Venous thromboembolism during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of venous thromboembolism in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy in UK gynecological cancer centers. Secondary outcomes included incidence and timing of venous thromboembolism since cancer presentation, impact on cancer treatment, and mortality. METHODS: All UK gynecological cancer centers were invited to participate in this multi-center retrospective audit through the British Gynecological Cancer Society. Data were captured on all patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV epithelial ovarian cancer within a 12-month period during 2021-2022. Patients on anticoagulation prior to cancer presentation were excluded. Patients who were diagnosed with venous thromboembolism between cancer presentation and commencing neoadjuvant chemotherapy were also excluded from our analysis of venous thromboembolism rates from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Fourteen UK gynecological cancer centers returned data on 660 eligible patients. The median age was 67 years (range 34-96). In total, 131/660 (19.8%) patients were diagnosed with venous thromboembolism from cancer presentation until discharge following cytoreductive surgery. Between commencing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and post-operative discharge, 65/594 (10.9%) patients developed venous thromboembolism (median 11.3%, IQR 5.9-11.3); 55/594 (9.3%) during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 10/594 (1.7%) during post-operative admission. There was no significant difference across centers (p=0.47). Of these 65 patients, 44 (68%) were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism and 30 (46%) with deep-vein thrombosis (nine had both), including in major abdominal/pelvic vessels, with 36 (55%) presenting symptomatically and 29 (45%) diagnosed incidentally on imaging. Venous thromboembolism resulted in mortality (n=3/65, 5%), and delays/changes/cancelation of treatment (n=18/65, 28%). CONCLUSION: Across a large, representative sample of UK gynecological cancer centers, one in five patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy were diagnosed with a potentially preventable venous thromboembolism, including one in nine diagnosed after commencing chemotherapy. This led to adverse clinical consequences for one third, including delay to oncological treatment and mortality. This high venous thromboembolism rate justifies the consideration of thromboprophylaxis in this patient group.

FARGO-360: a multi-disciplinary survey of practice and perspectives on provision of care for patients with frailty presenting with gynecological cancers in the UK and Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty has been associated with worse cancer-related outcomes for people with gynecological cancers. However, the lack of clear guidance on how to assess and modify frailty prior to instigating active treatments has the potential to lead to large variations in practice and outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate current practice and perspectives of healthcare practitioners on the provision of care for patients with frailty and a gynecological cancer. METHODS: Data were collected via a questionnaire-based survey distributed by the Audit and Research in Gynecological Oncology (ARGO) collaborative to healthcare professionals who identified as working with patients with gynecological malignancies in the United Kingdom (UK) or Ireland. Study data were collected using REDCap software hosted at the University of Manchester. Responses were collected over a 16 week period between January and April 2021. RESULTS: A total of 206 healthcare professionals (30 anesthetists (14.6%), 30 pre-operative nurses (14.6%), 51 surgeons (24.8%), 34 cancer specialist nurses (16.5%), 21 medical/clinical oncologists (10.2%), 25 physiotherapists/occupational therapists (12.1%) and 15 dieticians (7.3%)) completed the survey. The respondents worked at 19 hospital trusts across the UK and Ireland. Frailty scoring was not routinely performed in 63% of care settings, yet the majority of practitioners reported modifying their practice when providing and deciding on care for patients with frailty. Only 16% of organizations surveyed had a dedicated pathway for assessment and management of patients with frailty. A total of 37% of respondents reported access to prehabilitation services, 79% to enhanced recovery, and 27% to community rehabilitation teams. CONCLUSION: Practitioners from all groups surveyed considered that appropriate training, dedicated pathways for optimization, frailty specific performance indicators and evidence that frailty scoring had an impact on clinical outcomes and patient experience could all help to improve care for frail patients.

Are trainees working in obstetrics and gynecology confident and competent in the care of frail gynecological oncology patients?

INTRODUCTION: Older patients undergoing cancer surgery are at increased risk of post-operative complications, prolonged hospital stay, and mortality. Identification of frailty can help predict patients at high risk of peri-operative complications and allow a collaborative, multidisciplinary team approach to their care. A survey was conducted to assess the confidence and knowledge of trainees in obstetrics and gynecology regarding identification and management of peri-operative issues encountered in frail gynecological oncology patients. METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed via the Audit and Research in Gynaecological Oncology (ARGO) collaborative and UK Audit and Research Collaborative in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (UKARCOG) . The survey on the management of frail peri-operative patients was disseminated to doctors-in-training (trainees) working in obstetrics and gynecology in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. Specialty (ST1-7), subspecialty, and general practice trainees, non-training grade doctors, and foundation year doctors currently working in obstetrics and gynecology were eligible. Consultants were excluded. Study data were collected using REDCAP software hosted at the University of Manchester. Responses were collected over a 6-week period between January and February 2020. RESULTS: Of the 666 trainees who participated, 67% (425/666) reported inadequate training in peri-operative management of frail patients. Validated frailty assessment tools were used by only 9% (59/638) of trainees and less than 1% (4/613) were able to correctly identify all the diagnostic features of frailty. Common misconceptions included the use of chronological age and gender in frailty assessments. The majority of trainees (76.5%, 448/586) correctly answered a series of questions relating to mental capacity; however, only 6% (36/606) were able to correctly identify all three diagnostic features of delirium. A total of 87% (495/571) of trainees supported closer collaboration with geriatricians and a multidisciplinary approach. CONCLUSIONS: Obstetrics and gynecology trainees reported inadequate training in the peri-operative care of frail gynecological oncology patients, and overwhelmingly favored input from geriatricians. Routine use of validated frailty assessment tools may aid diagnosis of frailty in the peri-operative setting. There is an unmet need for formal education in the management of frail surgical patients within the UK and Irish obstetrics and gynecology curriculum.