Results of the interprofessional and interdisciplinary Berlin round table on patient-reported outcomes, quality of life, and treatment expectations of patients with gynecological cancer under maintenance treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patients' reported outcomes and their perspectives around their therapeutic management is a field of continuously increasing relevance in gynecological oncology. We report the results of the Berlin dialog on seven patient-reported parameters and outcomes concerning chemotherapy and maintenance treatment in patients with gynecological cancer. METHODS: Key opinion leaders in gynecological oncology from different European counties and representatives of leading patients' advocate groups in Berlin held a consensus meeting in Berlin on April 6, 2019. Seven topics of interest were identified in advance around quality of life, iatrogenic toxicity, treatment decision-making processes, sexuality, participation in clinical trials, second opinion, and long-term survivors with the the following standard operating procedure for processing and discussion: (1) agreement on its relevance; (2) literature review, and (3) discussion and consensus statements. RESULTS: All main topics reached a consensus approval. The defined statements emphasized the importance of patients' role in incorporating and establishing quality of life as an outcome parameter in clinical trials. Furthermore, discussants raised the importance of identifying new tools for reflecting patient-reported iatrogenic toxicity as well as emphasizing patients' rights in providing personal information, access to second opinion in the decision-making process, and their participation in clinical trials. CONCLUSION: The results of this round table meeting could help redefine perspectives on the discussed topics and the importance for therapeutic management as well as for trial designs.

Patients' subjective assessment as a decisive predictor of malignancy in pelvic masses: results of a multicentric, prospective pelvic mass study.

OBJECTIVE: The prognosis for ovarian cancer patients remains poor. A key to maximizing survival rates is early detection and treatment. This requires an accurate prediction of malignancy. Our study seeks to improve the accuracy of prediction by focusing on early subjective assessment of malignancy. We therefore investigated the assessment of patients themselves in comparison to the assessment of physicians. METHODS: One thousand three hundred and thirty patients participated in a prospective and multicenter study in six hospitals in Berlin. Using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models, we measured the accuracy of the early subjective assessment in comparison to the final histological outcome. Moreover, we investigated factors related to the assessment of patients and physicians. RESULTS: The patients' assessment of malignancy is remarkably accurate. With a positive predictive value of 58%, the majority of patients correctly assessed a pelvic mass as malignant. With more information available, physicians achieved only a slightly more accurate prediction of 63%. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, our study considered subjective factors in the diagnostic process of pelvic masses. This paper demonstrates that the patients' personal assessment should be taken seriously as it can provide a significant contribution to earlier diagnosis and thus improved therapy and overall prognosis.