Exploring variations in ovarian cancer survival by age and stage (ICBP SurvMark-2): A population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to evaluate the differences in ovarian cancer survival by age and stage at diagnosis within and across seven high-income countries. METHODS: We analyzed data from 58,161 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 2010-2014, followed until 31 December 2015, from 21 population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and United Kingdom. Comparisons of 1-year and 3-year age- and stage-specific net survival (NS) between countries were performed using the period analysis approach. RESULTS: Minor variation in the stage distribution was observed between countries, with most women being diagnosed with 'distant' stage (ranging between 64% in Canada and 71% in Norway). The 3-year all-ages NS ranged from 45 to 57% with Australia (56%) and Norway (57%) demonstrating the highest survival. The proportion of women with 'distant' stage was highest for those aged 65-74 and 75-99 years and varied markedly between countries (range:72-80% and 77-87%, respectively). The oldest age group had the lowest 3-year age-specific survival (20-34%), and women aged 65-74 exhibited the widest variation across countries (3-year NS range: 40-60%). Differences in survival between countries were particularly stark for the oldest age group with 'distant' stage (3-year NS range: 12% in Ireland to 24% in Norway). CONCLUSIONS: International variations in ovarian cancer survival by stage exist with the largest differences observed in the oldest age group with advanced disease. This finding endorses further research investigating international differences in access to and quality of treatment, and prevalence of comorbid conditions particularly in older women with advanced disease.

Exploring international differences in ovarian cancer treatment: a comparison of clinical practice guidelines and patterns of care.

INTRODUCTION: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership demonstrated international differences in ovarian cancer survival, particularly for women aged 65-74 with advanced disease. These findings suggest differences in treatment could be contributing to survival disparities. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical practice guidelines and patterns of care across seven high-income countries. METHODS: A comparison of guidelines was performed and validated by a clinical working group. To explore clinical practice, a patterns of care survey was developed. A questionnaire regarding management and potential health system-related barriers to providing treatment was emailed to gynecological specialists. Guideline and survey results were crudely compared with 3-year survival by 'distant' stage using Spearman's rho. RESULTS: Twenty-seven guidelines were compared, and 119 clinicians completed the survey. Guideline-related measures varied between countries but did not correlate with survival internationally. Guidelines were consistent for surgical recommendations of either primary debulking surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery with the aim of complete cytoreduction. Reported patterns of surgical care varied internationally, including for rates of primary versus interval debulking, extensive/'ultra-radical' surgery, and perceived barriers to optimal cytoreduction. Comparison showed that willingness to undertake extensive surgery correlated with survival across countries (rs=0.94, p=0.017). For systemic/radiation therapies, guideline differences were more pronounced, particularly for bevacizumab and PARP (poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors. Reported health system-related barriers also varied internationally and included a lack of adequate hospital staffing and treatment monitoring via local and national audits. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest international variations in ovarian cancer treatment. Characteristics relating to countries with higher stage-specific survival included higher reported rates of primary surgery; willingness to undertake extensive/ultra-radical procedures; greater access to high-cost drugs; and auditing.

A Radical Approach to Ebola: Saving Humans and Other Animals.

As the usual regulatory framework did not fit well during the last Ebola outbreak, innovative thinking still needed. In the absence of an outbreak, randomised controlled trials of clinical efficacy in humans cannot be done, while during an outbreak such trials will continue to face significant practical, philosophical, and ethical challenges. This article argues that researchers should also test the safety and effectiveness of novel vaccines in wild apes by employing a pluralistic approach to evidence. There are three reasons to test vaccines in wild populations of apes: i) protect apes; ii) reduce Ebola transmission from wild animals to humans; and iii) accelerate vaccine development and licensing for humans. Data obtained from studies of vaccines among wild apes and chimpanzees may even be considered sufficient for licensing new vaccines for humans. This strategy will serve to benefit both wild apes and humans.