Benchmarking of surgical complications in gynaecological oncology: prospective multicentre study

International Variations in Surgical Morbidity and Mortality Post Gynaecological Oncology Surgery: A Global Gynaecological Oncology Surgical Outcomes Collaborative Led Study (GO SOAR1)

Gynaecological malignancies affect women in low and middle income countries (LMICs) at disproportionately higher rates compared with high income countries (HICs) with little known about variations in access, quality, and outcomes in global cancer care. Our study aims to evaluate international variation in post-operative morbidity and mortality following gynaecological oncology surgery between HIC and LMIC settings. Study design consisted of a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of women undergoing surgery for gynaecological malignancies (NCT04579861). Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested-models of patients within hospitals/countries. We enrolled 1820 patients from 73 hospitals in 27 countries. Minor morbidity (Clavien-Dindo I-II) was 26.5% (178/672) and 26.5% (267/1009), whilst major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III-V) was 8.2% (55/672) and 7% (71/1009) for LMICs/HICs, respectively. Higher minor morbidity was associated with pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation (OR = 1.474, 95%CI = 1.054-2.061, p = 0.023), longer surgeries (OR = 1.253, 95%CI = 1.066-1.472, p = 0.006), greater blood loss (OR = 1.274, 95%CI = 1.081-1.502, p = 0.004). Higher major morbidity was associated with longer surgeries (OR = 1.37, 95%CI = 1.128-1.664, p = 0.002), greater blood loss (OR = 1.398, 95%CI = 1.175-1.664, p ≤ 0.001), and seniority of lead surgeon, with junior surgeons three times more likely to have a major complication (OR = 2.982, 95%CI = 1.509-5.894, p = 0.002). Of all surgeries, 50% versus 25% were performed by junior surgeons in LMICs/HICs, respectively. We conclude that LMICs and HICs were associated with similar post-operative major morbidity. Capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention.

Outcomes of gynecologic cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international, multicenter, prospective CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer study

BACKGROUND

The CovidSurg-Cancer Consortium aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 in surgical patients and services for solid cancers at the start of the pandemic. The CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer subgroup was particularly concerned about the magnitude of adverse outcomes caused by the disrupted surgical gynecologic cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are currently unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the changes in care and short-term outcomes of surgical patients with gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic had led to a delay in surgical cancer care, especially in patients who required more extensive surgery, and such delay had an impact on cancer outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients with gynecologic cancers who were initially planned for nonpalliative surgery, were recruited from the date of first COVID-19-related admission in each participating center for 3 months. The follow-up period was 3 months from the time of the multidisciplinary tumor board decision to operate. The primary outcome of this analysis is the incidence of pandemic-related changes in care. The secondary outcomes included 30-day perioperative mortality and morbidity and a composite outcome of unresectable disease or disease progression, emergency surgery, and death.

RESULTS

We included 3973 patients (3784 operated and 189 nonoperated) from 227 centers in 52 countries and 7 world regions who were initially planned to have cancer surgery. In 20.7% (823/3973) of the patients, the standard of care was adjusted. A significant delay (>8 weeks) was observed in 11.2% (424/3784) of patients, particularly in those with ovarian cancer (213/1355; 15.7%; P<.0001). This delay was associated with a composite of adverse outcomes, including disease progression and death (95/424; 22.4% vs 601/3360; 17.9%; P=.024) compared with those who had operations within 8 weeks of tumor board decisions. One in 13 (189/2430; 7.9%) did not receive their planned operations, in whom 1 in 20 (5/189; 2.7%) died and 1 in 5 (34/189; 18%) experienced disease progression or death within 3 months of multidisciplinary team board decision for surgery. Only 22 of the 3778 surgical patients (0.6%) acquired perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infections; they had a longer postoperative stay (median 8.5 vs 4 days; P<.0001), higher predefined surgical morbidity (14/22; 63.6% vs 717/3762; 19.1%; P<.0001) and mortality (4/22; 18.2% vs 26/3762; 0.7%; P<.0001) rates than the uninfected cohort.

CONCLUSION

One in 5 surgical patients with gynecologic cancer worldwide experienced management modifications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant adverse outcomes were observed in those with delayed or cancelled operations, and coordinated mitigating strategies are urgently needed.

Determining post-operative morbidity and mortality following gynecological oncology surgery: protocol for a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study (Global Gynaecological Oncology Surgical Outcomes Collaborative-GO SOAR)

BACKGROUND

The Global Gynaecological Oncology Surgical Outcomes Collaborative (GO SOAR) aims to develop a network of gynecological oncology surgeons, surgical departments, and other interested parties that will have the long-term ability to collaborate on outcome studies. The protocol for the first collaborative study is presented here.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate international variation in 30-day post-operative morbidity and mortality following gynecological oncology surgery between very high/high and medium/low human development index country settings.

HYPOTHESIS

There is no variation in post-operative morbidity and mortality following gynecological oncology surgery between very high/high and medium/low human development index country settings.

STUDY DESIGN

International, multicenter, prospective cohort study. Patient data will be collected over a consecutive 30-day period through gynecological oncology multidisciplinary teams/tumor boards and clinics across different human development index country groups. All data are collected on a customized, secure, password protected, central REDCap database.

MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria include women aged ≥18 years undergoing elective/emergency, curative/palliative surgery for primary/recurrent tubo-ovarian/peritoneal, endometrial, cervical, vulval, vaginal, gestational trophoblastic malignancies. Surgical modality may be open, minimal access (laparoscopic/robotic), or vaginal.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

30-day post-operative morbidity and mortality defined as per Clavien-Dindo classification system.

SAMPLE SIZE

1100 (550/arm).

ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS

It is estimated recruitment will be completed by 2022 and results published by 2023.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04579861 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04579861).

Improving surgical outcomes through benchmarking

Benchmarking is a popular quality-improvement tool in economic practice. Its basic principle consists of identifying the best (the benchmark), then comparing with the best, and learning from the best. In healthcare, the concept of benchmarking or establishing benchmarks has been less specific, where comparisons often do not target the best, but the average results. The goal, however, remains improvement in patient outcome. This article outlines the application of benchmarking and proposes a standard approach of benchmark determination in surgery, including the establishment of best achievable real-world postoperative outcomes. Parameters used for this purpose must be reproducible, objective and universal. A systematic approach for determining benchmarks enables self-assessment of surgical outcome and facilitates the detection of areas for improvement. The intention of benchmarking is to stimulate surgeons' genuine endeavour for perfection, rather than to judge centre or surgeon performance.