Impact of care by gynecologic oncologists on primary ovarian cancer survival: A population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: Timely treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) by gynecologic oncologists (GOs) with a combination of surgery and/or chemotherapy has been advocated. Nonetheless, some patients are not assessed by GOs prior to starting their treatment or have surgery by non-GOs. This study aims to determine trends over time in non-mucinous EOC care and to evaluate the impact of care on survival. METHODS: Using province-wide administrative data, patients diagnosed with non-mucinous EOC between 2007 and 2018 were identified. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the impact of GO assessment prior to initiating treatment or having surgery done by a non-GO on mortality. RESULTS: A total of 10,086 EOC patients were included between 2007 and 2018. During the study period, there was an 8% increase in GO assessment (79% in 2007 to 87% in 2018-19, p ≤  0.001) and a 19% increase in surgeries performed by GOs (69% in 2007 to 88% in 2018-19, p ≤ 0.001). On multivariate analysis, there was an increased hazard of all-cause mortality for patients not assessed by GOs before first treatment (Hazard ratio (HR): 1.61; 95% CI 1.46-1.79). There was an increased hazard of all-cause mortality if ovarian cancer surgery was performed by non-GOs (HR 2.03; 95% CI 1.80-2.30). CONCLUSION: Assessment by GO before starting initial treatment is associated with improved survival in women with non-mucinous EOC as the type of surgeon performing primary ovarian cancer surgery. Assessment by GO for all patients with new or suspected ovarian cancer diagnosis before initiation of primary treatment should be advocated.

Angiogenesis: A Pivotal Therapeutic Target in the Drug Development of Gynecologic Cancers.

Since the discovery of angiogenesis and its relevance to the tumorigenesis of gynecologic malignancies, a number of therapeutic agents have been developed over the last decade, some of which have become standard treatments in combination with other therapies. Limited clinical activity has been demonstrated with anti-angiogenic monotherapies, and ongoing trials are focused on combination strategies with cytotoxic agents, immunotherapies and other targeted treatments. This article reviews the science behind angiogenesis within the context of gynecologic cancers, the evidence supporting the targeting of these pathways and future directions in clinical trials.

Ethical frameworks in clinical research processes during COVID-19: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this paper is to determine the rates of references surrounding the ethical oversight of research as reported in current COVID-19-related research publications. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Population-based observational or interventional studies from December 2019 to May 2020 with sample size of two or more. Studies were searched through electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials. PARTICIPANTS: Eligibility criteria included participants within published studies who tested positive for COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data were extracted and charting methods included taking note of references to ethical frameworks, institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee (EC) or research ethics board (REB) involvement, consent processes, and other variables. RESULTS: 11 556 articles were screened, with 656 included in the final analysis. References to ethics were present in 530 (80.8%) studies, with 491 (74.8%) involving IRB/ECs/REBs and 126 (19.2%) not referencing ethics. Consent processes were outlined in 201 (30.6%) studies, with 198 (30.2%) reporting that they obtained consent waivers, however, 257 (39.2%) did not mention consent at all. Differences (p<0.001) in ethics-related references were apparent when analysed by continent, publication type, sample size and IF. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of published articles pertaining to COVID-19 research made mention of ethical considerations, however, national and regional variations in research ethics review requirements introduce heterogeneity between studies and raise important questions about the conduct of scientific research during global public emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osfio/z67wb.