Renee A Cowan1, Roisin E O'Cearbhaill2,3, Ginger J Gardner1,3, Douglas A Levine1,3, Kara Long Roche1, Yukio Sonoda1,3, Oliver Zivanovic1, William P Tew2,3, Evis Sala3,4, Yulia Lakhman3,4, Hebert A Vargas Alvarez3,4, Debra M Sarasohn3,4, Svetlana Mironov3,4, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum5,6, Dennis S Chi7,8. 1. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Gynecologic Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. abu-rusn@mskcc.org. 6. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. abu-rusn@mskcc.org. 7. Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. gynbreast@mskcc.org. 8. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. gynbreast@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to broadly review the most up-to-date information pertaining to the centralization of ovarian cancer care in the United States (US) and worldwide. METHODS: Much of the present literature pertaining to disparities in, and centralization of, ovarian cancer care in the US and internationally was reviewed, and specifically included original research and review articles. RESULTS: Data show improved optimal debulking rates, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline adherence, and overall survival rates in higher-volume, more specialized hospitals, and amongst higher-volume providers. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer, especially those with higher stages (III and IV), are better served by centralized care in high-volume hospitals and by high-volume physicians, who adhere to NCCN guidelines wherever possible. More research is needed to determine the policy changes that can increase NCCN guideline adherence in low-volume hospitals and low-provider caseload scenarios. Policy and future research should be aimed at increasing patient access, either directly or indirectly, to high-volume hospital and high-volume providers, especially amongst Medicare, lower socioeconomic status, and minority patients.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to broadly review the most up-to-date information pertaining to the centralization of ovarian cancer care in the United States (US) and worldwide. METHODS: Much of the present literature pertaining to disparities in, and centralization of, ovarian cancer care in the US and internationally was reviewed, and specifically included original research and review articles. RESULTS: Data show improved optimal debulking rates, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline adherence, and overall survival rates in higher-volume, more specialized hospitals, and amongst higher-volume providers. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer, especially those with higher stages (III and IV), are better served by centralized care in high-volume hospitals and by high-volume physicians, who adhere to NCCN guidelines wherever possible. More research is needed to determine the policy changes that can increase NCCN guideline adherence in low-volume hospitals and low-provider caseload scenarios. Policy and future research should be aimed at increasing patient access, either directly or indirectly, to high-volume hospital and high-volume providers, especially amongst Medicare, lower socioeconomic status, and minority patients.
Authors: Salla Kumpulainen; Tapio Kuoppala; Arto Leminen; Jorma Penttinen; Ulla Puistola; Eero Pukkala; Risto Sankila; Juha Mäkinen; Seija Grénman Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2006-01-18 Impact factor: 9.162
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: V E P P Lemmens; K Bosscha; G van der Schelling; S Brenninkmeijer; J W W Coebergh; I H J T de Hingh Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 6.939
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: Yulia Lakhman; Melvin D'Anastasi; Maura Miccò; Chiara Scelzo; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Stephanie Nougaret; Ramon E Sosa; Dennis S Chi; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Hedvig Hricak; Evis Sala Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M W J M Wouters; H E Karim-Kos; S le Cessie; B P L Wijnhoven; L P S Stassen; W H Steup; H W Tilanus; R A E M Tollenaar Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-04-16 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Joan L Warren; Linda C Harlan; Edward L Trimble; Jennifer Stevens; Melvin Grimes; Kathleen A Cronin Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Emma L Herbach; Bradley D McDowell; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Benjamin J Miller Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 2.787
Authors: Alli M Straubhar; Jennifer L Wolf; Ms Qin C Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Stephanie Cham; Jason D Wright; Kara Long Roche; Dennis S Chi; Oliver Zivanovic Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: L Vallejo-Torres; M Melnychuk; C Vindrola-Padros; M Aitchison; C S Clarke; N J Fulop; J Hines; C Levermore; S B Maddineni; C Perry; K Pritchard-Jones; A I G Ramsay; D C Shackley; S Morris Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 6.939