The optimal organization of gynecologic oncology services: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A system-level organizational guideline for gynecologic oncology was identified by a provincial cancer agency as a key priority based on input from stakeholders, data showing more limited availability of multidisciplinary or specialist care in lower-volume than in higher-volume hospitals in the relevant jurisdiction, and variable rates of staging for ovarian and endometrial cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review assessed the relationship of the organization of gynecologic oncology services with patient survival and surgical outcomes. The electronic databases medline and embase (ovid: 1996 through 9 January 2015) were searched using terms related to gynecologic malignancies combined with organization of services, patterns of care, and various facility and physician characteristics. Outcomes of interest included overall or disease-specific survival, short-term survival, adequate staging, and degree of cytoreduction or optimal cytoreduction (or both) for ovarian cancer patients by hospital or physician type, and rate of discrepancy in initial diagnoses and intraoperative consultation between non-specialist pathologists and gyne-oncology-specialist pathologists. RESULTS: One systematic review and sixteen additional primary studies met the inclusion criteria. The evidence base as a whole was judged to be of lower quality; however, a trend toward improved outcomes with centralization of gynecologic oncology was found, particularly with respect to the gynecologic oncology care of patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in outcomes with centralization of gynecologic oncology services can be attributed to a number of factors, including access to specialist care and multidisciplinary team management. Findings of this systematic review should be used with caution because of the limitations of the evidence base; however, an expert consensus process made it possible to create recommendations for implementation.

Management of a suspicious adnexal mass: a clinical practice guideline.

QUESTIONS: What is the optimal strategy for preoperative identification of the adnexal mass suspicious for ovarian cancer? What is the most appropriate surgical procedure for a woman who presents with an adnexal mass suspicious for malignancy? PERSPECTIVES: In Canada in 2010, 2600 new cases of ovarian cancer were estimated to have been diagnosed, and of those patients, 1750 were estimated to have died, making ovarian cancer the 7th most prevalent form of cancer and the 5th leading cause of cancer death in Canadian women. Women with ovarian cancer typically have subtle, nonspecific symptoms such as abdominal pain, bloating, changes in bowel frequency, and urinary or pelvic symptoms, making early detection difficult. Thus, most ovarian cancer cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage, when the cancer has spread outside the pelvis. Because of late diagnosis, the 5-year relative survival ratio for ovarian cancer in Canada is only 40%. Unfortunately, because of the low positive predictive value of potential screening tests (cancer antigen 125 and ultrasonography), there is currently no screening strategy for ovarian cancer. The purpose of this document is to identify evidence that would inform optimal recommended protocols for the identification and surgical management of adnexal masses suspicious for malignancy. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest for the identification question included sensitivity and specificity. Outcomes of interest for the surgical question included optimal surgery, overall survival, progression-free or disease-free survival, reduction in the number of surgeries, morbidity, adverse events, and quality of life. METHODOLOGY: After a systematic review, a practice guideline containing clinical recommendations relevant to patients in Ontario was drafted. The practice guideline was reviewed and approved by the Gynecology Disease Site Group and the Report Approval Panel of the Program in Evidence-based Care. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a survey, the results of which were incorporated into the practice guideline. PRACTICE GUIDELINE: These recommendations apply to adult women presenting with a suspicious adnexal mass, either symptomatic or asymptomatic. IDENTIFICATION OF AN ADNEXAL MASS SUSPICIOUS FOR OVARIAN CANCER: Sonography (particularly 3-dimensional sonography), magnetic resonance imaging (mri), and computed tomography (ct) imaging are each recommended for differentiating malignant from benign ovarian masses. However, the working group offers the following further recommendations, based on their expert consensus opinion and a consideration of availability, access, and harm: Where technically feasible, transvaginal sonography should be the modality of first choice in patients with a suspicious isolated ovarian mass.To help clarify malignant potential in patients in whom ultrasonography may be unreliable, mri is the most appropriate test.In cases in which extra-ovarian disease is suspected or needs to be ruled out, ct is the most useful technique.Evaluation of an adnexal mass by Doppler technology alone is not recommended. Doppler technology should be combined with a morphology assessment.Ultrasonography-based morphology scoring systems can be used to differentiate benign from malignant adnexal masses. These scoring systems are based on specific ultrasound parameters, each with several scores base on determined features. All evaluated scoring systems were found to have an acceptable level of sensitivity and specificity; the choice of scoring system may therefore be made based on clinician preference.As a standalone modality, serum cancer antigen 125 is not recommended for distinguishing between benign and malignant adnexal masses.Frozen sections for the intraoperative diagnosis of a suspicious adnexal mass is recommended in settings in which availability and patient preference allow. SURGICAL PROCEDURES FOR AN ADNEXAL MASS SUSPICIOUS FOR MALIGNANCY: To improve survival, comprehensive surgical staging with lymphadenectomy is recommended for the surgical management of patients with early-stage ovarian cancer. Laparoscopy is a reasonable alternative to laparotomy, provided that appropriate surgery and staging can be done. The choice between laparoscopy and laparotomy should be based on patient and clinician preference. Discussion with a gynecologic oncologist is recommended. Fertility-preserving surgery is an acceptable alternative to more extensive surgery in patients with low-malignant-potential tumours and those with well-differentiated surgical stage i ovarian cancer. Discussion with a gynecologic oncologist is recommended.

Promoting best gynecologic oncology practice: a role for the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada.

During March 30-April 1, 2005, the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada (GOC) and the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control (CSCC) Clinical Practice Guidelines Action Group (CPG-AG) met to determine how GOC would like to influence practice in the care of women with gynecologic cancer.explore a collaborative model for developing and implementing evidence-based practice guidelines.investigate the utility of the cpg evaluation and adaptation cycle as a tool for selecting, adapting, and adopting guidelines.At the workshop meeting, 21 members of the GOC and the cpg-ag heard presentations from various Canadian guideline initiatives. As an example of adaptation and adoption processes, the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) tool was applied to guidelines in recurrent ovarian cancer, and the group explored their opportunity to use knowledge translation to influence the care of women with gynecologic cancer.The themes influencing practice are consistent with GOC's mandate. The future is expected to involve partnering with other groups to maximize scarce resources. Resources should be directed to facilitating implementation of existing guidelines rather than to developing new documents. The full spectrum of cancer care includes prevention, screening, diagnosis, primary treatment, follow-up, treatment of recurrent disease, and palliation. High-quality evidence is available in some areas, but gaps exist where guideline panels could provide guidance. Development of a pan-Canadian gynecologic oncology process could provide an opportunity to influence access to care at the political and policy levels.The GOC will develop linkages such that the toolbox available through CSCC-CPG-AG can be incorporated into future collaboration.

Hybrid Capture Human Papillomavirus Testing as an Adjunct to the Follow-Up of Patients with ASCUS and LGSIL Pap Smears: A Study of a Screening Population.

OBJECTIVES: We set out to evaluate Hybrid Capture (Digene Corporation, Silver Spring, MD) testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) in the management of a screening population with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LGSIL). METHODS: A total of 619 patients with ASCUS or LGSIL Papanicolaou smears were tested for high-risk HPV types. They then were followed at 6-month intervals with Papanicolaou smears and repeat HPV testing. Patients with persistent or progressive disease were referred for colposcopy. HPV results were compared to the most significant follow-up cytological or colposcopic diagnosis to determine whether Hybrid Capture HPV testing was predictive of outcome. A cost analysis was performed. RESULTS: Follow-up of 12 to 30 months was available for 471 patients (76.1%). Outcome diagnoses for 190 patients who initially tested HPV-positive were as follows: 49% benign, 14% ASCUS, 19% LGSIL, 18% HGSIL, and 0.5% cancer. For 281 patients who initially tested HPV-negative, outcomes were 77% benign, 14% ASCUS, 6% LGSIL, 2% HGSIL, and 0.3% cancer. Twenty-six of the patients with HGSIL had two or more HPV tests, and all these patients had at least one positive result. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid Capture testing for high-risk HPV types was predictive of which patients presenting with ASCUS/LGSIL would persist or progress to HGSIL (p < .001). The cost of adding Hybrid Capture testing was intermediate between the cost of cytological follow-up and referral of all patients with ASCUS/LGSIL to colposcopy.

Assessment of cytologic follow-up as the recommended management for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of low grade Papanicolaou (Pap) smear abnormalities remains controversial. This center's experience with recommending cytologic follow-up for women with atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) was reviewed to determine outcome and patient/physician compliance. METHODS: The records were reviewed on women with Pap smears reported as either ASCUS (320) or LSIL (112) who did not have a history of dysplasia. The cytologic and colposcopic follow-up for a 2-year period was obtained from the laboratory data base that includes the colposcopy and cancer referrals for this region. Repeat Pap smear in 6 months was recommended. If patients subsequently demonstrated high grade SIL (HSIL) or persistent ASCUS or LSIL over three time intervals, colposcopic evaluation was recommended. RESULTS: The outcome was determined by the most significant diagnosis among the follow-up Pap smears or colposcopic biopsies. 29% of patients were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining patients, 70.5% reverted to normal or benign cellular changes, 25.3% persisted as ASCUS or LSIL, and 5.2% progressed to HSIL. The majority of patients (68%) were referred for colposcopy for persistent mildly abnormal Pap smears. The timing of referral ranged from 3-30 months. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that cytologic follow-up of women with low grade Pap smear abnormalities will identify a large number whose smears will regress to normal. A small but significant proportion of women showed subsequent HSIL. Most HSIL was detected within 1 year of the initial abnormal Pap smear and the majority of intervening Pap smears also were abnormal. Approximately one third of patients did not have follow-up within the study system and their outcome was uncertain. Although the recommendations are standard, patterns of follow-up and referral to colposcopy varied widely, suggesting that the guidelines need to be reinforced to both patients and physicians. [See editorial on pages 1-4, this issue.]

Economic and policy implications of adopting paclitaxel as first-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer: an Ontario perspective.

PURPOSE: To determine the potential economic and policy implications that result from incorporating paclitaxel into first-line therapy for stage 3 and 4 ovarian cancer patients in the province of Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare cisplatin/cyclophosphamide (CC), a standard therapy, with cisplatin/paclitaxel (CT). Based on survival curves from a clinical trial, mean costs and survival were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted based on altering the duration of paclitaxel infusion, discount rates, and efficacy of paclitaxel. RESULTS: The mean survival duration is prolonged from 2.06 years with the standard therapy to 2.44 years with the paclitaxel combination. The paclitaxel therapy is more expensive, with a mean cost of $17,469 (Canadian) per patient treated with CT compared with $5,228 per patient with CC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $32,213 per year gained. Sensitivity analyses show that the conclusions remain unchanged. The use of CT as first-line treatment for advanced ovarian cancer patients in Ontario requires an additional $9 million per year over and above the present costs to treat this patient population. CONCLUSION: Although paclitaxel-based therapy prolongs survival, it comes at an increased cost. It may not be possible to fund paclitaxel treatment using resources presently allocated to first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. The policy implications for absorbing the cost of paclitaxel in the context of a publicly funded health care system are discussed.

Patients' preferences for therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: development, testing, and application of a bedside decision instrument.

The objective of this study was to determine a patient's preference for treatment in the poor prognostic situation of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. A standardized method of information transfer was developed and pretested for feasibility, acceptability, comprehension, interobserver reliability, and validity. The Decision Board (DB) describes to the patient who has completed surgery for suboptimally debulked ovarian cancer two treatment options, their potential side effects, and possible outcomes. The psychometric properties of the DB were determined in 37 volunteers without cancer and 11 women following first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. The Board was then administered to 12 patients with stage IIIc and IV ovarian cancer at the point of deciding future chemotherapy. The feasibility of presenting poor prognostic information, patient comprehension in an emotionally charged situation, and her treatment choice were determined. Observation of patient-physician interviews revealed that survival information is not usually discussed on the initial consultation. Using the DB, it was feasible to provide survival information to 98% of the healthy women. Comprehension was high, with 96% of the questions being correctly answered. Interobserver reliability was high (kappa = 1.00). The construct that hypothesized that understanding information is a determinant of choice was verified, as 95.2% of women had predictable shifts in expressed preference. The strength of preference in healthy women was statistically significantly higher for Plan B (paclitaxel-cisplatin) than for Plan A (cisplatin-cyclophosphamide) (P < 0.001). The method of presenting survival information (median survival versus percentage survival at 3.5 years) influenced choice (P < 0.04). At the point of decision making, 33% of patients with advanced ovarian cancer chose Plan A and 67% chose Plan B. All volunteers and patients stated that they wanted to be fully informed of the choices of therapy for their disease and to be involved in treatment decisions. The DB is a reliable and valid method for sharing information about advanced ovarian cancer with patients. At the point of deciding first-line chemotherapy in this poor prognostic situation, patients still value survival more highly than the quality of life during chemotherapy.