Venous thromboembolism during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of venous thromboembolism in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy in UK gynecological cancer centers. Secondary outcomes included incidence and timing of venous thromboembolism since cancer presentation, impact on cancer treatment, and mortality. METHODS: All UK gynecological cancer centers were invited to participate in this multi-center retrospective audit through the British Gynecological Cancer Society. Data were captured on all patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV epithelial ovarian cancer within a 12-month period during 2021-2022. Patients on anticoagulation prior to cancer presentation were excluded. Patients who were diagnosed with venous thromboembolism between cancer presentation and commencing neoadjuvant chemotherapy were also excluded from our analysis of venous thromboembolism rates from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Fourteen UK gynecological cancer centers returned data on 660 eligible patients. The median age was 67 years (range 34-96). In total, 131/660 (19.8%) patients were diagnosed with venous thromboembolism from cancer presentation until discharge following cytoreductive surgery. Between commencing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and post-operative discharge, 65/594 (10.9%) patients developed venous thromboembolism (median 11.3%, IQR 5.9-11.3); 55/594 (9.3%) during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 10/594 (1.7%) during post-operative admission. There was no significant difference across centers (p=0.47). Of these 65 patients, 44 (68%) were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism and 30 (46%) with deep-vein thrombosis (nine had both), including in major abdominal/pelvic vessels, with 36 (55%) presenting symptomatically and 29 (45%) diagnosed incidentally on imaging. Venous thromboembolism resulted in mortality (n=3/65, 5%), and delays/changes/cancelation of treatment (n=18/65, 28%). CONCLUSION: Across a large, representative sample of UK gynecological cancer centers, one in five patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy were diagnosed with a potentially preventable venous thromboembolism, including one in nine diagnosed after commencing chemotherapy. This led to adverse clinical consequences for one third, including delay to oncological treatment and mortality. This high venous thromboembolism rate justifies the consideration of thromboprophylaxis in this patient group.

Evaluating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tertiary gynaecological cancer care delivery: a population based study.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, reports of delays and alterations in cancer treatment pathways have emerged. We aim to evaluate the proportional impact of the pandemic over time on standard care delivery in a large tertiary gynaecological cancer centre. Consecutive patient records from weekly multidisciplinary team meetings were collected prospectively between 6 March 2020 and 26 March 2021. In total, 1943 patient discussions were held in our multidisciplinary team meetings during the study period, with 2.1% standard management decisions being altered due to the pandemic, the majority of which occurred during the first wave. Amongst alterations, 87.5% were deferral of surgery, and, in 62.5% of cases, were due to reduced critical care capacity. The majority of patients were offered alternative treatment, and surgery once resources permitted. During subsequent waves of COVID-19, with similar reductions in critical care capacity, we demonstrate avoidance of a second major increase in standard care pathway alterations.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known about the subject? Recent evidence has demonstrated significant delays to cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, few studies have objectively evaluated the quantity and nature of deviations from both surgical and non-surgical standard gynaecological cancer care pathways.What the results of this study add? We examined in detail the effects of the pandemic on tertiary gynaecological cancer service delivery in our centre. The main impact was in the ability to perform major surgery due to reduced critical care capacity. However, with the majority of standard care alterations clustered during the first wave of the pandemic, we demonstrate how the implementation of a COVID-19 mitigation plan minimised service disruption during subsequent waves.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? This study reinforces the importance of protecting gynaecological cancer services during situations where resources are limited. Having identified several key factors affected by the pandemic, we hope that our results will support others in coordinating responses to similar scenarios in future. Having not examined the effects of the pandemic on primary and secondary level cancer services, further research will be needed to evaluate the overall impact on long term patient outcomes.

The top 10 research priorities in diabetes and pregnancy according to women, support networks and healthcare professionals.

AIMS: To undertake a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to establish priorities for future research in diabetes and pregnancy, according to women with experience of pregnancy, and planning pregnancy, with any type of diabetes, their support networks and healthcare professionals. METHODS: The PSP used established James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology working with women and their support networks and healthcare professionals UK-wide. Unanswered questions about the time before, during or after pregnancy with any type of diabetes were identified using an online survey and broad-level literature search. A second survey identified a shortlist of questions for final prioritisation at an online consensus development workshop. RESULTS: There were 466 responses (32% healthcare professionals) to the initial survey, with 1161 questions, which were aggregated into 60 unanswered questions. There were 614 responses (20% healthcare professionals) to the second survey and 18 questions shortlisted for ranking at the workshop. The top 10 questions were: diabetes technology, the best test for diabetes during pregnancy, diet and lifestyle interventions for diabetes management during pregnancy, emotional and well-being needs of women with diabetes pre- to post-pregnancy, safe full-term birth, post-natal care and support needs of women, diagnosis and management late in pregnancy, prevention of other types of diabetes in women with gestational diabetes, women's labour and birth experiences and choices and improving planning pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: These research priorities provide guidance for research funders and researchers to target research in diabetes and pregnancy that will achieve greatest value and impact.

Maintaining surgical care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative cohort study at a tertiary gynecological cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the cornerstone of gynecological cancer management, but inpatient treatment may expose both patients and healthcare staff to COVID-19 infections. Plans to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have been implemented widely, but few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these plans in maintaining safe surgical care delivery. AIM: To evaluate the effects of mitigating plans implemented on the delivery of gynecological cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A comparative cohort study of patients treated in a high-volume tertiary gyneoncological centre in the United Kingdom. Prospectively-recorded consecutive operations performed and early peri-operative outcomes during the same calendar periods (January-August) in 2019 and 2020 were compared. RESULTS: In total, 585 operations were performed (296 in 2019; 289 in 2020). There was no significant difference in patient demographics. Types of surgery performed were different (p = 0.034), with fewer cytoreductive surgeries for ovarian cancer and laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.002) in 2020. There was no difference in intra-operative complication rates, critical care admission rates or length of stay. One patient had confirmed COVID-19 infection (0.4%). The 30-day post-operative complication rates were significantly higher in 2020 than in 2019 (58 [20.1%] versus 32 [10.8%]; p = 0.002) for both minor and major complications. This increase, primarily from March 2020 onwards, coincided with the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining surgical throughput with meticulous and timely planning is feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic but this was associated with an increase in post-operative complications due to a multitude of reasons.