Andres Redondo1, Ana Oaknin2, Maria Jesus Rubio3, Maria-Pilar Barretina-Ginesta4, Ana de Juan5, Luis Manso6, Ignacio Romero7, Cristina Martin-Lorente8, Andres Poveda9, Antonio Gonzalez-Martin10. 1. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario La Paz-IdiPAZ, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Paseo de la Castellana, 261, 28046, Madrid, Spain. andres.redondos@uam.es. 2. Medical Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Universidad de Córdoba (UCO), Córdoba, Spain. 4. Medical Oncology Department, Girona Biomedical Research Institute (IdIBGi) and Department of Medical Sciences, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), Medical School University of Girona, Girona, Spain. 5. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain. 6. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre-i+12, Madrid, Spain. 7. Medical Oncology Department, Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain. 8. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain. 9. Oncogynecologic Department, Initia Oncology, Hospital Quironsalud, Valencia, Spain. 10. Medical Oncology Department, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine the state of current practice and to reach a consensus on recommendations for the management of advanced ovarian cancer using a Delphi survey with a group of Spanish gynecologists and medical oncologists specially dedicated to gynecological tumors. METHODS: The questionnaire was developed by the byline authors. All questions but one were answered using a 9-item Likert-like scale with three types of answers: frequency, relevance and agreement. We performed two rounds between December 2018 and July 2019. A consensus was considered reached when at least 75% of the answers were located within three consecutive points of the Likert scale. RESULTS: In the first round, 32 oncologists and gynecologists were invited to participate, and 31 (96.9%) completed the online questionnaire. In the second round, 27 (87.1%) completed the online questionnaire. The results for the questions on first-line management of advanced disease, treatment of patients with recurrent disease for whom platinum might be the best option, and treatment of patients with recurrent disease for whom platinum might not be the best option are presented. CONCLUSIONS: This survey shows a snapshot of current recommendations by this selected group of physicians. Although the majority of the agreements and recommendations are aligned with the recently published ESMO-ESGO consensus, there are some discrepancies that can be explained by differences in the interpretation of certain clinical trials, reimbursement or accessibility issues.
BACKGROUND: To determine the state of current practice and to reach a consensus on recommendations for the management of advanced ovarian cancer using a Delphi survey with a group of Spanish gynecologists and medical oncologists specially dedicated to gynecological tumors. METHODS: The questionnaire was developed by the byline authors. All questions but one were answered using a 9-item Likert-like scale with three types of answers: frequency, relevance and agreement. We performed two rounds between December 2018 and July 2019. A consensus was considered reached when at least 75% of the answers were located within three consecutive points of the Likert scale. RESULTS: In the first round, 32 oncologists and gynecologists were invited to participate, and 31 (96.9%) completed the online questionnaire. In the second round, 27 (87.1%) completed the online questionnaire. The results for the questions on first-line management of advanced disease, treatment of patients with recurrent disease for whom platinum might be the best option, and treatment of patients with recurrent disease for whom platinum might not be the best option are presented. CONCLUSIONS: This survey shows a snapshot of current recommendations by this selected group of physicians. Although the majority of the agreements and recommendations are aligned with the recently published ESMO-ESGO consensus, there are some discrepancies that can be explained by differences in the interpretation of certain clinical trials, reimbursement or accessibility issues.
Authors: Jason D Wright; Ling Chen; Ana I Tergas; Sonali Patankar; William M Burke; June Y Hou; Alfred I Neugut; Cande V Ananth; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: J-Y Lee; T H Kim; D H Suh; J W Kim; H S Kim; H H Chung; N H Park; Y-S Song; S B Kang Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-01-17 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: N Colombo; C Sessa; A du Bois; J Ledermann; W G McCluggage; I McNeish; P Morice; S Pignata; I Ray-Coquard; I Vergote; T Baert; I Belaroussi; A Dashora; S Olbrecht; F Planchamp; D Querleu Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 32.976
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: Andreas du Bois; Alexander Reuss; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Philipp Harter; Isabelle Ray-Coquard; Jacobus Pfisterer Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: A Santaballa; P Barretina; A Casado; Y García; A González-Martín; E Guerra; N Laínez; J Martinez; A Redondo; I Romero Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 3.405