Literature DB >> 11748973

A population-based study of patterns of care for ovarian cancer: who is seen by a gynecologic oncologist and who is not?

Michael E Carney1, Johnathan M Lancaster, Clyde Ford, Alexander Tsodikov, Charles L Wiggins.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the fraction of patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer and seen by a gynecologic oncologist and to compare outcomes with those patients and others who are not seen by a gynecologic oncologist.
METHODS: The statewide, population-based Utah Cancer Registry was used to identify 848 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 1992 and 1998. Differences between selected characteristics of cases seen/not seen by gynecologic oncologists were assessed with chi2 tests, and survival data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank testing.
RESULTS: Of 848 incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases diagnosed in Utah residents during the period 1992-1998, 333 (39.3%) were seen by a gynecologic oncologist at some time during their cancer diagnosis and/or treatment. The percentage of ovarian cancer cases seen by a gynecologic oncologist varied with age: 35.6% of cases under 40 years of age at diagnosis were seen by a gynecologic oncologist, as were 54.5% of cases 40-59 years of age, 42.6% of cases 60-69 years, and 23.7% of women 70+ years of age (chi2 test, P < 0.01). The percentage of ovarian cancer cases seen by a gynecologic oncologists increased during the study period, from 33.0% in 1992-1993 to 47.5% in 1997-1998 (chi2 test for trend, P < 0.01). The vast majority of the state's population resides within a contiguous, four-county area near the only major city where gynecologic oncology care is available. Ovarian cancer cases that resided within that geographic area were generally more likely to have been seen by a gynecologic oncologist than those who lived in more rural regions of the state (42.7 and 27.1%, respectively; chi2 test, P < 0.01). For ovarian cancer cases diagnosed with local or regional stages of disease, there were no significant differences in survivorship between those treated or not treated by gynecologic oncologists. Among cases diagnosed with advanced disease, those cases seen by gynecologic oncologists had a significant survival advantage when compared to those that were not (median survival 26 and 15 months, respectively, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologic oncologists see less than half of ovarian cancer patients. Patients under 40 years of age, over 70 years of age, and in rural areas were significantly less likely to be seen by a gynecologic oncologist in their course of treatment. Patients with advanced disease experienced a significant survival advantage when a gynecologic oncologist was involved in their care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11748973     DOI: 10.1006/gyno.2001.6460

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  40 in total

1.  An In Vitro Diagnostic Multivariate Index Assay (IVDMIA) for Ovarian Cancer: Harvesting the Power of Multiple Biomarkers.

Authors:  Zhen Zhang
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012

2.  Comparison of a novel multiple marker assay vs the Risk of Malignancy Index for the prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass.

Authors:  Richard G Moore; Moune Jabre-Raughley; Amy K Brown; Katina M Robison; M Craig Miller; W Jeffery Allard; Robert J Kurman; Robert C Bast; Steven J Skates
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  [Diagnostic value of CA125, HE4 and Copenhagen Index in differentiating benign from malignant epithelial ovarian tumors].

Authors:  Shi-Peng Gong; Yong-Ning Chen; Ya-di Zhang; Wei Yao; Li Chen; Shi-San Liu; Huan Wu
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2017-05-20

4.  Surgical debulking of ovarian cancer: what difference does it make?

Authors:  John O Schorge; Christopher McCann; Marcela G Del Carmen
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010

5.  Observed-to-expected ratio for adherence to treatment guidelines as a quality of care indicator for ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Valerie B Galvan-Turner; Jenny Chang; Argyrios Ziogas; Robert E Bristow
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-09-24       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 6.  Rural residence and cancer outcomes in the United States: issues and challenges.

Authors:  Ashley Meilleur; S V Subramanian; Jesse J Plascak; James L Fisher; Electra D Paskett; Elizabeth B Lamont
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass.

Authors:  Richard G Moore; D Scott McMeekin; Amy K Brown; Paul DiSilvestro; M Craig Miller; W Jeffrey Allard; Walter Gajewski; Robert Kurman; Robert C Bast; Steven J Skates
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-10-12       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  Disparities in use of gynecologic oncologists for women with ovarian cancer in the United States.

Authors:  Shamly Austin; Michelle Y Martin; Yongin Kim; Ellen M Funkhouser; Edward E Partridge; Maria Pisu
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-12-03       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Doublet chemotherapy in the elderly patient with ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Min Y Teo; Derek G Power; William P Tew; Stuart M Lichtman
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012-08-22

Review 10.  Current state of biomarker development for clinical application in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Richard G Moore; Shannon MacLaughlan; Robert C Bast
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-10-31       Impact factor: 5.482

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.