M Fung-Kee-Fung1, E B Kennedy2, J Biagi3, T Colgan4, D D'Souza5, L M Elit6, A Hunter7, J Irish7, R McLeod7, B Rosen8. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON; 2. Program in Evidence-Based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, and Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON; 3. Southeastern Ontario Health Sciences Centre, Palliative Care Medicine Program, Kingston, ON; 4. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON; 5. London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON; 6. Juravinski Cancer Centre and McMaster University, Hamilton, ON; 7. Surgical Oncology Program, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON; 8. Department of Gynecology-Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A system-level organizational guideline for gynecologic oncology was identified by a provincial cancer agency as a key priority based on input from stakeholders, data showing more limited availability of multidisciplinary or specialist care in lower-volume than in higher-volume hospitals in the relevant jurisdiction, and variable rates of staging for ovarian and endometrial cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review assessed the relationship of the organization of gynecologic oncology services with patient survival and surgical outcomes. The electronic databases medline and embase (ovid: 1996 through 9 January 2015) were searched using terms related to gynecologic malignancies combined with organization of services, patterns of care, and various facility and physician characteristics. Outcomes of interest included overall or disease-specific survival, short-term survival, adequate staging, and degree of cytoreduction or optimal cytoreduction (or both) for ovarian cancer patients by hospital or physician type, and rate of discrepancy in initial diagnoses and intraoperative consultation between non-specialist pathologists and gyne-oncology-specialist pathologists. RESULTS: One systematic review and sixteen additional primary studies met the inclusion criteria. The evidence base as a whole was judged to be of lower quality; however, a trend toward improved outcomes with centralization of gynecologic oncology was found, particularly with respect to the gynecologic oncology care of patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in outcomes with centralization of gynecologic oncology services can be attributed to a number of factors, including access to specialist care and multidisciplinary team management. Findings of this systematic review should be used with caution because of the limitations of the evidence base; however, an expert consensus process made it possible to create recommendations for implementation.
BACKGROUND: A system-level organizational guideline for gynecologic oncology was identified by a provincial cancer agency as a key priority based on input from stakeholders, data showing more limited availability of multidisciplinary or specialist care in lower-volume than in higher-volume hospitals in the relevant jurisdiction, and variable rates of staging for ovarian and endometrial cancerpatients. METHODS: A systematic review assessed the relationship of the organization of gynecologic oncology services with patient survival and surgical outcomes. The electronic databases medline and embase (ovid: 1996 through 9 January 2015) were searched using terms related to gynecologic malignancies combined with organization of services, patterns of care, and various facility and physician characteristics. Outcomes of interest included overall or disease-specific survival, short-term survival, adequate staging, and degree of cytoreduction or optimal cytoreduction (or both) for ovarian cancerpatients by hospital or physician type, and rate of discrepancy in initial diagnoses and intraoperative consultation between non-specialist pathologists and gyne-oncology-specialist pathologists. RESULTS: One systematic review and sixteen additional primary studies met the inclusion criteria. The evidence base as a whole was judged to be of lower quality; however, a trend toward improved outcomes with centralization of gynecologic oncology was found, particularly with respect to the gynecologic oncology care of patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in outcomes with centralization of gynecologic oncology services can be attributed to a number of factors, including access to specialist care and multidisciplinary team management. Findings of this systematic review should be used with caution because of the limitations of the evidence base; however, an expert consensus process made it possible to create recommendations for implementation.
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: L Elit; S Schultz; R Prysbysz; R Saskin; N Gunraj; A S Wilton; M Simunovic; D Urbach Journal: Eur J Gynaecol Oncol Date: 2009 Impact factor: 0.196
Authors: Tien Le; Christopher Giede; Shia Salem; Guylaine Lefebvre; Barry Rosen; James Bentley; Rachel Kupets; Patti Power; Marie-Claude Renaud; Peter Bryson; Donald B Davis; Susie Lau; Robert Lotocki; Vyta Senikas; Lucie Morin; Stephen Bly; Kimberly Butt; Yvonne M Cargill; Nanette Denis; Robert Gagnon; Marja Anne Hietala-Coyle; Kenneth Ian Lim; Annie Ouellet; Maria-Hélène Raciot Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Can Date: 2009-07
Authors: Karsten Münstedt; Richard von Georgi; Björn Misselwitz; Marek Zygmunt; Rosi Stillger; Wolfgang Künzel Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Flora Vernooij; Petronella O Witteveen; Eva Verweij; Yolanda van der Graaf; A Peter M Heintz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-10-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Nadia Ismiil; Zeina Ghorab; Sharon Nofech-Mozes; Anna Plotkin; Allan Covens; Ray Osborne; Rachel Kupets; Mahmoud A Khalifa Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.437
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: Beverley J Shea; Jeremy M Grimshaw; George A Wells; Maarten Boers; Neil Andersson; Candyce Hamel; Ashley C Porter; Peter Tugwell; David Moher; Lex M Bouter Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Shama Virani; Glauco Baiocchi; David Bowtell; Citadel J Cabasag; Kathleen R Cho; Renée T Fortner; Keiichi Fujiwara; Jae-Weon Kim; Martin Köbel; Jean-Emmanuel Kurtz; Douglas A Levine; Usha Menon; Barbara M Norquist; Paul D P Pharoah; Anil K Sood; Shelley T Tworoger; Nicolas Wentzensen; Stephen J Chanock; Paul Brennan; Britton Trabert Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Anna Sarah Erem; Adu Appiah-Kubi; Thomas Okpoti Konney; Kwabena Amo-Antwi; Sarah G Bell; Timothy R B Johnson; Carolyn Johnston; Alexander Tawiah Odoi; Emma R Lawrence Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2020-12-03