Stage III and IV ovarian cancer in the South West of England: five-year outcome analysis for cases treated in 1998

Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer

BACKGROUND

Gynaecological cancers are the second most common cancers among women. It has been suggested that centralised care improves outcomes but consensus is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies that examined centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer, and used multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data, and two assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data on survival in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met our inclusion criteria; all were retrospective observational studies and therefore at high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. Adverse event data were not reported in any of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low quality, but consistent evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere. The evidence was stronger for ovarian cancer than for other gynaecological cancers.Further studies of survival are needed, with more robust designs than retrospective observational studies. Research should also assess the quality of life associated with centralisation of gynaecological cancer care. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries; future studies should be extended to other gynaecological cancers within different healthcare systems.

Optimal primary surgical treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer among women. In addition to diagnosis and staging, primary surgery is performed to achieve optimal cytoreduction (surgical efforts aimed at removing the bulk of the tumour) as the amount of residual tumour is one of the most important prognostic factors for survival of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. An optimal outcome of cytoreductive surgery remains a subject of controversy to many practising gynae-oncologists. The Gynaecologic Oncology group (GOG) currently defines 'optimal' as having residual tumour nodules each measuring 1 cm or less in maximum diameter, with complete cytoreduction (microscopic disease) being the ideal surgical outcome. Although the size of residual tumour masses after surgery has been shown to be an important prognostic factor for advanced ovarian cancer, it is unclear whether it is the surgical procedure that is directly responsible for the superior outcome that is associated with less residual disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of optimal primary cytoreductive surgery for women with surgically staged advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (stages III and IV).To assess the impact of various residual tumour sizes, over a range between zero and 2 cm, on overall survival.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3) and the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to August 2010). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Retrospective data on residual disease from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective and retrospective observational studies which included a multivariate analysis of 100 or more adult women with surgically staged advanced epithelial ovarian cancer and who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. We only included studies that defined optimal cytoreduction as surgery leading to residual tumours with a maximum diameter of any threshold up to 2 cm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no RCTs or prospective non-RCTs identified that were designed to evaluate the effectiveness of surgery when performed as a primary procedure in advanced stage ovarian cancer.We found 11 retrospective studies that included a multivariate analysis that met our inclusion criteria. Analyses showed the prognostic importance of complete cytoreduction, where the residual disease was microscopic that is no visible disease, as overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly prolonged in these groups of women. PFS was not reported in all of the studies but was sufficiently documented to allow firm conclusions to be drawn.When we compared suboptimal (> 1 cm) versus optimal (< 1 cm) cytoreduction the survival estimates were attenuated but remained statistically significant in favour of the lower volume disease group There was no significant difference in OS and only a borderline difference in PFS when residual disease of > 2 cm and < 2 cm were compared (hazard ratio (HR) 1.65, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.31; and HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61, P = 0.05 for OS and PFS respectively).There was a high risk of bias due to the retrospective nature of these studies where, despite statistical adjustment for important prognostic factors, selection bias was still likely to be of particular concern.Adverse events, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness were not reported by treatment arm or to a satisfactory level in any of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

During primary surgery for advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer all attempts should be made to achieve complete cytoreduction. When this is not achievable, the surgical goal should be optimal (< 1 cm) residual disease. Due to the high risk of bias in the current evidence, randomised controlled trials should be performed to determine whether it is the surgical intervention or patient-related and disease-related factors that are associated with the improved survival in these groups of women. The findings of this review that women with residual disease < 1 cm still do better than women with residual disease > 1 cm should prompt the surgical community to retain this category and consider re-defining it as 'near optimal' cytoreduction, reserving the term 'suboptimal' cytoreduction to cases where the residual disease is > 1 cm (optimal/near optimal/suboptimal instead of complete/optimal/suboptimal).

Patterns of care in surgery for ovarian cancer in Europe

Quality of surgery is one of the most important determinants of the outcome in ovarian cancer patients. Surgery by a gynaecological oncologist in a specialised, high-volume environment and removal of all visible tumours are associated with a higher likelihood of favourable outcome for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Population-based studies in Europe however show that a substantial number of patients do not receive optimal surgical care. Less than half of the patients suffering from advanced-stage ovarian cancer are operated by a gynaecological oncologists. Also the proportion of patients operated in a high-volume or specialised hospital is lower than 50%. In a substantial number of patients, minimum standard procedures are not performed and optimal tumor debulking is not achieved. To improve the quality of care, efforts are needed to develop and implement robust evidence-based European guidelines, provide surgical training for gynaecological oncologists and establish comprehensive cancer networks with sufficient resources.

A review of the current evidence for maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES

Ovarian cancer (OC) typically is diagnosed at advanced stages, in which the primary goal of therapy is to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In recent years, maintenance therapy has been tested for this purpose in advanced OC (AOC). Literature on maintenance therapy in AOC was systematically reviewed to assess current knowledge regarding the impact of this therapeutic approach.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed 2/2009 for articles published 1/2001-1/2009 pertaining to OC maintenance therapy guidelines, patterns, and outcomes. A second search used keywords specific to maintenance and included primary studies published in the last 10 years. Of 406 sources identified, 36 primary studies and 16 review articles were included in this systematic review. A third search used the keyword "consolidation" to find maintenance articles not identified through other searches; of 48 additional sources, 13 primary studies and 6 reviews were included. A fourth search of non-MEDLINE-indexed sources yielded 14 additional relevant publications from the same time period.

RESULTS

Among practice guidelines identified, only the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2008 guidelines provide recommendations regarding maintenance therapy, assigning it a category 2B recommendation. No studies were identified that reported current treatment patterns or economic outcomes in maintenance therapy; quality of life data were reported in one study. A variety of agents have been tested for maintenance, with paclitaxel the most commonly evaluated. The Southwest Oncology Group-Gynecologic Oncology Group 178 trial has found that 12 cycles of paclitaxel extend PFS (by 7 months) compared to 3 months paclitaxel, but could not adequately evaluate OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance therapy may improve clinical outcomes in AOC, but additional research is needed to demonstrate an OS advantage. Future studies should investigate the long-term clinical benefit of maintenance treatment and its impact on resource utilization and health-related quality of life.

Influence of Department Volume on Survival for Ovarian Cancer: Results From a Prospective Quality Assurance Program of the Austrian Association for Gynecologic Oncology

Objective:

The Austrian Association for Gynecologic Oncology initiated in 1998 a prospective quality assurance program for patients with ovarian cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate factors predicting overall survival especially under consideration of department volume.

Methods:

All Austrian gynecological departments were invited to participate in the quality assurance program. A questionnaire was sent out that included birth date, histology, date of diagnosis, stage, and basic information on primary treatment. Description of comorbidity was not requested. Patient life status was assessed in a passive way. We did record linkage between each patient's name and birth date and the official mortality data set collected by Statistics Austria. No data were available on progression-free survival. Patients treated between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2004 were included in the analysis. Mortality dates were available to December 31, 2006. Data were analyzed by means of classical statistical methods. Cut-off point for departments was 24 patients per year.

Results:

A total of 1948 patients were evaluable. Approximately 75% of them were treated at institutions with fewer than 24 new patients per year. Patient characteristics were grossly similar for both department types. Multivariate analysis confirmed established prognostic factors such as International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO) stage, lymphadenectomy, age, grading, and residual disease. In addition, we found small departments (<24 patients per year) to have a negative effect on overall survival (hazards ratio, 1.38: 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.7; and P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

The results indicate that in Austria, rules prescribing minimum department case load can further improve survival for patients with ovarian cancer.

Variations in institutional infrastructure, physician specialization and experience, and outcome in ovarian cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Ovarian cancer outcome varies among different institutions, regions, and countries. This systematic review summarizes the available data evaluating the impact of different physician and hospital characteristics on outcome in ovarian cancer patients.

METHODS

A MEDLINE database search for pertinent publications was conducted and reference lists of each relevant article were screened. Experts in the field were contacted. Selected studies assessed the relationship between physician and/or hospital specialty or volume and at least one of the outcomes of interest. The primary outcome was survival. Additional parameters included surgical outcome (debulking), completeness of staging, and quality of chemotherapy. The authors independently reviewed each article and applied the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The quality of each study was assessed by focusing on strategies to control for important prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Forty-four articles met inclusion criteria. Discipline and sub-specialization of the primary treating physician were identified as the most important variable associated with superior outcome. Evidence showing a beneficial impact of institutional factors was weaker, but followed the same trend. Hospital volume was hardly related to any outcome parameter.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence available showed considerable heterogeneity and has to be interpreted cautiously. Better utilization of knowledge about institutional factors and well-established board certifications may improve outcome in ovarian cancer. Patients and primary-care physicians should select gynecologic oncologists for primary treatment in countries with established sub-specialty training. Policymakers, insurance companies, and lay organizations should support development of respective programs.

Preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors using Bayesian kernel-based methods

OBJECTIVES

To develop flexible classifiers that predict malignancy in adnexal masses using a large database from nine centers.

METHODS

The database consisted of 1066 patients with at least one persistent adnexal mass for which a large amount of clinical and ultrasound data were recorded. The outcome of interest was the histological classification of the adnexal mass as benign or malignant. The outcome was predicted using Bayesian least squares support vector machines in comparison with relevance vector machines. The models were developed on a training set (n=754) and tested on a test set (n=312).

RESULTS

Twenty-five percent of the patients (n=266) had a malignant tumor. Variable selection resulted in a set of 12 variables for the models: age, maximal diameter of the ovary, maximal diameter of the solid component, personal history of ovarian cancer, hormonal therapy, very strong intratumoral blood flow (i.e. color score 4), ascites, presumed ovarian origin of tumor, multilocular-solid tumor, blood flow within papillary projections, irregular internal cyst wall and acoustic shadows. Test set area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC) for all models exceeded 0.940, with a sensitivity above 90% and a specificity above 80% for all models. The least squares support vector machine model with linear kernel performed very well, with an AUC of 0.946, 91% sensitivity and 84% specificity. The models performed well in the test sets of all the centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Bayesian kernel-based methods can accurately separate malignant from benign masses. The robustness of the models will be investigated in future studies.