Clinical implementation of routine diagnostic laparoscopy to guide initial treatment in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer in Dutch clinical practice: Evaluation of support and a budget impact analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), a diagnostic laparoscopy (DLS) to determine treatment regime prevents futile laparotomies and seems cost-neutral. The uptake of DLS in current practice is unknown. We evaluated the clinical application of routine DLS in treatment planning in patients with advanced-stage EOC in the Netherlands. METHODS: The implementation was evaluated over the period 2017-2019, using a health technology assessment including clinical, organizational, and economic factors. Barriers for implementation were identified and DLS use was assessed using semi-structured surveys with healthcare professionals. Data from the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit were used to determine (un)successful CRS rates. To assess the economic impact, we performed a budget impact analysis (BIA) of the combined interventions of DLS and primary CRS. RESULTS: The DLS use to guide treatment planning increased from 16% to 20%. The majority of the centers did not support routine DLS implementation, mainly because of logistic barriers and its invasive nature. The primary CRS rate of all CRS decreased from 44% to 36%, in favor of interval CRS. The unsuccessful primary CRS rate decreased from 15% to 9% resulting in fewer patients needed a second interval CRS. Consequently, total health care costs decreased from €4.457.496 to €4.274.751. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of routine DLS for guiding treatment planning in patients with advanced-stage EOC has limited support in the Netherlands. Over the years, total health care costs decreased. For current practice, it is advised that a DLS is useful in case it is uncertain whether a successful primary CRS is feasible based on conventional work-up.

Can serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) support the decision to refer a patient with an ovarian mass to an oncology hospital?

INTRODUCTION: The value of serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in guiding referral decisions in patients with an ovarian mass remains unclear, because the majority of studies investigating HE4 were performed in oncology hospitals. However, the decision to refer is made at general hospitals with a low ovarian cancer prevalence. We assessed accuracies of HE4 in differentiating benign or borderline from malignant tumors in patients presenting with an ovarian mass at general hospitals. METHOD: Patients with an ovarian mass were prospectively included between 2017 and 2021 in nine general hospitals. HE4 and CA125 were preoperatively measured and the risk of malignancy index (RMI) was calculated. Histological diagnosis was the reference standard. RESULTS: We included 316 patients, of whom 195 had a benign, 39 had a borderline and 82 had a malignant ovarian mass. HE4 had the highest AUC of 0.80 (95%CI 0.74-0.86), followed by RMI (0.71, 95%CI 0.64-0.78) and CA125 (0.69, 95%CI 0.62-0.75). Clinical setting significantly influenced biomarker performances. Applying age-dependent cut-off values for HE4 resulted in a better performance than one cut-off. Addition of HE4 to RMI resulted in a 32% decrease of unnecessary referred patients, while the number of correctly referred patients remained the same. CONCLUSION: HE4 is superior to RMI in predicting malignancy in patients with an ovarian mass from general hospitals. The addition of HE4 to the RMI improved HE4 alone. Although, there is still room for improvement, HE4 can guide referral decisions in patients with an ovarian mass to an oncology hospital.