Britt K Erickson1, Jovana Y Martin2, Monjri M Shah3, J Michael Straughn3, Charles A Leath3. 1. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, USA. Electronic address: britte@uab.edu. 2. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, USA. 3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has established guidelines for treating epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) which includes cytoreductive surgery and platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy (CT). The objective of this study was to determine the reasons for failure to deliver NCCN-adherent care at an NCCN cancer center serving a diverse racial and socioeconomic population. METHODS: Medical records of women with EOC diagnosed between 2004 and 2009 were reviewed for demographic, clinical, tumor, treatment, and survival data. Independent reviewers determined if their treatment met criteria for being NCCN-adherent. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated with Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared with the log-rank test. RESULTS: 367 patients were identified. 79 (21.5%) did not receive NCCN-adherent care. Non-adherent CT in 75 patients was the most common reason for failure to receive NCCN-adherent care. 39 patients did not complete CT due to treatment toxicities or disease progression. 12 patients received single agent CT only and 4 received no CT due to comorbidities. 2 patients declined CT. 18 patients died in the postoperative period without receiving CT. 8 patients did not undergo cytoreduction due to disease progression or comorbidities. PFS and OS were improved in the NCCN-adherent cohort (PFS: 5.7 vs. 18.3 months, p<.005) (OS: 11.4 vs. 49.5 months, p<.005). CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of patients at an NCCN cancer center received NCCN-adherent treatment. Reasons for failure to receive NCCN-adherent care were variable, but most did not receive chemotherapy in accordance with guidelines due to comorbidities or disease progression.
OBJECTIVE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has established guidelines for treating epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) which includes cytoreductive surgery and platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy (CT). The objective of this study was to determine the reasons for failure to deliver NCCN-adherent care at an NCCN cancer center serving a diverse racial and socioeconomic population. METHODS: Medical records of women with EOC diagnosed between 2004 and 2009 were reviewed for demographic, clinical, tumor, treatment, and survival data. Independent reviewers determined if their treatment met criteria for being NCCN-adherent. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated with Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared with the log-rank test. RESULTS: 367 patients were identified. 79 (21.5%) did not receive NCCN-adherent care. Non-adherent CT in 75 patients was the most common reason for failure to receive NCCN-adherent care. 39 patients did not complete CT due to treatment toxicities or disease progression. 12 patients received single agent CT only and 4 received no CT due to comorbidities. 2 patients declined CT. 18 patients died in the postoperative period without receiving CT. 8 patients did not undergo cytoreduction due to disease progression or comorbidities. PFS and OS were improved in the NCCN-adherent cohort (PFS: 5.7 vs. 18.3 months, p<.005) (OS: 11.4 vs. 49.5 months, p<.005). CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of patients at an NCCN cancer center received NCCN-adherent treatment. Reasons for failure to receive NCCN-adherent care were variable, but most did not receive chemotherapy in accordance with guidelines due to comorbidities or disease progression.
Authors: Robert E Bristow; Stefanie Ueda; Melissa A Gerardi; Onaopemipo B Ajiboye; Okechukwu A Ibeanu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-05-31 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Barbara A Goff; Barbara J Matthews; Michelle Wynn; Howard G Muntz; Denise M Lishner; Laura-Mae Baldwin Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2006-09-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Robert E Bristow; Matthew A Powell; Noor Al-Hammadi; Ling Chen; J Philip Miller; Phillip Y Roland; David G Mutch; William A Cliby Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Robert E Bristow; Isha Puri; Teresa P Diaz-Montes; Robert L Giuntoli; Deborah K Armstrong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Neil T Phippen; Jason C Barnett; William J Lowery; Caela R Miller; Charles A Leath Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Barbara A Goff; Barbara J Matthews; Eric H Larson; C Holly A Andrilla; Michelle Wynn; Denise M Lishner; Laura-Mae Baldwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Cheryl Mercado; David Zingmond; Beth Y Karlan; Evan Sekaris; Jenny Gross; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; James S Tomlinson; Clifford Y Ko Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Robert E Bristow; Jenny Chang; Argyrios Ziogas; Daniel L Gillen; Lu Bai; Veronica M Vieira Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Robert E Bristow; Jenny Chang; Argyrios Ziogas; Belinda Campos; Leo R Chavez; Hoda Anton-Culver Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Penny Fang; Weiguo He; Daniel R Gomez; Karen E Hoffman; Benjamin D Smith; Sharon H Giordano; Reshma Jagsi; Grace L Smith Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Janet S de Moor; Katherine S Virgo; Chunyu Li; Neetu Chawla; Xuesong Han; Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; Donatus U Ekwueme; Timothy S McNeel; Juan L Rodriguez; K Robin Yabroff Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Katherine C Brewer; Caryn E Peterson; Faith G Davis; Kent Hoskins; Heather Pauls; Charlotte E Joslin Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 3.797