Sarah Braungart1, Ross J Craigie1, Paul D Losty2. 1. Department of Paediatric Surgery, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, UK. 2. Department of Paediatric Surgery, Alder Hey Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK; Institute of Child Health University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK. Electronic address: paul.losty@liverpool.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No clear treatment and follow-up protocols have been established for prepubertal patients with ovarian tumours. The lack of adequate prospective data in the literature includes all aspects of their management. A significant number of children with ovarian masses present out of hours as a surgical emergency and are initially managed by paediatric surgeons without special interest in surgical oncology. Clear guidance on the management of such tumours is therefore fundamental. We hypothesised that - owing to the lack of clear guidelines - the current approach to prepubertal ovarian tumours amongst paediatric surgeons is highly heterogenous. METHODS: An eleven-item multiple choice questionnaire was distributed amongst all BAPS consultant paediatric surgeons in the UK and simultaneously to all paediatric surgical oncology members of the UK Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group in order to survey the management of ovarian masses in children. We aimed to compare the management approaches in both groups. RESULTS: 63 consultants participated in the survey; 49% with a special interest in surgical oncology, 48% with different subspecialty interests. The majority of participants (56%) performed 1-5 operations on ovarian tumours per year. Preoperative imaging of choice for the oncology surgeons was US and MRI (77.3%) versus 41.4% in the group of surgeons with different special interests. Surgeons with different special interests were more likely to request Ca125 as a preoperative tumour marker (62.1% vs 32.3%). 19.3% of oncology surgeons, and 27.6% of surgeons with other special interest stated they would never remove an ovarian tumour via the laparoscopic approach. Follow-up practise was highly variable amongst survey participants in both surgeon groups regarding frequency, duration and further investigations during follow-up. Almost 50% of participants follow their patients up according to personal practice protocols. CONCLUSION: This first national survey on the management of prepubertal ovarian tumours demonstrates great heterogeneity in the current approach amongst UK paediatric surgeons. Better evidence is needed to formulate clear guidance for the management of such tumours. We propose instigation of a multicentre registry for ovarian tumours to generate prospective data and clarify guidance for the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE STATEMENT: This is a level II evidence study. In itself it is a retrospective study, with the literature review including one large, high-quality prospective cohort study, and further prospective cohort studies of ordinary quality.
BACKGROUND: No clear treatment and follow-up protocols have been established for prepubertal patients with ovarian tumours. The lack of adequate prospective data in the literature includes all aspects of their management. A significant number of children with ovarian masses present out of hours as a surgical emergency and are initially managed by paediatric surgeons without special interest in surgical oncology. Clear guidance on the management of such tumours is therefore fundamental. We hypothesised that - owing to the lack of clear guidelines - the current approach to prepubertal ovarian tumours amongst paediatric surgeons is highly heterogenous. METHODS: An eleven-item multiple choice questionnaire was distributed amongst all BAPS consultant paediatric surgeons in the UK and simultaneously to all paediatric surgical oncology members of the UK Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group in order to survey the management of ovarian masses in children. We aimed to compare the management approaches in both groups. RESULTS: 63 consultants participated in the survey; 49% with a special interest in surgical oncology, 48% with different subspecialty interests. The majority of participants (56%) performed 1-5 operations on ovarian tumours per year. Preoperative imaging of choice for the oncology surgeons was US and MRI (77.3%) versus 41.4% in the group of surgeons with different special interests. Surgeons with different special interests were more likely to request Ca125 as a preoperative tumour marker (62.1% vs 32.3%). 19.3% of oncology surgeons, and 27.6% of surgeons with other special interest stated they would never remove an ovarian tumour via the laparoscopic approach. Follow-up practise was highly variable amongst survey participants in both surgeon groups regarding frequency, duration and further investigations during follow-up. Almost 50% of participants follow their patients up according to personal practice protocols. CONCLUSION: This first national survey on the management of prepubertal ovarian tumours demonstrates great heterogeneity in the current approach amongst UK paediatric surgeons. Better evidence is needed to formulate clear guidance for the management of such tumours. We propose instigation of a multicentre registry for ovarian tumours to generate prospective data and clarify guidance for the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE STATEMENT: This is a level II evidence study. In itself it is a retrospective study, with the literature review including one large, high-quality prospective cohort study, and further prospective cohort studies of ordinary quality.
Authors: Ioana Anca Stefanopol; Magdalena Miulescu; Luiza Nechita; Ciprian Adrian Dinu; Carmen Bobeica; Alexandru Nechifor; Liliana Baroiu; Sergiu Chirila; Lucreţia Anghel; Victorita Stefanescu; Alin Laurenţiu Tatu Journal: Int J Gen Med Date: 2022-05-27
Authors: Justyna Łuczak; Maciej Bagłaj; Piotr Dryjański; Alicja Kalcowska; Nastazja Banaszyk-Pucała; Maria Boczar; Krzysztof Dymek; Małgorzata Fryczek; Kaja Giżewska-Kacprzak; Wojciech Górecki; Andrzej Grabowski; Anna Gregor; Maria Jabłońska; Grzegorz Kowalewski; Magdalena Lewandowska; Maria Małowiecka; Anna Ogorzałek; Magdalena Pękalska; Aneta Piotrowska-Gall; Mateusz Porębski; Marek Siewiński; Dariusz Patkowski Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 3.677