Risk-prediction models in postmenopausal patients with symptoms of suspected ovarian cancer in the UK (ROCkeTS): a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple risk-prediction models are used in clinical practice to triage patients as being at low risk or high risk of ovarian cancer. In the ROCkeTS study, we aimed to identify the best diagnostic test for ovarian cancer in symptomatic patients, through head-to-head comparisons of risk-prediction models, in a real-world setting. Here, we report the results for the postmenopausal cohort. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited newly presenting female patients aged 16-90 years with non-specific symptoms and raised CA125 or abnormal ultrasound results (or both) who had been referred via rapid access, elective clinics, or emergency presentations from 23 hospitals in the UK. Patients with normal CA125 and simple ovarian cysts of smaller than 5 cm in diameter, active non-ovarian malignancy, or previous ovarian malignancy, or those who were pregnant or declined a transvaginal scan, were ineligible. In this analysis, only postmenopausal participants were included. Participants completed a symptom questionnaire, gave a blood sample, and had transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasounds performed by International Ovarian Tumour Analysis consortium (IOTA)-certified sonographers. Index tests were Risk of Malignancy 1 (RMI1) at a threshold of 200, Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) at multiple thresholds, IOTA Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX) at thresholds of 3% and 10%, IOTA SRRisk model at thresholds of 3% and 10%, IOTA Simple Rules (malignant vs benign, or inconclusive), and CA125 at 35 IU/mL. In a post-hoc analysis, the Ovarian Adnexal and Reporting Data System (ORADS) at 10% was derived from IOTA ultrasound variables using established methods since ORADS was described after completion of recruitment. Index tests were conducted by study staff masked to the results of the reference standard. The comparator was RMI1 at the 250 threshold (the current UK National Health Service standard of care). The reference standard was surgical or biopsy tissue histology or cytology within 3 months, or a self-reported diagnosis of ovarian cancer at 12 month follow-up. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy at predicting primary invasive ovarian cancer versus benign or normal histology, assessed by analysing the sensitivity, specificity, C-index, area under receiver operating characteristic curve, positive and negative predictive values, and calibration plots in participants with conclusive reference standard results and available index test data. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (ISRCTN17160843). FINDINGS: Between July 13, 2015, and Nov 30, 2018, 1242 postmenopausal patients were recruited, of whom 215 (17%) had primary ovarian cancer. 166 participants had missing, inconclusive, or other reference standard results; therefore, data from a maximum of 1076 participants were used to assess the index tests for the primary outcome. Compared with RMI1 at 250 (sensitivity 82·9% [95% CI 76·7 to 88·0], specificity 87·4% [84·9 to 89·6]), IOTA ADNEX at 10% was more sensitive (difference of -13·9% [-20·2 to -7·6], p<0·0001) but less specific (difference of 28·5% [24·7 to 32·3], p<0·0001). ROMA at 29·9 had similar sensitivity (difference of -3·6% [-9·1 to 1·9], p=0·24) but lower specificity (difference of 5·2% [2·5 to 8·0], p=0·0001). RMI1 at 200 had similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1% [-4·7 to 0·5], p=0·13) but lower specificity (difference of 3·0% [1·7 to 4·3], p<0·0001). IOTA SRRisk model at 10% had similar sensitivity (difference of -4·3% [-11·0 to -2·3], p=0·23) but lower specificity (difference of 16·2% [12·6 to 19·8], p<0·0001). IOTA Simple Rules had similar sensitivity (difference of -1·6% [-9·3 to 6·2], p=0·82) and specificity (difference of -2·2% [-5·1 to 0·6], p=0·14). CA125 at 35 IU/mL had similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1% [-6·6 to 2·3], p=0·42) but higher specificity (difference of 6·7% [4·3 to 9·1], p<0·0001). In a post-hoc analysis, when compared with RMI1 at 250, ORADS achieved similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1%, 95% CI -8·6 to 4·3, p=0·60) and lower specificity (difference of 10·2%, 95% CI 6·8 to 13·6, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: In view of its higher sensitivity than RMI1 at 250, despite some loss in specificity, we recommend that IOTA ADNEX at 10% should be considered as the new standard-of-care diagnostic in ovarian cancer for postmenopausal patients. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Heath Research.

Investigating harms of testing for ovarian cancer - psychological outcomes and cancer conversion rates in women with symptoms of ovarian cancer: A cohort study embedded in the multicentre ROCkeTS prospective diagnostic study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate psychological correlates in women referred with suspected ovarian cancer via the fast-track pathway, explore how anxiety and distress levels change at 12 months post-testing, and report cancer conversion rates by age and referral pathway. DESIGN: Single-arm prospective cohort study. SETTING: Multicentre. Secondary care including outpatient clinics and emergency admissions. POPULATION: A cohort of 2596 newly presenting symptomatic women with a raised CA125 level, abnormal imaging or both. METHODS: Women completed anxiety and distress questionnaires at recruitment and at 12 months for those who had not undergone surgery or a biopsy within 3 months of recruitment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anxiety and distress levels measured using a six-item short form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) and the Impact of Event Scale - Revised (IES-r) questionnaire. Ovarian cancer (OC) conversion rates by age, menopausal status and referral pathway. RESULTS: Overall, 1355/2596 (52.1%) and 1781/2596 (68.6%) experienced moderate-to-severe distress and anxiety, respectively, at recruitment. Younger age and emergency presentations had higher distress levels. The clinical category for anxiety and distress remained unchanged/worsened in 76% of respondents at 12 months, despite a non-cancer diagnosis. The OC rates by age were 1.6% (95% CI 0.5%-5.9%) for age <40 years and 10.9% (95% CI 8.7%-13.6%) for age ≥40 years. In women referred through fast-track pathways, 3.3% (95% CI 1.9%-5.7%) of pre- and 18.5% (95% CI 16.1%-21.0%) of postmenopausal women were diagnosed with OC. CONCLUSIONS: Women undergoing diagnostic testing display severe anxiety and distress. Younger women are especially vulnerable and should be targeted for support. Women under the age of 40 years have low conversion rates and we advocate reducing testing in this group to reduce the harms of testing.

Training the gynecologic oncologists of the future - challenges and opportunities.

Several recent advances in gynecologic cancer care have improved patient outcomes. These include national screening and vaccination programs for cervical cancer as well as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. Conversely, these advances have cumulatively reduced surgical opportunities for training creating a need to supplement existing training strategies with evidence-based adjuncts. Technologies such as virtual reality and augmented reality, if properly evaluated and validated, have transformative potential to support training. Given the changing landscape of surgical training in gynecologic oncology, we were keen to summarize the evidence underpinning current training in gynecologic oncology.In this review, we undertook a literature search of Medline, Google, Google Scholar, Embase and Scopus to gather evidence on the current state of training in gynecologic oncology and to highlight existing evidence on the best methods to teach surgical skills. Drawing from the experiences of other surgical specialties we examined the use of training adjuncts such as cadaveric dissection, animation and 3D models as well as simulation training in surgical skills acquisition. Specifically, we looked at the use of training adjuncts in gynecologic oncology training as well as the evidence behind simulation training modalities such as low fidelity box trainers, virtual and augmented reality simulation in laparoscopic training. Finally, we provided context by looking at how training curriculums varied internationally.Whereas some evidence to the reliability and validity of simulation training exists in other surgical specialties, our literature review did not find such evidence in gynecologic oncology. It is important that well conducted trials are used to ascertain the utility of simulation training modalities before integrating them into training curricula.

Investigating age and ethnicity as novel high-risk phenotypes in mucinous ovarian cancer: retrospective study in a multi-ethnic population.

OBJECTIVES: Primary mucinous ovarian carcinoma represents 3% of ovarian cancers and is typically diagnosed early, yielding favorable outcomes. This study aims to identify risk factors, focussing on the impact of age and ethnicity on survival from primary mucinous ovarian cancer. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of patients treated at Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust and University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire. Patients included were women aged ≥16 years, with primary mucinous ovarian cancer confirmed by specialist gynecological histopathologist and tumor immunohistochemistry, including cytokeratin-7, cytokeratin-20, and CDX2. Statistical analyses were performed using R integrated development environment, with survival assessed by Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier plots. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were analyzed; median age at diagnosis was 58 years (range 16-92), 145 (89%) were International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I and 43 (26%) patients had infiltrative invasion. Women aged ≤45 years were more likely to have infiltrative invasion (RR=1.38, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.46), with increased risk of death associated with infiltrative invasion (HR=2.29, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.83). Compared with White counterparts, South Asian women were more likely to undergo fertility-sparing surgery (RR=3.52, 95% CI 1.48 to 8.32), and have infiltrative invasion (RR=1.25, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.58). South Asian women undergoing fertility-sparing surgery had worse prognosis than those undergoing traditional staging surgery (HR=2.20, 95% CI 0.39 to 13.14). In FIGO stage I disease, 59% South Asian and 37% White women received adjuvant chemotherapy (p=0.06). South Asian women exhibited a worse overall prognosis than White women (HR=2.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 4.36), particularly pronounced in those aged ≤45 years (HR=8.75, 95% CI 1.22 to 76.38). CONCLUSION: This study identified young age as a risk factor for diagnosis of infiltrative invasion. Fertility-sparing surgery in South Asian women is a risk factor for poorer prognosis. South Asian women exhibit poorer overall survival than their White counterparts.

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.

Symptom-triggered testing detects early stage and low volume resectable advanced stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Symptom-triggered testing for ovarian cancer was introduced to the UK whereby symptomatic women undergo an ultrasound scan and serum CA125, and are referred to hospital within 2 weeks if these are abnormal. The potential value of symptom-triggered testing in the detection of early-stage disease or low tumor burden remains unclear in women with high grade serous ovarian cancer. In this descriptive study, we report on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, disease distribution, and complete cytoreduction rates in women presenting via the fast-track pathway and who were diagnosed with high grade serous ovarian cancer. METHODS: We analyzed the dataset from Refining Ovarian Cancer Test accuracy Scores (ROCkeTS), a single-arm prospective diagnostic test accuracy study recruiting from 24 hospitals in the UK. The aim of ROCkeTS is to validate risk prediction models in symptomatic women. We undertook an opportunistic analysis for women recruited between June 2015 to July 2022 and who were diagnosed with high grade serous ovarian cancer via the fast-track pathway. Women presenting with symptoms suspicious for ovarian cancer receive a CA125 blood test and an ultrasound scan if the CA125 level is abnormal. If either of these is abnormal, women are referred to secondary care within 2 weeks. Histology details were available on all women who underwent surgery or biopsy within 3 months of recruitment. Women who did not undergo surgery or biopsy at 3 months were followed up for 12 months as per the national guidelines in the UK. In this descriptive study, we report on patient demographics (age and menopausal status), WHO performance status, FIGO stage at diagnosis, disease distribution (low/pelvic confined, moderate/extending to mid-abdomen, high/extending to upper abdomen) and complete cytoreduction rates in women who underwent surgery. RESULTS: Of 1741 participants recruited via the fast-track pathway, 119 (6.8%) were diagnosed with high grade serous ovarian cancer. The median age was 63 years (range 32-89). Of these, 112 (94.1%) patients had a performance status of 0 and 1, 30 (25.2%) were diagnosed with stages I/II, and the disease distribution was low-to-moderate in 77 (64.7%). Complete and optimal cytoreduction were achieved in 73 (61.3%) and 18 (15.1%). The extent of disease was low in 43 of 119 (36.1%), moderate in 34 of 119 (28.6%), high in 32 of 119 (26.9%), and not available in 10 of 119 (8.4%). Nearly two thirds, that is 78 of 119 (65.5%) women with high grade serous ovarian cancer, underwent primary debulking surgery, 36 of 119 (30.3%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery, and 5 of 119 (4.2%) women did not undergo surgery. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that one in four women identified with high grade serous ovarian cancer through the fast-track pathway following symptom-triggered testing was diagnosed with early-stage disease. Symptom-triggered testing may help identify women with a low disease burden, potentially contributing to high complete cytoreduction rates.

British Gynaecological Cancer Society/British Association of Gynaecological Pathology consensus for genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom.

Standard of care genetic testing has undergone significant changes in recent years. The British Gynecological Cancer Society and the British Association of Gynecological Pathologists (BGCS/BAGP) has re-assembled a multidisciplinary expert consensus group to update the previous guidance with the latest standard of care for germline and tumor testing in patients with ovarian cancer. For the first time, the BGCS/BAGP guideline group has incorporated a patient advisor at the initial consensus group meeting. We have used patient focused groups to inform discussions related to reflex tumor testing - a key change in this updated guidance. This report summarizes recommendations from our consensus group deliberations and audit standards to support continual quality improvement in routine clinical settings.

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.

Homologous recombination deficiency in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: a multi-national observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance therapy improves survival outcomes in women with newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer with a deficiency in homologous recombination. We report data from the first year of routine homologous recombination deficiency testing in the National Health Service (NHS) in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between April 2021 and April 2022. METHODS: The Myriad myChoice companion diagnostic was used to test DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue in women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Tumors with homologous recombination deficiency were those with a BRCA1/2 mutation and/or a Genomic Instability Score (GIS) ≥42. Testing was coordinated by the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network. RESULTS: The myChoice assay was performed on 2829 tumors. Of these, 2474 (87%) and 2178 (77%) successfully underwent BRCA1/2 and GIS testing, respectively. All complete and partial assay failures occurred due to low tumor cellularity and/or low tumor DNA yield. 385 tumors (16%) contained a BRCA1/2 mutation and 814 (37%) had a GIS ≥42. Tumors with a GIS ≥42 were more likely to be BRCA1/2 wild-type (n=510) than BRCA1/2 mutant (n=304). The distribution of GIS was bimodal, with BRCA1/2 mutant tumors having a higher mean score than BRCA1/2 wild-type tumors (61 vs 33, respectively, χ2 test p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This is the largest real-world evaluation of homologous recombination deficiency testing in newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. It is important to select tumor tissue with adequate tumor content and quality to reduce the risk of assay failure. The rapid uptake of testing across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland demonstrates the power of centralized NHS funding, center specialization, and the NHS Genomic Laboratory Hub network.

Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer treatment (ICON8): overall survival results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer is carboplatin and paclitaxel administered once every 3 weeks. The JGOG 3016 trial reported significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly (ie, once every 3 weeks) carboplatin. However, this benefit was not observed in the previously reported progression-free survival results of ICON8. Here, we present the final coprimary outcomes of overall survival and updated progression-free survival analyses of ICON8. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (ICON8), women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma (here collectively termed ovarian cancer, as defined by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] 1988 criteria) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited from 117 hospitals with oncology departments in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. Patients could enter the trial after immediate primary surgery (IPS) or with planned delayed primary surgery (DPS) during chemotherapy, or could have no planned surgery. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London randomisation line with stratification by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup group, FIGO disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery, to either 3-weekly carboplatin area under the curve (AUC)5 or AUC6 and 3-weekly paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (control; group 1), 3-weekly carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 2), or weekly carboplatin AUC2 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 3), all administered via intravenous infusion for a total of six 21-day cycles. Coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival, with comparisons done between group 2 and group 1, and group 3 and group 1, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started at least one chemotherapy cycle. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146, and ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were randomly assigned to group 1 (n=522), group 2 (n=523), or group 3 (n=521). The median age was 62 years (IQR 54-68), 1073 (69%) of 1566 patients had high-grade serous carcinoma, 1119 (71%) had stage IIIC-IV disease, and 745 (48%) had IPS. As of data cutoff (March 31, 2020), with a median follow-up of 69 months (IQR 61-75), no significant difference in overall survival was observed in either comparison: median overall survival of 47·4 months (95% CI 43·1-54·8) in group 1, 54·8 months (46·6-61·6) in group 2, and 53·4 months (49·2-59·6) in group 3 (group 2 vs group 1: hazard ratio 0·87 [97·5% CI 0·73-1·05]; group 3 vs group 1: 0·91 [0·76-1·09]). No significant difference was observed for progression-free survival in either comparison and evidence of non-proportional hazards was seen (p=0·037), with restricted mean survival time of 23·9 months (97·5% CI 22·1-25·6) in group 1, 25·3 months (23·6-27·1) in group 2, and 24·8 months (23·0-26·5) in group 3. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were reduced neutrophil count (78 [15%] of 511 patients in group 1, 183 [36%] of 514 in group 2, and 154 [30%] of 513 in group 3), reduced white blood cell count (22 [4%] in group 1, 80 [16%] in group 2, and 71 [14%] in group 3), and anaemia (26 [5%] in group 1, 66 [13%] in group 2, and 24 [5%] in group 3). No new serious adverse events were reported. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported (two in group 1, four in group 2, and one in group 3). INTERPRETATION: In our cohort of predominantly European women with epithelial ovarian cancer, we found that first-line weekly dose-dense chemotherapy did not improve overall or progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy and should not be used as part of standard multimodality front-line therapy in this patient group. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Outcomes of gynecologic cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international, multicenter, prospective CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer study.

BACKGROUND: The CovidSurg-Cancer Consortium aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 in surgical patients and services for solid cancers at the start of the pandemic. The CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer subgroup was particularly concerned about the magnitude of adverse outcomes caused by the disrupted surgical gynecologic cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are currently unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the changes in care and short-term outcomes of surgical patients with gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic had led to a delay in surgical cancer care, especially in patients who required more extensive surgery, and such delay had an impact on cancer outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients with gynecologic cancers who were initially planned for nonpalliative surgery, were recruited from the date of first COVID-19-related admission in each participating center for 3 months. The follow-up period was 3 months from the time of the multidisciplinary tumor board decision to operate. The primary outcome of this analysis is the incidence of pandemic-related changes in care. The secondary outcomes included 30-day perioperative mortality and morbidity and a composite outcome of unresectable disease or disease progression, emergency surgery, and death. RESULTS: We included 3973 patients (3784 operated and 189 nonoperated) from 227 centers in 52 countries and 7 world regions who were initially planned to have cancer surgery. In 20.7% (823/3973) of the patients, the standard of care was adjusted. A significant delay (>8 weeks) was observed in 11.2% (424/3784) of patients, particularly in those with ovarian cancer (213/1355; 15.7%; P<.0001). This delay was associated with a composite of adverse outcomes, including disease progression and death (95/424; 22.4% vs 601/3360; 17.9%; P=.024) compared with those who had operations within 8 weeks of tumor board decisions. One in 13 (189/2430; 7.9%) did not receive their planned operations, in whom 1 in 20 (5/189; 2.7%) died and 1 in 5 (34/189; 18%) experienced disease progression or death within 3 months of multidisciplinary team board decision for surgery. Only 22 of the 3778 surgical patients (0.6%) acquired perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infections; they had a longer postoperative stay (median 8.5 vs 4 days; P<.0001), higher predefined surgical morbidity (14/22; 63.6% vs 717/3762; 19.1%; P<.0001) and mortality (4/22; 18.2% vs 26/3762; 0.7%; P<.0001) rates than the uninfected cohort. CONCLUSION: One in 5 surgical patients with gynecologic cancer worldwide experienced management modifications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant adverse outcomes were observed in those with delayed or cancelled operations, and coordinated mitigating strategies are urgently needed.

Quality of life from cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: Investigating the association between disease burden and surgical complexity in the international, prospective, SOCQER-2 cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate quality of life (QoL) and association with surgical complexity and disease burden after surgical resection for advanced ovarian cancer in centres with variation in surgical approach. DESIGN: Prospective multicentre observational study. SETTING: Gynaecological cancer surgery centres in the UK, Kolkata, India, and Melbourne, Australia. SAMPLE: Patients undergoing surgical resection (with low, intermediate or high surgical complexity score, SCS) for late-stage ovarian cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: change in global score on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core quality-of-life questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Secondary: EORTC ovarian cancer module (OV28), progression-free survival. RESULTS: Patients' preoperative disease burden and SCS varied between centres, confirming differences in surgical ethos. QoL response rates were 90% up to 18 months. Mean change from the pre-surgical baseline in the EORTC QLQ-C30 was 3.4 (SD 1.8, n = 88) in the low, 4.0 (SD 2.1, n = 55) in the intermediate and 4.3 (SD 2.1, n = 52) in the high-SCS group after 6 weeks (p = 0.048), and 4.3 (SD 2.1, n = 51), 5.1 (SD 2.2, n = 41) and 5.1 (SD 2.2, n = 35), respectively, after 12 months (p = 0.133). In a repeated-measures model, there were no clinically or statistically meaningful differences in EORTC QLQ-C30 global scores between the three SCS groups (p = 0.840), but there was a small statistically significant improvement in all groups over time (p < 0.001). The high-SCS group experienced small to moderate decreases in physical (p = 0.004), role (p = 0.016) and emotional (p = 0.001) function at 6 weeks post-surgery, which resolved by 6-12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The global QoL of patients undergoing low-, intermediate- and high-SCS surgery improved at 12 months after surgery and was no worse in patients undergoing extensive surgery. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Compared with surgery of lower complexity, extensive surgery does not result in poorer quality of life in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

British Gynaecological Cancer Society recommendations for women with gynecological cancer who received non-standard care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, pressures on clinical services required adaptation to how care was prioritised and delivered for women with gynecological cancer. This document discusses potential 'salvage' measures when treatment has deviated from the usual standard of care. The British Gynaecological Cancer Society convened a multidisciplinary working group to develop recommendations for the onward management and follow-up of women with gynecological cancer who have been impacted by a change in treatment during the pandemic. These recommendations are presented for each tumor type and for healthcare systems, and the impact on gynecological services are discussed. It will be important that patient concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on their cancer pathway are acknowledged and addressed for their ongoing care.

Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest case fatality rate of all gynaecological cancers. Diagnostic delays are caused by non-specific symptoms. Existing systematic reviews have not comprehensively covered tests in current practice, not estimated accuracy separately in pre- and postmenopausal women, or used inappropriate meta-analytic methods. OBJECTIVES: To establish the accuracy of combinations of menopausal status, ultrasound scan (USS) and biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women and compare the accuracy of different test combinations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), five other databases and three trial registries from 1991 to 2015 and MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) form June 2015 to June 2019. We also searched conference proceedings from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, ZETOC and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We searched reference lists of included studies and published systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating single tests or comparing two or more tests, randomised trials comparing two or more tests, and studies validating multivariable models for the diagnosis of OC investigating test combinations, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up in women with a pelvic mass (detected clinically or through USS) suspicious for OC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using QUADAS-2. We used the bivariate hierarchical model to indirectly compare tests at commonly reported thresholds in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. We indirectly compared tests across all thresholds and estimated sensitivity at fixed specificities of 80% and 90% by fitting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 studies (32,059 women, 9545 cases of OC). Two tests evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and USS findings (IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model (ADNEX)); one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status, USS findings and serum biomarker CA125 (Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)); and one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and two serum biomarkers (CA125 and HE4) (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA)). Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in participant, reference standard, and flow and timing domains. All studies were in hospital settings. Prevalence was 16% (RMI, ROMA), 22% (LR2) and 27% (ADNEX) in premenopausal women and 38% (RMI), 45% (ROMA), 52% (LR2) and 55% (ADNEX) in postmenopausal women. The prevalence of OC in the studies was considerably higher than would be expected in symptomatic women presenting in community-based settings, or in women referred from the community to hospital with a suspicion of OC. Studies were at high or unclear applicability because presenting features were not reported, or USS was performed by experienced ultrasonographers for RMI, LR2 and ADNEX. The higher sensitivity and lower specificity observed in postmenopausal compared to premenopausal women across all index tests and at all thresholds may reflect highly selected patient cohorts in the included studies. In premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (± 2), LR2 at a threshold to achieve a post-test probability of OC of 10% and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 77.4%, 95% CI 72.7% to 81.5%; LR2: 83.3%, 95% CI 74.7% to 89.5%; ADNEX: 95.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 97.8%) compared to RMI (57.2%, 95% CI 50.3% to 63.8%). The specificity of ROMA and ADNEX were lower in premenopausal women (ROMA: 84.3%, 95% CI 81.2% to 87.0%; ADNEX: 77.8%, 95% CI 67.4% to 85.5%) compared to RMI 92.5% (95% CI 90.3% to 94.2%). The specificity of LR2 was comparable to RMI (90.4%, 95% CI 84.6% to 94.1%). In postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2), LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 90.3%, 95% CI 87.5% to 92.6%; LR2: 94.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 96.6%; ADNEX: 97.6%, 95% CI 95.6% to 98.7%) compared to RMI (78.4%, 95% CI 74.6% to 81.7%). Specificity of ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2) (81.5, 95% CI 76.5% to 85.5%) was comparable to RMI (85.4%, 95% CI 82.0% to 88.2%), whereas for LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) specificity was lower (LR2: 60.6%, 95% CI 50.5% to 69.9%; ADNEX: 55.0%, 95% CI 42.8% to 66.6%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In specialist healthcare settings in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, RMI has poor sensitivity. In premenopausal women, ROMA, LR2 and ADNEX offer better sensitivity (fewer missed cancers), but for ROMA and ADNEX this is off-set by a decrease in specificity and increase in false positives. In postmenopausal women, ROMA demonstrates a higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI. ADNEX has the highest sensitivity in postmenopausal women, but reduced specificity. The prevalence of OC in included studies is representative of a highly selected referred population, rather than a population in whom referral is being considered. The comparative accuracy of tests observed here may not be transferable to non-specialist settings. Ultimately health systems need to balance accuracy and resource implications to identify the most suitable test.

Identifying strategies to support gynaecological cancer patients and carers during COVID-19: Learning from patient-charity interactions.

OBJECTIVES: Supporting cancer patients during COVID-19 has posed unique challenges for health care providers. We investigated patient and carer-charity interactions to explore the role of charities and identify concerns expressed by patients. The study aims to address these concerns and learn how health care providers can support patients. METHODS: Digital interactions on forum posts and social media were collected from four gynaecological cancer charities from March-May 2019 (before COVID-19) and 2020 (during COVID-19). Thematic analysis of forum posts and semistructured charity staff interviews investigated patient and charity-focused perspectives. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of forum posts and charity staff interviews (n = 8) revealed three consistent themes: (1) Health care changes and the effect on cancer management concerns; (2) psychological impact of lockdown isolation and anxiety of changed treatment; (3) the complexity of shielding guidance on self-risk assessment. Patients valued cancer charities' responses through digital and conventional methods (webinars, social media, forums, and websites). CONCLUSION: Gynaecological cancer patients had concerns about the risk and impact of changed treatment plans, contacting charities as the first port of call when anxious not to burden health systems. Real-time analysis of charities' communications can be used to identify concerns and to proactively provide patient support, together with health care providers.

Objective responses to first-line neoadjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel regimens for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma (ICON8): post-hoc exploratory analysis of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by delayed primary surgery (DPS) is an established strategy for women with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although this therapeutic approach has been validated in randomised, phase 3 trials, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) has not been reported. We describe RECIST and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) CA125 responses in patients receiving platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS in the ICON8 trial. METHODS: ICON8 was an international, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done across 117 hospitals in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. The trial included women aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO; 1988) stage IC-IIA high-grade serous, clear cell, or any poorly differentiated or grade 3 histological subtype, or any FIGO (1988) stage IIB-IV epithelial cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6) and intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 by body surface area) on day 1 of every 21-day cycle (control group; group 1); intravenous carboplatin (AUC5 or AUC6) on day 1 and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 2); or intravenous dose-fractionated carboplatin (AUC2) and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 3). The maximum number of cycles of chemotherapy permitted was six. Randomisation was done with a minimisation method, and patients were stratified according to GCIG group, disease stage, and timing and outcome of cytoreductive surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to group allocation. The scheduling of surgery and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were determined by local multidisciplinary case review. In this post-hoc exploratory analysis of ICON8, progression-free survival was analysed using the landmark method and defined as the time interval between the date of pre-surgical planning radiological tumour assessment to the date of investigator-assessed clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. This definition is different from the intention-to-treat primary progression-free survival analysis of ICON8, which defined progression-free survival as the time from randomisation to the date of first clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. We also compared the extent of surgical cytoreduction with RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses. This post-hoc exploratory analysis includes only women recruited to ICON8 who were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS and had RECIST and/or GCIG CA125-evaluable disease. ICON8 is closed for enrolment and follow-up, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were enrolled in ICON8, of whom 779 (50%) were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS. Median follow-up was 29·5 months (IQR 15·6-54·3) for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS population. Of 564 women who had RECIST-evaluable disease at trial entry, 348 (62%) had a complete or partial response. Of 727 women who were evaluable by GCIG CA125 criteria at the time of diagnosis, 610 (84%) had a CA125 response. Median progression-free survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 9·2-28·0; 297 events) for patients with a RECIST complete or partial response and 13·3 months (8·1-20·1; 171 events) for those with RECIST stable disease. Median progression-free survival for women with a GCIG CA125 response was 13·8 months (95% CI 8·8-23·4; 544 events) and 9·7 months (5·8-14·5; 111 events) for those without a GCIG CA125 response. Complete cytoreduction (R0) was achieved in 187 (56%) of 335 women with a RECIST complete or partial response and 73 (42%) of 172 women with RECIST stable disease. Complete cytoreduction was achieved in 290 (50%) of 576 women with a GCIG CA125 response and 30 (30%) of 101 women without a GCIG CA125 response. INTERPRETATION: The RECIST-defined radiological response rate was lower than that frequently quoted to patients in the clinic. RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer should not be used as individual predictive markers to stratify patients who are likely to benefit from DPS, but instead used in conjunction with the patient's clinical capacity to undergo cytoreductive surgery. A patient should not be denied surgery based solely on the lack of a RECIST or GCIG CA125 response. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Maintaining surgical care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative cohort study at a tertiary gynecological cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the cornerstone of gynecological cancer management, but inpatient treatment may expose both patients and healthcare staff to COVID-19 infections. Plans to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have been implemented widely, but few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these plans in maintaining safe surgical care delivery. AIM: To evaluate the effects of mitigating plans implemented on the delivery of gynecological cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A comparative cohort study of patients treated in a high-volume tertiary gyneoncological centre in the United Kingdom. Prospectively-recorded consecutive operations performed and early peri-operative outcomes during the same calendar periods (January-August) in 2019 and 2020 were compared. RESULTS: In total, 585 operations were performed (296 in 2019; 289 in 2020). There was no significant difference in patient demographics. Types of surgery performed were different (p = 0.034), with fewer cytoreductive surgeries for ovarian cancer and laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.002) in 2020. There was no difference in intra-operative complication rates, critical care admission rates or length of stay. One patient had confirmed COVID-19 infection (0.4%). The 30-day post-operative complication rates were significantly higher in 2020 than in 2019 (58 [20.1%] versus 32 [10.8%]; p = 0.002) for both minor and major complications. This increase, primarily from March 2020 onwards, coincided with the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining surgical throughput with meticulous and timely planning is feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic but this was associated with an increase in post-operative complications due to a multitude of reasons.

British Gynaecological Cancer Society/British Association of Gynaecological Pathology consensus for germline and tumor testing for BRCA1/2 variants in ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom.

The British Gynecological Cancer Society and the British Association of Gynecological Pathologists established a multidisciplinary consensus group comprising experts in surgical gynecological oncology, medical oncology, genetics, and laboratory science, and clinical nurse specialists to identify the optimal pathways to BRCA germline and tumor testing in patients with ovarian cancer in routine clinical practice. In particular, the group explored models of consent, quality standards identified at pathology laboratories, and experience and data from pioneering cancer centers. The group liaised with representatives from ovarian cancer charities to also identify patient perspectives that would be important to implementation. Recommendations from these consensus group deliberations are presented in this manuscript.

Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma treatment (ICON8): primary progression free survival analysis results from a GCIG phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carboplatin and paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks is standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer. The Japanese JGOG3016 trial showed a significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly carboplatin. In this study, we aimed to compare efficacy and safety of two dose-dense weekly regimens to standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in a predominantly European population with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to group 1 (carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Written informed consent was provided by all women who entered the trial. The protocol had the appropriate national research ethics committee approval for the countries where the study was conducted. Patients entered the trial after immediate primary surgery, or before neoadjuvant chemotherapy with subsequent planned delayed primary surgery. The trial coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival. Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, and were powered to detect a hazard ratio of 0·75 in progression-free survival. The main comparisons were between the control group (group 1) and each of the weekly research groups (groups 2 and 3). FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were randomly assigned to treatment. 72% (365), completed six protocol-defined treatment cycles in group 1, 60% (305) in group 2, and 63% (322) in group 3, although 90% (454), 89% (454), and 85% (437) completed six platinum-based chemotherapy cycles, respectively. Paclitaxel dose intensification was achieved with weekly treatment (median total paclitaxel dose 1010 mg/m2 in group 1; 1233 mg/m2 in group 2; 1274 mg/m2 in group 3). By February, 2017, 1018 (65%) patients had experienced disease progression. No significant progression-free survival increase was observed with either weekly regimen (restricted mean survival time 24·4 months [97·5% CI 23·0-26·0] in group 1, 24·9 months [24·0-25·9] in group 2, 25·3 months [23·9-26·9] in group 3; median progression-free survival 17·7 months [IQR 10·6-not reached] in group 1, 20·8 months [11·9-59·0] in group 2, 21·0 months [12·0-54·0] in group 3; log-rank p=0·35 for group 2 vs group 1; group 3 vs 1 p=0·51). Although grade 3 or 4 toxic effects increased with weekly treatment, these effects were predominantly uncomplicated. Febrile neutropenia and sensory neuropathy incidences were similar across groups. INTERPRETATION: Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy can be delivered successfully as first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer but does not significantly improve progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in predominantly European populations. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, Cancer Australia.

Serum HE4 and diagnosis of ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women with adnexal masses.

BACKGROUND: Transvaginal ultrasound and serum CA125 are routinely used for differential diagnosis of pelvic adnexal mass. Use of human epididymis 4 was approved in the United States in 2011. However, there is scarcity of studies evaluating the additional value of human epididymis 4. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the performance characteristics of transvaginal ultrasound, CA125, and human epididymis 4 for differential diagnosis of ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women with adnexal masses. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cohort study nested within the screen arms of the multicenter randomized controlled trial, United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, based in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. In United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, 48,230 women randomized to transvaginal ultrasound screening and 50,078 to multimodal screening (serum CA125 interpreted by Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm with second line transvaginal ultrasound) underwent the first (prevalence) screen. Women with adnexal lesions and/or persistently elevated risk were clinically assessed and underwent surgery or follow-up for a median of 10.9 years. Banked samples taken within 6 months of transvaginal ultrasound from all clinically assessed women were assayed for human epididymis 4 and CA125. Area under the curve and sensitivity for diagnosing ovarian cancer of multiple penalized logistic regression models incorporating logCA125, log human epididymis 4, age, and simple ultrasound features of the adnexal mass were compared. RESULTS: Of 1590 (158 multimodal, 1432 ultrasound) women with adnexal masses, 78 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer (48 invasive epithelial ovarian, 14 type I, 34 type II; 24 borderline epithelial; 6 nonepithelial) within 1 year of scan. The area under the curve (0.893 vs 0.896; P = .453) and sensitivity (74.4% vs 75.6% ;P = .564) at fixed specificity of 90% of the model incorporating age, ultrasound, and CA125 were similar to that also including human epididymis 4. Both models had high sensitivity for invasive epithelial ovarian (89.6%) and type II (>91%) cancers. CONCLUSION: Our population cohort study suggests that human epididymis 4 adds little value to concurrent use of CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses in postmenopausal women.