Exploring global barriers to optimal ovarian cancer care: thematic analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers to ovarian cancer care, as reported in the open ended responses of a global expert opinion survey, highlighting areas for improvement in global ovarian cancer care. Potential solutions to overcome these barriers are proposed. METHODS: Data from the expert opinion survey, designed to assess the organization of ovarian cancer care worldwide, were analyzed. The survey was distributed across a global network of physicians. We examined free text, open ended responses concerning the barriers to ovarian cancer care. A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted to identify, analyze, and report meaningful patterns within the data. RESULTS: A total of 1059 physicians from 115 countries completed the survey, with 438 physicians from 93 countries commenting on the barriers to ovarian cancer care. Thematic analysis gave five major themes, regardless of income category or location: societal factors, inadequate resources in hospital, economic barriers, organization of the specialty, and need for early detection. Suggested solutions include accessible resource stratified guidelines, multidisciplinary teamwork, public education, and development of gynecological oncology training pathways internationally. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides an international perspective on the main barriers to optimal ovarian cancer care. The themes derived from our analysis highlight key target areas to focus efforts to reduce inequalities in global care. Future regional analysis involving local representatives will enable country specific recommendations to improve the quality of care and ultimately to work towards closing the care gap.

Outcomes of patients with early stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma: a Dutch population-based cohort study comparing expansile and infiltrative subtypes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the outcomes of patients with early stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma based on subtype (expansile vs infiltrative). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all surgically treated patients with mucinous ovarian carcinoma in the Netherlands (2015-2020), using data from national registries. Subtypes were determined, with any ambiguities resolved by a dedicated gynecologic pathologist. Patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I were categorized into full staging, fertility-sparing, or partial stagings. Outcomes were overall survival and recurrence free survival, and recurrence rates. RESULTS: Among 409 identified patients, 257 (63%) had expansile and 152 (37%) had infiltrative tumors. Patients with expansile tumors had FIGO stage I more frequently (n=243, 95% vs n=116, 76%, p<0.001). For FIGO stage I disease, patients with expansile and infiltrative tumors underwent similar proportions of partial (n=165, 68% vs n=78, 67%), full (n=32, 13% vs n=23, 20%), and fertility-sparing stagings (n=46, 19% vs n=15, 13%) (p=0.139). Patients with expansile FIGO stage I received less adjuvant chemotherapy (n=11, 5% vs n=24, 21%, p<0.001), exhibited better overall and recurrence free survival (p=0.006, p=0.012), and fewer recurrences (n=13, 5% vs n=16, 14%, p=0.011). Survival and recurrence rates were similar across the expansile extent of staging groups. Patients undergoing fertility-sparing staging for infiltrative tumors had more recurrences compared with full or partial stagings, while recurrence free survival was similar across these groups. Full staging correlated with better overall survival in infiltrative FIGO stage I (p=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: While most patients with FIGO stage I underwent partial staging, those with expansile had better outcomes than those with infiltrative tumors. Full staging was associated with improved overall survival in infiltrative, but not in expansile FIGO stage I. These results provide insight for tailored surgical approaches.

Exploring international differences in ovarian cancer care: a survey report on global patterns of care, current practices, and barriers.

OBJECTIVE: Although global disparities in survival rates for patients with ovarian cancer have been described, variation in care has not been assessed globally. This study aimed to evaluate global ovarian cancer care and barriers to care. METHODS: A survey was developed by international ovarian cancer specialists and was distributed through networks and organizational partners of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and the European Society of Gynecological Oncology. Respondents received questions about care organization. Outcomes were stratified by World Bank Income category and analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regressions. RESULTS: A total of 1059 responses were received from 115 countries. Respondents were gynecological cancer surgeons (83%, n=887), obstetricians/gynecologists (8%, n=80), and other specialists (9%, n=92). Income category breakdown was as follows: high-income countries (46%), upper-middle-income countries (29%), and lower-middle/low-income countries (25%). Variation in care organization was observed across income categories. Respondents from lower-middle/low-income countries reported significantly less frequently that extensive resections were routinely performed during cytoreductive surgery. Furthermore, these countries had significantly fewer regional networks, cancer registries, quality registries, and patient advocacy groups. However, there is also scope for improvement in these components in upper-middle/high-income countries. The main barriers to optimal care for the entire group were patient co-morbidities, advanced presentation, and social factors (travel distance, support systems). High-income respondents stated that the main barriers were lack of surgical time/staff and patient preferences. Middle/low-income respondents additionally experienced treatment costs and lack of access to radiology/pathology/genetic services as main barriers. Lack of access to systemic agents was reported by one-third of lower-middle/low-income respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The current survey report highlights global disparities in the organization of ovarian cancer care. The main barriers to optimal care are experienced across all income categories, while additional barriers are specific to income levels. Taking action is crucial to improve global care and strive towards diminishing survival disparities and closing the care gap.

Case-mix adjustment to compare hospital performances regarding complications after cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer: a nationwide population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: Complication rates after cytoreductive surgery are important quality indicators for hospitals that treat patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Case-mix factors are patient and tumor characteristics that may influence hospital outcomes such as the complication rates. Currently, no case-mix adjustment model exists for complications after cytoreductive surgery; therefore, it is unclear whether hospitals are being compared correctly. This study aims to develop the first case-mix adjustment model for complications after surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer, enabling an accurate comparison between hospitals. METHODS: This population-based study included all patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer registered in the Netherlands in 2017-2019. Case-mix variables were identified and assessed using logistic regressions. The primary outcome was the composite outcome measure 'complicated course'. Patients had a complicated course when at least one of the following criteria were met: (1) any complication combined with a prolonged length of hospital stay; (2) complication requiring reintervention; (3) any complication with a prolonged length of stay in the intensive care unit; or (4) 30-day mortality or in-hospital mortality during admission following surgery. Inter-hospital variation was analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regressions and visualized using funnel plots. RESULTS: A total of 1822 patients were included, of which 10.7% (n=195) had a complicated course. Comorbidity and tumor stage had a significant impact on complicated course rates in multivariable logistic regression. Inter-hospital variation was not significant for case-mix factors. Complicated course rates ranged between 2.2% and 29.1%, and case-mix adjusted observed/expected ratios ranged from 0.20 to 2.67 between hospitals. Three hospitals performed outside the confidence intervals for complicated course rates. These hospitals remained outliers after case-mix adjustment. CONCLUSION: There is variation between hospitals regarding complicated course rates after cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer in the Netherlands. While comorbidity and tumor stage significantly affected the complicated course rates, adjusting for case-mix factors did not significantly affect hospital outcomes. The limited impact of case-mix adjustment could be a result of the Dutch centralized healthcare model.