Literature DB >> 21481154

Improvements in survival of gynaecological cancer in the Anglia region of England: are these an effect of centralisation of care and use of multidisciplinary management?

R Crawford1, D Greenberg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our hypothesis is that the adoption of Department of Health (DH) guidance has led to an improvement in outcome in gynaecological cancer survival.
SETTING: In 1999 the DH in England introduced the Improving Outcomes in Gynaecological Cancer guidance, advising case management by multidisciplinary teams with surgical concentration in specialist hospitals. This guidance was rapidly adopted in the East of England, with a population of 2.5 million. POPULATION: The population of the Anglia Cancer Network was approximately 2.3 million.
METHODS: From 1996 to 2003, details of 3406 cases of gynaecological cancer were identified in the Anglia region of England. Survival analysis was performed by Cox proportional hazards regression, relative to cases diagnosed in 1996. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary endpoint was survival.
RESULTS: The survival rates for cases diagnosed between 1996 and 1999 were broadly the same across the time period, with a marked improvement taking place in 2000, and continuing to 2003 (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.79, comparing 2000-03 with 1996-99 diagnoses), for all gynaecological sites combined. Adjustment for treatments or method of case follow-up did not attenuate these improvements. There was a concurrent change towards major surgery being performed in specialist centres from 2000.
CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of the 1999 guidance on gynaecological cancer, which included multidisciplinary case management and centralisation of surgery, resulted in a marked step-change improvement in survival of gynaecological cancer in an area of eastern England in 2000.
© 2011 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2011 RCOG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21481154     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02961.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  6 in total

1.  The proliferation of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs): how can radiology departments continue to support them all?

Authors:  Ravivarma Balasubramaniam; Manil Subesinghe; Jonathan T Smith
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  What is the role of the multidisciplinary team in the management of urinary incontinence?

Authors:  Aswini Balachandran; Jonathan Duckett
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-11-22       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 3.  The optimal organization of gynecologic oncology services: a systematic review.

Authors:  M Fung-Kee-Fung; E B Kennedy; J Biagi; T Colgan; D D'Souza; L M Elit; A Hunter; J Irish; R McLeod; B Rosen
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  Minimum volume standards in German hospitals: do they get along with procedure centralization? A retrospective longitudinal data analysis.

Authors:  Werner de Cruppé; Marc Malik; Max Geraedts
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Teamwork in skull base surgery: An avenue for improvement in patient care.

Authors:  Nancy McLaughlin; Ricardo L Carrau; Daniel F Kelly; Daniel M Prevedello; Amin B Kassam
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2013-03-25

Review 6.  The Relevance of Gynecologic Oncologists to Provide High-Quality of Care to Women with Gynecological Cancer.

Authors:  Lucas Minig; Pablo Padilla-Iserte; Cristina Zorrero
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 6.244

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.