Bridging Communication Gaps Between Radiologists, Referring Physicians, and Patients Through Standardized Structured Cancer Imaging Reporting: The Experience with Female Pelvic MRI Assessment Using O-RADS and a Simulated Cohort Patient Group.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate whether implementing structured reporting based on Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses improves communication between radiologists, referrers, and patients/caregivers and enhances diagnostic performance for determining adnexal malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively issued MRI reports in 2019-2022 performed for characterizing adnexal masses before and after implementing O-RADS MRI; 56 patients/caregivers and nine gynecologic oncologists ("referrers") were surveyed about report interpretability/clarity/satisfaction; responses for pre- and post-implementation reports were compared using Fisher's exact and Chi-squared tests. Diagnostic performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: A total of 123 reports from before and 119 reports from after O-RADS MRI implementation were included. Survey response rates were 35.7% (20/56) for patients/caregivers and 66.7% (6/9) for referrers. For patients/caregivers, O-RADS MRI reports were clearer (p < 0.001) and more satisfactory (p < 0.001) than unstructured reports, but interpretability did not differ significantly (p = 0.14), as 28.0% (28/100) of postimplementation and 38.0% (38/100) of preimplementation reports were considered difficult to interpret. For referrers, O-RADS MRI reports were clearer, more satisfactory, and easier to interpret (p < 0.001); only 1.3% (1/77) were considered difficult to interpret. For differentiating benign from malignant adnexal lesions, O-RADS MRI showed area under the curve of 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99), sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.58-0.95), and specificity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96). Diagnostic performance of reports before implementation could not be calculated due to many different phrases used to describe the likelihood of malignancy. CONCLUSION: Implementing standardized structured reporting using O-RADS MRI for characterizing adnexal masses improved clarity and satisfaction for patients/caregivers and referrers. Interpretability improved for referrers but remained limited for patients/caregivers.

Adapting and avoiding coping strategies for women with ovarian cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges for people living with cancer, impacting not only physical health but psychological well-being. The psychological response affects the individual as well as the community and can persist long after the outbreak. We aim to assess coping strategies employed by women with ovarian cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Women with a current or prior diagnosis of ovarian cancer completed an online survey which included a query about coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was distributed from March 30th through April 13, 2020 through survivor networks and social media. RESULTS: Six hundred and three women visited the survey website during the study period and 555 (92.0%) completed the survey. Four hundred and eight (73.5%) provided information on coping strategies utilized during COVID-19. Among those who responded, the median age was 58 years (range 20-85) and 150 participants (40.8%) were undergoing active cancer treatment. Commonly utilized adaptive coping strategies included emotional support (159, 39.0%), self care (148, 36.3%), hobbies (139, 34.1%), planning (87, 21.3%), positive reframing (54, 13.2%), religion (50, 12.3%) and instrumental support (38, 9.3%). Many participants also relied on avoidance coping strategies including self distraction (111, 27.2%) and substance use (19, 4.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Most ovarian cancer survivors are using adaptive, problem-focused coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic, however many are practicing avoidance strategies as well. As coping mechanisms profoundly impact quality of life, oncology providers must assist patients in identifying coping strategies that optimize physical and psychological well-being.

PARP Inhibitors in the Management of Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations on the use of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) for management of epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC). METHODS: Randomized, controlled, and open-labeled trials published from 2011 through 2020 were identified in a literature search. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence, US Food and Drug Administration approvals, and consensus when evidence was lacking. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 17 eligible trials. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline pertains to patients who are PARPi naïve. All patients with newly diagnosed, stage III-IV EOC whose disease is in complete or partial response to first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy with high-grade serous or endometrioid EOC should be offered PARPi maintenance therapy with niraparib. For patients with germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in BRCA1 (g/sBRCA1) or BRCA2 (g/sBRCA2) genes should be treated with olaparib. The addition of olaparib to bevacizumab may be offered to patients with stage III-IV EOC with g/sBRCA1/2 and/or genomic instability and a partial or complete response to chemotherapy plus bevacizumab combination. Maintenance therapy (second line or more) with single-agent PARPi may be offered for patients with EOC who have not received a PARPi and have responded to platinum-based therapy regardless of BRCA mutation status. Treatment with a PARPi should be offered to patients with recurrent EOC that has not recurred within 6 months of platinum-based therapy, who have not received a PARPi and have a g/sBRCA1/2, or whose tumor demonstrates genomic instability. PARPis are not recommended for use in combination with chemotherapy, other targeted agents, or immune-oncology agents in the recurrent setting outside the context of a clinical trial. Recommendations for managing specific adverse events are presented. Data to support reuse of PARPis in any setting are needed.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the quality of life for women with ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges for the oncology community. For people living with cancer, treatments are interrupted, surgeries cancelled, and regular oncology evaluations rescheduled. People with cancer and their physicians must balance plausible fears of coronavirus disease 2019 and cancer treatment with the consequences of delaying cancer care. OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the experience of women with ovarian cancer during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Women with a current or previous diagnosis of ovarian cancer completed an online survey focusing on treatment interruptions and quality of life. The quality of life was measured with the Cancer Worry Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. The survey was distributed through survivor networks and social media. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analysis were used to evaluate the effect of participant characteristics on quality of life survey scores. RESULTS: A total of 603 women, from 41 states, visited the survey website between March 30, 2020, and April 13, 2020, and 555 (92.0%) completed the survey. The median age was 58 years (range, 20-85). At the time of survey completion, 217 participants (43.3%) were in active treatment. A total of 175 participants (33%) experienced a delay in some component of their cancer care. Ten (26.3%) of the 38 participants scheduled for surgery experienced a delay, as did 18 (8.3%) of the 217 participants scheduled for nonsurgical cancer treatment. A total of 133 participants (24.0%) had a delayed physician appointment, 84 (15.1%) laboratory tests, and 53 (9.6%) cancer-related imaging. Among the cohort, 88.6% (489) reported significant cancer worry, 51.4% (285) borderline or abnormal anxiety, and 26.5% (147) borderline or abnormal depression. On univariate analysis, age less than 65 years, being scheduled for cancer treatment or cancer surgery, delay in oncology care, being self-described as immunocompromised, and use of telemedicine were all associated with higher levels of cancer worry. Higher anxiety scores were associated with age less than 65 years and being self-described as immunocompromised. Higher depression scores were associated with age less than 65 years, being scheduled for cancer surgery, delay in oncology care, being self-described as immunocompromised, and use of telemedicine. On multivariable linear regression analysis, age less than 65 and being self-described as immunocompromised were independently predictive of greater cancer worry, anxiety, and depression, and delay in cancer care was predictive of anxiety and depression. CONCLUSION: The coronavirus disease 2019 crisis is affecting care of patients with ovarian cancer; surgeries, treatments, scheduled physician appointments, laboratory tests, and imaging are cancelled or delayed. Younger age, presumed immunocompromise, and delay in cancer care were associated with significantly higher levels of cancer worry, anxiety, and depression. Providers must work with patients to balance competing risks of coronavirus disease 2019 and cancer, recognizing that communication is a critical clinical tool to improve quality of life in these times.

Bridging the Gap: A Priorities Assessment Tool to Support Shared Decision Making, Maximize Appointment Time, and Increase Patient Satisfaction in Women With Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Women with ovarian cancer identify patient-physician communication as an essential element in determining treatment course and believe a discussion about goals and values should precede treatment decisions. We sought to develop a patient-centered priorities assessment tool for women with ovarian cancer that could streamline communication, enhance treatment discussions, and increase patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a priorities assessment tool using a validated ovarian cancer symptom index (National Comprehensive Cancer Center-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index-18) combined with an index to assess daily quality-of-life priorities. The tool was distributed to women with ovarian cancer in small focus group settings and online, followed by a postactivity feedback form. RESULTS: In this pilot study, 36 women completed the priorities assessment tool and 35 completed the postactivity feedback form between September 2015 and May 2016. All participants reported that the tool was easy to understand and comprehensive in scope. Twenty-nine participants (82.9%) completed the tool in 10 minutes or less. Most participants (n = 31, 86.1%) were able to stratify their priorities and identify 5 top treatment-related priorities. Participants who indicated that their goals and priorities had changed since diagnosis (n = 25, 69.4%) reported that the tool helped to identify current goals and priorities (22 [88%] of 25 participants) and would help them feel more comfortable participating in shared decision making with their medical team (21 [84%] of 25 participants). CONCLUSION: A patient-centered priorities assessment tool was easy to complete and viewed as comprehensive and useful in a pilot cohort of women with ovarian cancer. Use of a priorities assessment tool has the potential to enhance communication, promote shared decision making, and improve patient satisfaction.

Ovarian cancer survivors' acceptance of treatment side effects evolves as goals of care change over the cancer continuum.

OBJECTIVES: Women with ovarian cancer can have long overall survival and goals of treatment change over time from cure to remission to stable disease. We sought to determine whether survivors' acceptance of treatment side effects also changes over the disease continuum. METHODS: Women with ovarian cancer completed an online survey focusing on survivors' goals and priorities. The survey was distributed through survivor networks and social media. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-four women visited the survey website and 328 (76%) completed the survey. Among participants, 141 (43%) identified themselves as having ever recurred, 119 (36%) were undergoing treatment at the time of survey completion and 86 (26%) had received four or more chemotherapy regimens. Respondents' goals of care were cure for 115 women (35%), remission for 156 (48%) and stable disease for 56 (17%). When asked what was most meaningful, 148 women (45%) reported overall survival, 135 (41%) reported quality of life and 40 (12%) reported progression-free survival. >50% of survivors were willing to tolerate the following symptoms for the goal of cure: fatigue (283, 86%), alopecia (281, 86%), diarrhea (232, 71%), constipation (227, 69%), neuropathy (218, 66%), arthralgia (210, 64%), sexual side effects (201, 61%), reflux symptoms (188, 57%), memory loss (180, 55%), nausea/vomiting (180, 55%), hospitalization for treatment side effects (179, 55%) and pain (169, 52%). The rates of tolerance for most symptoms decreased significantly as the goal of treatment changed from cure to remission to stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Women with ovarian cancer willingly accept many treatment side effects when the goal of treatment is cure, however become less accepting when the goal is remission and even less so when the goal is stable disease. Physicians and survivors must carefully consider treatment toxicities and quality of life effects when selecting drugs for patients with incurable disease.

A qualitative study of ovarian cancer survivors' perceptions of endpoints and goals of care.

OBJECTIVES: A survey of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance revealed a communication gap between physicians and survivors. This qualitative study explored the space between perceptions in hopes of better defining treatment endpoints meaningful to treating physicians and their patients. METHODS: A focus group of ovarian cancer survivors (n=22) was assembled via the survivor support network SHARE. A physician-guided session explored expectations of treatment, perceived outcomes, toxicity thresholds and decision making. The session was recorded, transcribed and coded. Common themes were identified and used to perform intra-case analysis by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: The main themes identified were barriers to communication, importance of frequent communication between patient and physician regarding goals, and expectations of treatment changing with position along the treatment continuum. One hundred percent of participants identified communication with their physician as an essential element in determining treatment course. However, only 14% reported having a discussion about goals, values and perceptions with their physician preceding treatment decisions. Participants reported that the terms progression free and overall survival held minimal significance for them and instead they preferred an individualized approach to care focusing on quality of life. Many women underreported side effects with reasons ranging from fear of dose reductions and additional tests to forgetting about symptoms due to anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: An objective measure of treatment success meaningful to survivors, physicians and regulators is, at present, elusive and may not exist. Ideally, future trial design would place equal weight on quantitative and qualitative measures and include information about goals of treatment.

Comparing pain control and ability to eat and drink with standard therapy vs Gelclair: a preliminary, double centre, randomised controlled trial on patients with radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis.

UNLABELLED: GOAL OF THE WORK: Oral mucositis (OM) is a functionally destructive complication of aggressive head and neck cancer therapy, often resulting in intense pain, an inability to eat and drink and secondary malnutrition and dehydration. The barrier-forming properties of Gelclair have shown promise in relieving such symptoms. The aim of this randomised-controlled trial was to evaluate the efficacy of Gelclair, as compared to standard therapy, as a means of short-term symptom control for patients suffering from radiotherapy-induced OM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients, with radiotherapy-induced OM seen in two oncology centres in Devon, were randomised to either standard therapy (Sucralfate and Mucaine) or Gelclair and assessed over 24 h. Both treatments were taken four times during the 24-h period, 30 min before meals. MAIN RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the Gelclair and standard therapy arms in terms of general pain (F = 1.512, df = 1, 17, ns). There did appear to be a trend towards pain improvement initially after the use of Gelclair, but this did not last for the full 24-h assessment period. There was no significant reduction in pain on speaking (F = 0.261, df = 1, 17, ns) nor an improvement in capacity to eat and drink, although the effects of standard therapy did appear to last longer than the Gelclair. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that Gelclair is no more effective than current standard practice in relieving the pain associated with radiotherapy-induced OM. Nevertheless, observations from this preliminary study warrant further investigation, with a view to shaping the way forward for head and neck cancer practice on a national level.

Buying time II: an economic evaluation of a joint NHS/Social Services residential rehabilitation unit for older people on discharge from hospital.

The study's aim was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of an NHS/Social Services short-term residential rehabilitation unit (a form of intermediate care) for older people on discharge from community hospital compared with 'usual' community services. An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a prospective controlled trial, which explored the effectiveness of a rehabilitation unit in a practice setting. The aim of the unit was to help individuals regain independence. A matched control group went home from hospital with the health/social care services they would ordinarily receive. The research was conducted in two matched geographical areas in Devon: one with a rehabilitation unit, one without. Participants were recruited from January 1999 to October 2000 in 10 community hospitals and their eligibility determined using the unit's strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, including 55 years or older and likely to benefit from a short-term rehabilitation programme: potential to improve, realistic, achievable goals, motivation to participate. Ninety-four people were recruited to the intervention and 112 to the control group. Details were collated of the NHS and Social Services resources participants used over a 12-month follow-up. The cost of the resource use was compared between those who went to the unit and those who went straight home. Overall, costs were very similar between the two groups. Aggregated mean NHS/Social Services costs for the 12 months of follow-up were pound 8542.28 for the intervention group and pound 8510.68 for the control. However, there was a clear 'seesaw' effect between the NHS and Social Services: the cost of the unit option fell more heavily on Social Services (pound 5011.56, whereas pound 3530.72 to the NHS), the community option more so on the NHS (pound 5146.74, whereas pound 3363.94 to Social Services). This suggests that residential rehabilitation for older people is no more cost-effective over a year after discharge from community hospital than usual community services. The variability in cost burden between the NHS and Social Services has implications for 'who pays' and being sure that agencies share both pain and gain.

Buying Time I: a prospective, controlled trial of a joint health/social care residential rehabilitation unit for older people on discharge from hospital.

The study's objective was to determine the effectiveness of a joint NHS/Social Services rehabilitation unit (a form of intermediate care) for older people on discharge from community hospital, compared with 'usual' community services. This was a controlled clinical trial in a practice setting. The intervention was 6 weeks in a rehabilitation unit where individuals worked with care/rehabilitation assistants and occupational therapists to regain independence. Controls went home with the health/social care services they would ordinarily receive. Participants were from two matched geographical areas in Devon: one with a rehabilitation unit, one without. Recruitment was from January 1999 to October 2001 in 10 community hospitals. Study eligibility was assessed using the unit's inclusion/exclusion criteria: 55 years or older and 'likely to benefit from a short-term rehabilitation programme' ('potential to improve', 'realistic and achievable goals' and 'motivation to participate'). Ninety-four people were recruited to the intervention and 112 to the control. The mean (standard deviation) age was 81.8 (8.0) years. The main outcome measure was prevention of institutionalisation assessed by the number of days from baseline interview to admission to residential/nursing care or death ('survival-at-home time'). Secondary outcome measures were time to hospital re-admission over 12 months, quality of life and coping ability. There were no significant differences between the groups on any outcome measure. Adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) for 'survival-at-home time' was 1.13 (0.70-1.84), and 0.84 (0.53-1.33) for 'time to hospital re-admission'. However, attending the unit was associated with earlier hospital discharge. Median (interquartile range) days in hospital for the intervention graph was 27 (20, 40), and for the control graph was 35 (22, 47) (U = 4234, P = 0.029). These findings suggest a stay in a rehabilitation unit is no more effective than 'usual' care at diverting older people from hospital/long-term care. Alternative service configurations may be as effective, having implications for tailoring services more specifically to individual need and/or user preferences. However, the unit did appear to facilitate earlier discharges from community hospital.