1
|
Bergin RJ, O'Sullivan D, Dixon-Suen S, Emery JD, English DR, Milne RL, White VM. Time to Diagnosis and Treatment for Ovarian Cancer and Associations with Outcomes: A Systematic Review. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2024. [PMID: 38976232 DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2023.1160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/09/2024] Open
Abstract
Background: Ovarian cancer is commonly diagnosed symptomatically at an advanced stage. Better survival for early disease suggests improving diagnostic pathways may increase survival. This study examines literature assessing diagnostic intervals and their association with clinical and psychological outcomes. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, and EmCare databases were searched for studies including quantitative measures of at least one interval, published between January 1, 2000 and August 9, 2022. Interval measures and associations (interval, outcomes, analytic strategy) were synthesized. Risk of bias of association studies was assessed using the Aarhus Checklist and ROBINS-E tool. Results: In total, 65 papers (20 association studies) were included and 26 unique intervals were identified. Interval estimates varied widely and were impacted by summary statistic used (mean or median) and group focused on. Of Aarhus-defined intervals, patient (symptom to presentation, n = 23; range [median]: 7-168 days) and diagnostic (presentation to diagnosis, n = 22; range [median]: 7-270 days) were most common. Nineteen association studies examined survival or stage outcomes with most, including five low risk-of-bias studies, finding no association. Conclusions: Studies reporting intervals for ovarian cancer diagnosis are limited by inconsistent definitions and reporting. Greater utilization of the Aarhus statement to define intervals and appropriate analytic methods is needed to strengthen findings from future studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca J Bergin
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Deirdre O'Sullivan
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Suzanne Dixon-Suen
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
- School of Exercise & Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia
| | - Jon D Emery
- Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Dallas R English
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia
| | - Roger L Milne
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - Victoria M White
- School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia
- Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cummings M, Nicolais O, Shahin M. Surgery in Advanced Ovary Cancer: Primary versus Interval Cytoreduction. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:988. [PMID: 35454036 PMCID: PMC9026414 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12040988] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2022] [Revised: 04/07/2022] [Accepted: 04/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Primary debulking surgery (PDS) has remained the only treatment of ovarian cancer with survival advantage since its development in the 1970s. However, survival advantage is only observed in patients who are optimally resected. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has emerged as an alternative for patients in whom optimal resection is unlikely and/or patients with comorbidities at high risk for perioperative complications. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence to date for PDS and NACT in the treatment of stage III/IV ovarian carcinoma. We systematically searched the PubMed database for relevant articles. Prior to 2010, NACT was reserved for non-surgical candidates. After publication of EORTC 55971, the first randomized trial demonstrating non-inferiority of NACT followed by interval debulking surgery, NACT was considered in a wider breadth of patients. Since EORTC 55971, 3 randomized trials-CHORUS, JCOG0602, and SCORPION-have studied NACT versus PDS. While CHORUS supported EORTC 55971, JCOG0602 failed to demonstrate non-inferiority and SCORPION failed to demonstrate superiority of NACT. Despite conflicting data, a subset of patients would benefit from NACT while preserving survival including poor surgical candidates and inoperable disease. Further randomized trials are needed to assess the role of NACT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mackenzie Cummings
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jefferson Abington Hospital, Abington, PA 19001, USA; (M.C.); (O.N.)
| | - Olivia Nicolais
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jefferson Abington Hospital, Abington, PA 19001, USA; (M.C.); (O.N.)
| | - Mark Shahin
- Asplundh Cancer Pavilion, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Hanjani Institute for Gynecologic Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Willow Grove, PA 19090, USA
| |
Collapse
|