Less extensive surgery compared to extensive surgery: survival seems similar in young women with adult ovarian granulosa cell tumor.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcome of adult granulosa cell tumor (AGCT) with respect to initial clinical findings, methods of surgery, and perioperative treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective follow-up study. SETTING: All hospitals in Jutland. SAMPLE: 163 women diagnosed with AGCT. METHODS: Follow-up by hospital data files, general practitioner, death certificate, and autopsy report. Revision of histopathology by a single pathologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival and relapse by clinical data, stage, and type of surgery. RESULTS: The incidence of AGCT was 1.37 per year per 100,000 women (95% CI: 1.08, 1.68). The median follow-up time was 15 years and for the 79 surviving women 22 years. Stage I was found in 94% of cases. Relapse occurred in 24% of women in stage I and 100% of the other stages. Survival in stage I was 95%, 89% and 84% after 5, 10 and 20 years respectively. Increased survival of stage I in postmenopausal women was associated with surgery including hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy (p<0.001). In women younger than 40 years no difference in survival was found due to type of surgery. Endometrial carcinoma was found 138 times (95% CI: 48, 275) more prevalent than the expected rate. CONCLUSION: The survival of women was better in AGCT than in epithelial ovarian tumor. Age and type of surgery, besides stage, influenced survival. Total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is the recommended treatment with advancing age. At younger age less extensive surgery was associated with similar survival compared to extensive surgery, but with advancing age conservative surgery increased the risk of relapse and death.

A new method for analyzing diagnostic delay in gynecological cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to present a new methodology to illustrate, understand, and measure delay in health care. The method is inspired by process mapping tools as analytical framework and demonstrates its usefulness for studying diagnostic delay in gynecological cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six women with a diagnostic delay of 6 weeks or more before treatment of gynecological cancer at a specialized regional department (the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, Denmark) were included in the study. Maps of existing processes were performed for each patient reflecting the patients' pathway through the course of the disease. We combined 2 process mapping tools, namely, value stream mapping and business process modeling notation. The first method identifies the flow in a process as timelines. The latter introduces a set of easily recognizable graphical elements. RESULTS: Detailed information concerning the cancer patients' pathway was obtained. The method visualized the complexities within the diagnostic pathway. The role of different participants (patient, general practitioner, and local hospitals) became clear by arranging activities according to responsibilities and was shown to recurrently influence and contribute to the delay in the diagnostic process. Some important contributors to diagnostic delay in gynecological cancer, such as lack of cancer suspicion, competing diseases, negative test results, inexpedient referral patterns, and referrals without cancer suspicion, were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our results point out process mapping tools as a potential analytical framework to illustrate, understand, and measure delay in health care. Furthermore, the method was able to identify important contributors to the diagnostic delay in gynecological cancer patients.

Reasons for diagnostic delay in gynecological malignancies.

INTRODUCTION: To describe the different delay types in women with gynecological cancer and to analyze the relationship between diagnostic delay and a number of characteristics for patients, cancers, and the health care system. METHOD: Data were obtained from 4 different questionnaires, the Electronic Patient Journal (EPJ), and the Danish Gynecological Cancer Database (DGCD). A total of 161 women with ovarian cancer (63), endometrial cancer (50), cervical cancer (34), and vulvar cancer (14) were included. Outcome measures were different delay types counted in days and 4 clinically important variables' impact on the diagnostic delay: presence of alarm symptoms, age (divided into 2 groups: ≤60 or >60 years), performance of gynecological examination by the general practitioner (GP), and notification of cancer suspicion on first referral from GP. RESULTS: Across cancer types, median total delay was 101 days. Some 10% of women experienced the longest delay with a total delay of 436 days or more. Vulva cancer had the longest delay, whereas women with ovarian cancer had the shortest delay. More than one third (39%) of the women consulted their GP for reasons other than the predefined alarm symptoms. Gynecological examination by the GP was less likely to be performed if the woman did not present with vaginal bleeding. The length of the delay was shortened by performance of a gynecological examination by the GP and a primary referral from the GP raising the receiver's suspicion of cancer. CONCLUSION: Reducing diagnostic delays should be achievable, particularly for those most delayed, and interventions aimed at reducing delays need to be developed. Creation of new valid instruments for measuring delay is essential in future research.