practitioners reported modifying their practice when providing and deciding on care for patients with frailty. Only 16% of organizations surveyed had a dedicated pathway for assessment and management of patients with frailty. A total of 37% of respondents reported access to prehabilitation services, 79% to enhanced recovery, and 27% to community rehabilitation teams. CONCLUSION: Practitioners from all groups surveyed considered that appropriate training, dedicated pathways for optimization, frailty specific performance indicators and evidence that frailty scoring had an impact on clinical outcomes and patient experience could all help to improve care for frail patients.

Neoadjuvant therapy or upfront surgery in advanced endometrial cancer: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for people with advanced endometrial cancer. Neoadjuvant therapies such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy have been employed to try to reduce the morbidity of surgery, improve its feasibility and/or improve functional performance in people considered unfit for primary surgery. The objective of this review is to assess whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy improves health outcomes in people with advanced endometrial cancer when compared with upfront surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will consider both randomised and non-randomised studies that compare health outcomes associated with the neoadjuvant therapy and upfront surgery in advanced endometrial cancer. Potential studies for inclusion will be collated from electronic searches of OVID Medline, Embase, international trial registries and conference abstract lists. Data collection and extraction will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tools. If appropriate, we will perform a meta-analysis and provide summary statistics for each outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required for this study. Once complete, we will publish our findings in peer-reviewed publications, via conference presentations and to update relevant practice guidelines.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 on training and mental well-being of surgical gynecological oncology trainees.

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic has caused a crisis disrupting health systems worldwide. While efforts are being made to determine the extent of the disruption, the impact on gynecological oncology trainees/training has not been explored. We conducted an international survey of the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on clinical practice, medical education, and mental well-being of surgical gynecological oncology trainees. METHODS: In our cross-sectional study, a customized web-based survey was circulated to surgical gynecological oncology trainees from national/international organizations from May to November 2020. Validated questionnaires assessed mental well-being. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Fisher's exact test were used to analyse differences in means and proportions. Multiple linear regression was used to evaluate the effect of variables on psychological/mental well-being outcomes. Outcomes included clinical practice, medical education, anxiety and depression, distress, and mental well-being. RESULTS: A total of 127 trainees from 34 countries responded. Of these, 52% (66/127) were from countries with national training programs (UK/USA/Netherlands/Canada/Australia) and 48% (61/127) from countries with no national training programs. Altogether, 28% (35/125) had suspected/confirmed COVID-19, 28% (35/125) experienced a fall in household income, 20% (18/90) were self-isolated from households, 45% (57/126) had to re-use personal protective equipment, and 22% (28/126) purchased their own. In total, 32.3% (41/127) of trainees (16.6% (11/66) from countries with a national training program vs 49.1% (30/61) from countries with no national training program, p=0.02) perceived they would require additional time to complete their training fellowship. The additional training time anticipated did not differ between trainees from countries with or without national training programs (p=0.11) or trainees at the beginning or end of their fellowship (p=0.12). Surgical exposure was reduced for 50% of trainees. Departmental teaching continued throughout the pandemic for 69% (87/126) of trainees, although at reduced frequency for 16.1% (14/87), and virtually for 88.5% (77/87). Trainees reporting adequate pastoral support (defined as allocation of a dedicated mentor/access to occupational health support services) had better mental well-being with lower levels of anxiety/depression (p=0.02) and distress (p<0.001). Trainees from countries with a national training program experienced higher levels of distress (p=0.01). Mean (SD) pre-pandemic mental well-being scores were significantly higher than post-pandemic scores (8.3 (1.6) vs 7 (1.8); p<0.01). CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 has negatively impacted the surgical training, household income, and psychological/mental well-being of surgical gynecological oncology trainees. The overall clinical impact was worse for trainees in countries with no national training program than for those in countries with a national training program, although national training program trainees reported greater distress. COVID-19 sickness increased anxiety/depression. The recovery phase must focus on improving mental well-being and addressing lost training opportunities.

Are trainees working in obstetrics and gynecology confident and competent in the care of frail gynecological oncology patients?

INTRODUCTION: Older patients undergoing cancer surgery are at increased risk of post-operative complications, prolonged hospital stay, and mortality. Identification of frailty can help predict patients at high risk of peri-operative complications and allow a collaborative, multidisciplinary team approach to their care. A survey was conducted to assess the confidence and knowledge of trainees in obstetrics and gynecology regarding identification and management of peri-operative issues encountered in frail gynecological oncology patients. METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed via the Audit and Research in Gynaecological Oncology (ARGO) collaborative and UK Audit and Research Collaborative in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (UKARCOG) . The survey on the management of frail peri-operative patients was disseminated to doctors-in-training (trainees) working in obstetrics and gynecology in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. Specialty (ST1-7), subspecialty, and general practice trainees, non-training grade doctors, and foundation year doctors currently working in obstetrics and gynecology were eligible. Consultants were excluded. Study data were collected using REDCAP software hosted at the University of Manchester. Responses were collected over a 6-week period between January and February 2020. RESULTS: Of the 666 trainees who participated, 67% (425/666) reported inadequate training in peri-operative management of frail patients. Validated frailty assessment tools were used by only 9% (59/638) of trainees and less than 1% (4/613) were able to correctly identify all the diagnostic features of frailty. Common misconceptions included the use of chronological age and gender in frailty assessments. The majority of trainees (76.5%, 448/586) correctly answered a series of questions relating to mental capacity; however, only 6% (36/606) were able to correctly identify all three diagnostic features of delirium. A total of 87% (495/571) of trainees supported closer collaboration with geriatricians and a multidisciplinary approach. CONCLUSIONS: Obstetrics and gynecology trainees reported inadequate training in the peri-operative care of frail gynecological oncology patients, and overwhelmingly favored input from geriatricians. Routine use of validated frailty assessment tools may aid diagnosis of frailty in the peri-operative setting. There is an unmet need for formal education in the management of frail surgical patients within the UK and Irish obstetrics and gynecology curriculum.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in gynecologic oncology: an international survey of peri-operative practice.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to improve clinical outcomes in gynecologic oncology, with the majority of published reports originating from a small number of specialized centers. It is unclear to what degree ERAS is implemented in hospitals globally. This international survey investigated the status of ERAS protocol implementation in open gynecologic oncology surgery to provide a worldwide perspective on peri-operative practice patterns. METHODS: Requests to participate in an online survey of ERAS practices were distributed via social media (WhatsApp, Twitter, and Social Link). The survey was active between January 15 and March 15, 2020. Additionally, four national gynecologic oncology societies agreed to distribute the study among their members. Respondents were requested to answer a 17-item questionnaire about their ERAS practice preferences in the pre-, intra-, and post-operative periods. RESULTS: Data from 454 respondents representing 62 countries were analyzed. Overall, 37% reported that ERAS was implemented at their institution. The regional distribution was: Europe 38%, Americas 33%, Asia 19%, and Africa 10%. ERAS gynecologic oncology guidelines were well adhered to (>80%) in the domains of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, early removal of urinary catheter after surgery, and early introduction of ambulation. Areas with poor adherence to the guidelines included the use of bowel preparation, adoption of modern fasting guidelines, carbohydrate loading, use of nasogastric tubes and peritoneal drains, intra-operative temperature monitoring, and early feeding. CONCLUSION: This international survey of ERAS in open gynecologic oncology surgery shows that, while some practices are consistent with guideline recommendations, many practices contradict the established evidence. Efforts are required to decrease the variation in peri-operative care that exists in order to improve clinical outcomes for patients with gynecologic cancer globally.

Impact of surgical site infection (SSI) following gynaecological cancer surgery in the UK: a trainee-led multicentre audit and service evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Surgical site infection (SSI) complicates 5% of all surgical procedures in the UK and is a major cause of postoperative morbidity and a substantial drain on healthcare resources. Little is known about the incidence of SSI and its consequences in women undergoing surgery for gynaecological cancer. Our aim was to perform the first national audit of SSI following gynaecological cancer surgery through the establishment of a UK-wide trainee-led research network. DESIGN AND SETTING: In a prospective audit, we collected data from all women undergoing laparotomy for suspected gynaecological cancer at 12 specialist oncology centres in the UK during an 8-week period in 2015. Clinicopathological data were collected, and wound complications and their sequelae were recorded during the 30 days following surgery. RESULTS: In total, 339 women underwent laparotomy for suspected gynaecological cancer during the study period. A clinical diagnosis of SSI was made in 54 (16%) women. 33% (18/54) of women with SSI had prolonged hospital stays, and 11/37 (29%) had their adjuvant treatment delayed or cancelled. Multivariate analysis found body mass index (BMI) was the strongest risk factor for SSI (OR 1.08[95% CI 1.03 to 1.14] per 1 kg/m2 increase in BMI [p=0.001]). Wound drains (OR 2.92[95% CI 1.41 to 6.04], p=0.004) and staple closure (OR 3.13[95% CI 1.50 to 6.56], p=0.002) were also associated with increased risk of SSI. CONCLUSIONS: SSI is common in women undergoing surgery for gynaecological cancer leading to delays in discharge and adjuvant treatment. Resultant delays in adjuvant treatment may impact cancer-specific survival rates. Modifiable factors, such as choice of wound closure material, offer opportunities for reducing SSI and reducing morbidity in these women. There is a clear need for new trials in SSI prevention in this patient group; our trainee-led initiative provides a platform for their successful completion.