ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group, and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers, and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when a consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement.

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.

Development, implementation and evaluation of patient decision aids supporting shared decision making in women with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Objective: Shared decision making (SDM) and use of patient decision aids (PtDAs) are key components in patient-centered care in relapsed ovarian cancer. This paper describes the development and implementation process of PtDAs into a clinical routine in three departments. Methods: Two PtDAs were developed in collaboration between patients and clinicians. Acceptability and usability of the PtDAs were tested on clinicians and patients using items from the internationally validated questionnaire "Preparation for Decision Making Scale". Results: Ten patients and 15 clinicians participated in the study. Most patients indicated that PtDAs would be helpful as preparation for the decision-making process with the clinicians. Ten (75%) of the clinicians responded that the PtDAs helped the patients to understand the benefits and disadvantages of each treatment option. Generally, the clinicians indicated that they would use SDM if they had a PtDA tailored to the clinical situation. Conclusions: Two PtDAs were systematically developed, tested, and implemented thereby supporting an SDM intervention. The PtDAs are still in use at the participating departments. Innovation: This study was successful in reusing a generic template for a patient decision aid (PtDA) developed at one institution and implemented in two other institutions. This was guided by a well-described systematic development process for PtDAs.

Perspectives, fears and expectations of patients with gynaecological cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A Pan-European study of the European Network of Gynaecological Cancer Advocacy Groups (ENGAGe).

BACKGROUND: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on European gynaecological cancer patients under active treatment or follow-up has not been documented. We sought to capture the patient perceptions of the COVID-19 implications and the worldwide imposed treatment modifications. METHODS: A patient survey was conducted in 16 European countries, using a new COVID-19-related questionnaire, developed by ENGAGe and the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale questionnaire (HADS). The survey was promoted by national patient advocacy groups and charitable organisations. FINDINGS: We collected 1388 forms; 592 online and 796 hard-copy (May, 2020). We excluded 137 due to missing data. Median patients' age was 55 years (range: 18-89), 54.7% had ovarian cancer and 15.5% were preoperative. Even though 73.2% of patients named cancer as a risk factor for COVID-19, only 17.5% were more afraid of COVID-19 than their cancer condition, with advanced age (>70 years) as the only significant risk factor for that. Overall, 71% were concerned about cancer progression if their treatment/follow-up was cancelled/postponed. Most patients (64%) had their care continued as planned, but 72.3% (n = 892) said that they received no information around overall COVID-19 infection rates of patients and staff, testing or measures taken in their treating hospital. Mean HADS Anxiety and Depression Scores were 8.8 (range: 5.3-12) and 8.1 (range: 3.8-13.4), respectively. Multivariate analysis identified high HADS-depression scores, having experienced modifications of care due to the pandemic and concern about not being able to visit their doctor as independent predictors of patients' anxiety. INTERPRETATION: Gynaecological cancer patients expressed significant anxiety about progression of their disease due to modifications of care related to the COVID-19 pandemic and wished to pursue their treatment as planned despite the associated risks. Healthcare professionals should take this into consideration when making decisions that impact patients care in times of crisis and to develop initiatives to improve patients' communication and education.