1
|
Ogunbiyi MO, Oxley S, Graham R, Olaitan A. The oncological and reproductive outcomes of fertility-preserving treatments for stage 1 grade 1 endometrial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J OBSTET GYNAECOL 2024; 44:2294329. [PMID: 38126736 DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2023.2294329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The number of patients desiring fertility-preserving treatment for endometrial cancer rather than standard surgical management continues to increase. OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate the efficacies of fertility-preserving treatments on the live birth rate, remission and relapse rates for women with stage 1a grade 1 endometrial carcinoma to support patient counselling. METHODS We performed a meta-analysis for our primary outcomes of overall remission and relapse rate, and for secondary analysis, we divided papers into treatment type: systemic progestins, intrauterine progestins or hysteroscopic resection and adjuvant hormonal treatment. RESULTS Thirty-five observational studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 624 patients. Overall, conservative treatment of endometrial cancer showed a remission rate of 77% (95% CI: 70-84%), a relapse rate of 20% (95% CI: 13-27%) and a live birth rate of 20% (95% CI: 15-25%) with more favourable outcomes for the hysteroscopic resection group. CONCLUSIONS Hysteroscopic resection and adjuvant hormonal treatment had the most favourable fertility and oncological outcomes. Further high-quality prospective multi-centre trials are warranted to determine the optimal treatment regimen and dosage and risk stratification for these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Samuel Oxley
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Radha Graham
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Adeola Olaitan
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sarig K, Oxley S, Kalra A, Sobocan M, Fierheller CT, Sideris M, Gootzen T, Ferris M, Eeles RA, Evans DG, Quaife SL, Manchanda R. BRCA awareness and testing experience in the UK Jewish population: a qualitative study. J Med Genet 2024:jmg-2023-109576. [PMID: 38575303 DOI: 10.1136/jmg-2023-109576] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2023] [Accepted: 03/09/2024] [Indexed: 04/06/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND 1 in 40 UK Jewish individuals carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/BRCA2. Traditional testing criteria miss half of carriers, and so population genetic testing is being piloted for Jewish people in England. There has been no qualitative research into the factors influencing BRCA awareness and testing experience in this group. This study aimed to explore these and inform improvements for the implementation of population genetic testing. METHODS Qualitative study of UK Jewish adults who have undergone BRCA testing. We conducted one-to-one semistructured interviews via telephone or video call using a predefined topic guide, until sufficient information power was reached. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and interpreted using applied thematic analysis. RESULTS 32 individuals were interviewed (28 carriers, 4 non-carriers). We interpreted five themes intersecting across six time points of the testing pathway: (1) individual differences regarding personal/family history of cancer, demographics and personal attitudes/approach; (2) healthcare professionals' support; (3) pathway access and integration; (4) nature of family/partner relationships; and (5) Jewish community factors. Testing was largely triggered by connecting information to a personal/family history of cancer. No participants reported decision regret, although there was huge variation in satisfaction. Suggestions were given around increasing UK Jewish community awareness, making information and support services personally relevant and proactive case management of carriers. CONCLUSIONS There is a need to improve UK Jewish community BRCA awareness and to highlight personal relevance of testing for individuals without a personal/family history of cancer. Traditional testing criteria caused multiple issues regarding test access and experience. Carriers want information and support services tailored to their individual circumstances.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Monika Sobocan
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
| | | | - Michail Sideris
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Rosalind A Eeles
- Oncogenetics, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wei X, Sun L, Slade E, Fierheller CT, Oxley S, Kalra A, Sia J, Sideris M, McCluggage WG, Bromham N, Dworzynski K, Rosenthal AN, Brentnall A, Duffy S, Evans DG, Yang L, Legood R, Manchanda R. Cost-Effectiveness of Gene-Specific Prevention Strategies for Ovarian and Breast Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e2355324. [PMID: 38334999 PMCID: PMC10858404 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55324] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2023] [Accepted: 12/16/2023] [Indexed: 02/10/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) confer an increased ovarian cancer (OC) risk, with BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D PVs also conferring an elevated breast cancer (BC) risk. Risk-reducing surgery, medical prevention, and BC surveillance offer the opportunity to prevent cancers and deaths, but their cost-effectiveness for individual CSGs remains poorly addressed. Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies for OC and BC among individuals carrying PVs in the previously listed CSGs. Design, Setting, and Participants In this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and, where relevant, risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) compared with nonsurgical interventions (including BC surveillance and medical prevention for increased BC risk) from December 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023. The analysis took a UK payer perspective with a lifetime horizon. The simulated cohort consisted of women aged 30 years who carried BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, or BRIP1 PVs. Appropriate sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed. Exposures CSG-specific interventions, including RRSO at age 35 to 50 years with or without BC surveillance and medical prevention (ie, tamoxifen or anastrozole) from age 30 or 40 years, RRM at age 30 to 40 years, both RRSO and RRM, BC surveillance and medical prevention, or no intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. OC and BC cases and deaths were estimated. Results In the simulated cohort of women aged 30 years with no cancer, undergoing both RRSO and RRM was most cost-effective for individuals carrying BRCA1 (RRM at age 30 years; RRSO at age 35 years), BRCA2 (RRM at age 35 years; RRSO at age 40 years), and PALB2 (RRM at age 40 years; RRSO at age 45 years) PVs. The corresponding ICERs were -£1942/QALY (-$2680/QALY), -£89/QALY (-$123/QALY), and £2381/QALY ($3286/QALY), respectively. RRSO at age 45 years was cost-effective for RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 PV carriers compared with nonsurgical strategies. The corresponding ICERs were £962/QALY ($1328/QALY), £771/QALY ($1064/QALY), and £2355/QALY ($3250/QALY), respectively. The most cost-effective preventive strategy per 1000 PV carriers could prevent 923 OC and BC cases and 302 deaths among those carrying BRCA1; 686 OC and BC cases and 170 deaths for BRCA2; 464 OC and BC cases and 130 deaths for PALB2; 102 OC cases and 64 deaths for RAD51C; 118 OC cases and 76 deaths for RAD51D; and 55 OC cases and 37 deaths for BRIP1. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated both RRSO and RRM were most cost-effective in 96.5%, 89.2%, and 84.8% of simulations for BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 PVs, respectively, while RRSO was cost-effective in approximately 100% of simulations for RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 PVs. Conclusions and Relevance In this cost-effectiveness study, RRSO with or without RRM at varying optimal ages was cost-effective compared with nonsurgical strategies for individuals who carried BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, or BRIP1 PVs. These findings support personalizing risk-reducing surgery and guideline recommendations for individual CSG-specific OC and BC risk management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xia Wei
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Li Sun
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Eric Slade
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom
| | - Caitlin T. Fierheller
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jacqueline Sia
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - W. Glenn McCluggage
- Department of Pathology, Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Nathan Bromham
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Adam N. Rosenthal
- Department of Gynaecology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation trust, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Women’s Cancer, UCL EGA Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Adam Brentnall
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Li Yang
- School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Wei X, Oxley S, Sideris M, Legood R, Manchanda R. Patient-reported quality of life following prophylactic surgery for breast and ovarian cancer prevention: response. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024; 230:274-275. [PMID: 37659746 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.08.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2023] [Accepted: 08/26/2023] [Indexed: 09/04/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Xia Wei
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom; MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wei X, Oxley S, Sideris M, Kalra A, Brentnall A, Sun L, Yang L, Legood R, Manchanda R. Quality of life after risk-reducing surgery for breast and ovarian cancer prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023; 229:388-409.e4. [PMID: 37059410 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.03.045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Revised: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 03/31/2023] [Indexed: 04/16/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the impact of risk-reducing surgery for breast cancer and ovarian cancer prevention on quality of life. We considered risk-reducing mastectomy, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, and risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy. DATA SOURCES We followed a prospective protocol (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42022319782) and searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from inception to February 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA We followed a PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design) framework. The population included women at increased risk of breast cancer or ovarian cancer. We focused on studies reporting quality of life outcomes (health-related quality of life, sexual function, menopause symptoms, body image, cancer-related distress or worry, anxiety, or depression) after risk-reducing surgery, including risk-reducing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy for ovarian cancer. METHODS We used the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) for study appraisal. Qualitative synthesis and fixed-effects meta-analysis were performed. RESULTS A total of 34 studies were included (risk-reducing mastectomy: 16 studies; risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: 19 studies; risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy: 2 studies). Health-related quality of life was unchanged or improved in 13 of 15 studies after risk-reducing mastectomy (N=986) and 10 of 16 studies after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (N=1617), despite short-term deficits (N=96 after risk-reducing mastectomy and N=459 after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy). Sexual function (using the Sexual Activity Questionnaire) was affected in 13 of 16 studies (N=1400) after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in terms of decreased sexual pleasure (-1.21 [-1.53 to -0.89]; N=3070) and increased sexual discomfort (1.12 [0.93-1.31]; N=1400). Hormone replacement therapy after premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with an increase (1.16 [0.17-2.15]; N=291) in sexual pleasure and a decrease (-1.20 [-1.75 to -0.65]; N=157) in sexual discomfort. Sexual function was affected in 4 of 13 studies (N=147) after risk-reducing mastectomy, but stable in 9 of 13 studies (N=799). Body image was unaffected in 7 of 13 studies (N=605) after risk-reducing mastectomy, whereas 6 of 13 studies (N=391) reported worsening. Increased menopause symptoms were reported in 12 of 13 studies (N=1759) after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy with a reduction (-1.96 [-2.81 to -1.10]; N=1745) in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Endocrine Symptoms. Cancer-related distress was unchanged or decreased in 5 of 5 studies after risk-reducing mastectomy (N=365) and 8 of 10 studies after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (N=1223). Risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy (2 studies, N=413) led to better sexual function and menopause-specific quality of life. CONCLUSION Risk-reducing surgery may be associated with quality of life outcomes. Risk-reducing mastectomy and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy reduce cancer-related distress, and do not affect health-related quality of life. Women and clinicians should be aware of body image problems after risk-reducing mastectomy, and of sexual dysfunction and menopause symptoms after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy may be a promising alternative to mitigate quality of life-related risks of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xia Wei
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Adam Brentnall
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Li Sun
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Li Yang
- School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gaba F, Blyuss O, Tan A, Munblit D, Oxley S, Khan K, Legood R, Manchanda R. Breast Cancer Risk and Breast-Cancer-Specific Mortality following Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy in BRCA Carriers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15051625. [PMID: 36900415 PMCID: PMC10001253 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15051625] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2023] [Revised: 02/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/02/2023] [Indexed: 03/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is the gold standard method of ovarian cancer risk reduction, but the data are conflicting regarding the impact on breast cancer (BC) outcomes. This study aimed to quantify BC risk/mortality in BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers after RRSO. METHODS We conducted a systematic review (CRD42018077613) of BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers undergoing RRSO, with the outcomes including primary BC (PBC), contralateral BC (CBC) and BC-specific mortality (BCSM) using a fixed-effects meta-analysis, with subgroup analyses stratified by mutation and menopause status. RESULTS RRSO was not associated with a significant reduction in the PBC risk (RR = 0.84, 95%CI: 0.59-1.21) or CBC risk (RR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.65-1.39) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers combined but was associated with reduced BC-specific mortality in BC-affected BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers combined (RR = 0.26, 95%CI: 0.18-0.39). Subgroup analyses showed that RRSO was not associated with a reduction in the PBC risk (RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.68-1.17) or CBC risk (RR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59-1.24) in BRCA1 carriers nor a reduction in the CBC risk in BRCA2 carriers (RR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.07-1.74) but was associated with a reduction in the PBC risk in BRCA2 carriers (RR = 0.63, 95%CI: 0.41-0.97) and BCSM in BC-affected BRCA1 carriers (RR = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.30-0.70). The mean NNT = 20.6 RRSOs to prevent one PBC death in BRCA2 carriers, while 5.6 and 14.2 RRSOs may prevent one BC death in BC-affected BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers combined and BRCA1 carriers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS RRSO was not associated with PBC or CBC risk reduction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers combined but was associated with improved BC survival in BC-affected BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers combined and BRCA1 carriers and a reduced PBC risk in BRCA2 carriers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Faiza Gaba
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK
| | - Oleg Blyuss
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Paediatrics and Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Institute of Child’s Health, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 29 Shmitovskiy Proezd, 123337 Moscow, Russia
| | - Alex Tan
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Daniel Munblit
- Department of Paediatrics and Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Institute of Child’s Health, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 29 Shmitovskiy Proezd, 123337 Moscow, Russia
- Care for Long Term Conditions Division, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery and Palliative Care, King’s College London, London SE1 8WA, UK
- Solov’ev Research and Clinical Center for Neuropsychiatry, 43 Ulitsa Donskaya, 115419 Moscow, Russia
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Khalid Khan
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universidad de Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
- Department of Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Oxley S, Kalra A, Sideris M, Itzkowitz N, Evans O, Atakpa EC, Brentnall AR, Dworschak N, Gaba F, Gabe R, Sundar S, Wood N, Nicum S, Taylor A, Dobbs S, McCluggage WG, Nordin A, Legood R, Kehoe S, Ghaem-Maghami S, Manchanda R. Impact of Multiple COVID-19 Waves on Gynaecological Cancer Services in the UK. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15041273. [PMID: 36831615 PMCID: PMC9953843 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15041273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2022] [Revised: 02/08/2023] [Accepted: 02/14/2023] [Indexed: 02/19/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to assess the impact of multiple COVID-19 waves on UK gynaecological-oncology services. METHODS An online survey was distributed to all UK-British-Gynaecological-Cancer-Society members during three COVID-19 waves from 2020 to2022. RESULTS In total, 51 hospitals (including 32 cancer centres) responded to Survey 1, 42 hospitals (29 centres) to Survey 2, and 39 hospitals (30 centres) to Survey 3. During the first wave, urgent referrals reportedly fell by a median of 50% (IQR = 25-70%). In total, 49% hospitals reported reduced staffing, and the greatest was noted for trainee doctors, by a median of 40%. Theatre capacity was reduced by a median of 40%. A median of 30% of planned operations was postponed. Multidisciplinary meetings were completely virtual in 39% and mixed in 65% of the total. A median of 75% of outpatient consultations were remote. By the second wave, fewer hospitals reported staffing reductions, and there was a return to pre-pandemic urgent referrals and multidisciplinary workloads. Theatre capacity was reduced by a median of 10%, with 5% of operations postponed. The third wave demonstrated worsening staff reductions similar to Wave 1, primarily from sickness. Pre-pandemic levels of urgent referrals/workload continued, with little reduction in surgical capacity. CONCLUSION COVID-19 led to a significant disruption of gynaecological-cancer care across the UK, including reduced staffing, urgent referrals, theatre capacity, and working practice changes. Whilst disruption eased and referrals/workloads returned to normal, significant staff shortages remained in 2022, highlighting persistent capacity constraints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Nicole Itzkowitz
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Olivia Evans
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Emma Christine Atakpa
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Adam R. Brentnall
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Nina Dworschak
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Faiza Gaba
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1BB, UK
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK
| | - Rhian Gabe
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Sudha Sundar
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Nick Wood
- Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston PR2 9HT, UK
| | - Shibani Nicum
- Institute of Cancer Research, University College London, London WC1E 6DD, UK
| | | | - Stephen Dobbs
- Belfast City Hospital, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast BT9 7AB, UK
| | - W. Glenn McCluggage
- Department of Pathology, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast BT12 6BA, UK
| | - Andy Nordin
- East Kent Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital, Margate CT9 4AN, UK
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK
| | - Sean Kehoe
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
| | - Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami
- Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1BB, UK
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
- Department of Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gaba F, Oxley S, Liu X, Yang X, Chandrasekaran D, Kalsi J, Antoniou A, Side L, Sanderson S, Waller J, Ahmed M, Wallace A, Wallis Y, Menon U, Jacobs I, Legood R, Marks D, Manchanda R. Unselected Population Genetic Testing for Personalised Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction: A Qualitative Study Using Semi-Structured Interviews. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:1028. [PMID: 35626184 PMCID: PMC9139231 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12051028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2022] [Revised: 04/11/2022] [Accepted: 04/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Unselected population-based personalised ovarian cancer (OC) risk assessments combining genetic, epidemiological and hormonal data have not previously been undertaken. We aimed to understand the attitudes, experiences and impact on the emotional well-being of women from the general population who underwent unselected population genetic testing (PGT) for personalised OC risk prediction and who received low-risk (<5% lifetime risk) results. This qualitative study was set within recruitment to a pilot PGT study using an OC risk tool and telephone helpline. OC-unaffected women ≥ 18 years and with no prior OC gene testing were ascertained through primary care in London. In-depth, semi-structured and 1:1 interviews were conducted until informational saturation was reached following nine interviews. Six interconnected themes emerged: health beliefs; decision making; factors influencing acceptability; effect on well-being; results communication; satisfaction. Satisfaction with testing was high and none expressed regret. All felt the telephone helpline was helpful and should remain optional. Delivery of low-risk results reduced anxiety. However, care must be taken to emphasise that low risk does not equal no risk. The main facilitators were ease of testing, learning about children’s risk and a desire to prevent disease. Barriers included change in family dynamics, insurance, stigmatisation and personality traits associated with stress/worry. PGT for personalised OC risk prediction in women in the general population had high acceptability/satisfaction and reduced anxiety in low-risk individuals. Facilitators/barriers observed were similar to those reported with genetic testing from high-risk cancer clinics and unselected PGT in the Jewish population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Faiza Gaba
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (S.O.); (X.L.); (D.C.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (S.O.); (X.L.); (D.C.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - Xinting Liu
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (S.O.); (X.L.); (D.C.)
| | - Xin Yang
- Strangeways Research Laboratory, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, The University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (X.Y.); (A.A.)
| | - Dhivya Chandrasekaran
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (S.O.); (X.L.); (D.C.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - Jatinderpal Kalsi
- Department of Women’s Cancer, University College London, Gower St, Bloomsbury, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Antonis Antoniou
- Strangeways Research Laboratory, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, The University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (X.Y.); (A.A.)
| | - Lucy Side
- Department of Clinical Genetics, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Rd, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK;
| | - Saskia Sanderson
- Early Disease Detection Research Project UK (EDDRP UK), 2 Redman Place, London E20 1JQ, UK;
| | - Jo Waller
- Cancer Prevention Group, King’s College London, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK;
| | - Munaza Ahmed
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Unit, Department Clinical Genetics, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London WC1N 3JH, UK;
| | - Andrew Wallace
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, 6th Floor Saint Marys Hospital, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9WL, UK;
| | - Yvonne Wallis
- West Midlands Regional Genetics Laboratory, Birmingham Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK;
| | - Usha Menon
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK;
| | - Ian Jacobs
- Department of Women’s Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia;
| | - Rosa Legood
- Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (R.L.); (D.M.)
| | - Dalya Marks
- Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (R.L.); (D.M.)
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (S.O.); (X.L.); (D.C.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK;
- Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (R.L.); (D.M.)
- Department of Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Manchanda R, Oxley S, Ghaem-Maghami S, Sundar S. COVID-19 and the impact on gynecologic cancer care. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2021; 155 Suppl 1:94-101. [PMID: 34669200 PMCID: PMC9087539 DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13868] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
The COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in significant reconfiguration of gynecologic cancer services and care pathways across the globe, with a transformation of working practices. Services had to adapt to protect their vulnerable patients from infection, whilst providing care despite reduced resources/capacity and staffing. The international gynecologic cancer community introduced modified clinical care guidelines. Remote working, reduced hospital visiting, routine COVID‐testing, and use of COVID‐free surgical areas/hubs enabled the ongoing and safe delivery of complex cancer care, with priority levels for cancer treatments established to guide decision‐making by multidisciplinary tumor boards. Some 2.3 million cancer surgeries were delayed or cancelled during the first peak, with many patients reporting significant anxiety/concern for cancer progression and COVID infection. Although COVID trials were prioritized, recruitment to other cancer trials/research activity was significantly reduced. The impact of resultant protocol deviations on outcomes remains to be established. During the recovery healthcare services must maintain capacity and flexibility to manage future surges of infection, address the large backlog of patients with altered or delayed treatments, along with salvaging screening and prevention services. Training needs/mental well‐being of trainees need addressing and staff burnout prevented. Future research needs to fully evaluate the impact of COVID‐19 on long‐term patient outcomes. This article reviews the global changes introduced to gynecologic cancer care due to COVID‐19, and their impact on services and patients. Key lessons are considered for the recovery and future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.,Department of Gynecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.,Faculty of Public Health and Policy, Department of Health Services Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami
- Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Sudha Sundar
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Dang D, Stehli J, Dagan M, Duffy S, Dick R, Oxley S, Brennan A, Dinh D, Lefkovits J, Zaman S. 882 Sex Differences in Outcomes of Patients Suffering From ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction While Already in Hospital. Heart Lung Circ 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2020.09.889] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
11
|
Joseph GS, Seymour CL, Coetzee BWT, Ndlovu M, De La Torre A, Suttle R, Hicks N, Oxley S, Foord SH. Microclimates mitigate against hot temperatures in dryland ecosystems: termite mounds as an example. Ecosphere 2016. [DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.1509] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- G. S. Joseph
- DST/NRF Centre of Excellence at the Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African OrnithologyDepartment of Biological SciencesUniversity of Cape Town Rondebosch 7701 South Africa
- Department of ZoologyCentre for Invasion BiologyUniversity of Venda Thohoyandou 0950 South Africa
| | - C. L. Seymour
- DST/NRF Centre of Excellence at the Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African OrnithologyDepartment of Biological SciencesUniversity of Cape Town Rondebosch 7701 South Africa
- South African National Biodiversity InstituteKirstenbosch Research Centre Private Bag X7 Claremont 7735 South Africa
| | - B. W. T. Coetzee
- Organisation for Tropical Studies P.O. Box 33 Skukuza 1350 South Africa
- Global Change and Sustainability Research InstituteUniversity of the Witwatersrand Private Bag X3 WITS 2050 Johannesburg South Africa
| | - M. Ndlovu
- Organisation for Tropical Studies P.O. Box 33 Skukuza 1350 South Africa
- School of Animal Plant and Environmental SciencesUniversity of the Witwatersrand Private Bag X3 WITS 2050 Johannesburg South Africa
| | - A. De La Torre
- Organisation for Tropical Studies P.O. Box 33 Skukuza 1350 South Africa
| | - R. Suttle
- Organisation for Tropical Studies P.O. Box 33 Skukuza 1350 South Africa
| | - N. Hicks
- Organisation for Tropical Studies P.O. Box 33 Skukuza 1350 South Africa
| | - S. Oxley
- Organisation for Tropical Studies P.O. Box 33 Skukuza 1350 South Africa
- School of Animal Plant and Environmental SciencesUniversity of the Witwatersrand Private Bag X3 WITS 2050 Johannesburg South Africa
| | - S. H. Foord
- Department of ZoologyCentre for Invasion BiologyUniversity of Venda Thohoyandou 0950 South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
|
13
|
Oxley S. AIDS and counselling. Occup Health (Lond) 1987; 39:291-2. [PMID: 3684145] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
|