OBJECTIVE: To provide physicians with a current consensus on screening, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of ovarian cancer. PARTICIPANTS: A nonfederal, nonadvocate, 14-member consensus panel representing the fields of gynecologic, medical, and radiation oncology, obstetrics/gynecology, and biostatistics; 25 experts in obstetrics/gynecology and gynecologic, medical, and radiation oncology who presented data to the consensus panel; and a conference audience of approximately 500. EVIDENCE: The literature was searched through MEDLINE, and an extensive bibliography of references was produced for the panel and the conference audience. Experts prepared abstracts with relevant citations from the literature. Scientific evidence was given priority over clinical anecdotal experience. CONSENSUS: The panel, answering predefined consensus questions, developed their conclusions based on the scientific evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. CONSENSUS STATEMENT: The panel composed a draft statement that was read in its entirety and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. The panel resolved conflicting recommendations and released a revised statement at the end of the conference. The panel finalized the revisions within a few weeks after the conference. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence available yet that the current screening modalities of CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasonography can be effectively used for widespread screening to reduce mortality from ovarian cancer nor that their use will result in decreased rather than increased morbidity and mortality. Women with stage IA grade 1 and stage IB grade 1 ovarian cancer do not require postoperative adjuvant therapy. Many remaining stage I patients do require chemotherapy. Subsets of stage I must be fully defined and ideal treatment determined. Women with stages II, III, and IV epithelial ovarian cancer (other than low malignant potential tumors) should receive postoperative chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: To provide physicians with a current consensus on screening, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of ovarian cancer. PARTICIPANTS: A nonfederal, nonadvocate, 14-member consensus panel representing the fields of gynecologic, medical, and radiation oncology, obstetrics/gynecology, and biostatistics; 25 experts in obstetrics/gynecology and gynecologic, medical, and radiation oncology who presented data to the consensus panel; and a conference audience of approximately 500. EVIDENCE: The literature was searched through MEDLINE, and an extensive bibliography of references was produced for the panel and the conference audience. Experts prepared abstracts with relevant citations from the literature. Scientific evidence was given priority over clinical anecdotal experience. CONSENSUS: The panel, answering predefined consensus questions, developed their conclusions based on the scientific evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. CONSENSUS STATEMENT: The panel composed a draft statement that was read in its entirety and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. The panel resolved conflicting recommendations and released a revised statement at the end of the conference. The panel finalized the revisions within a few weeks after the conference. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence available yet that the current screening modalities of CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasonography can be effectively used for widespread screening to reduce mortality from ovarian cancer nor that their use will result in decreased rather than increased morbidity and mortality. Women with stage IA grade 1 and stage IB grade 1 ovarian cancer do not require postoperative adjuvant therapy. Many remaining stage I patients do require chemotherapy. Subsets of stage I must be fully defined and ideal treatment determined. Women with stages II, III, and IV epithelial ovarian cancer (other than low malignant potential tumors) should receive postoperative chemotherapy.
Authors: M A L van Lankveld; P H M Peeters; M A van Eijkeren; V C M Koot; P O Witteveen; W P Th M Mali Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2004 Impact factor: 3.064