Objective: Previous studies have shown low adherence to surgical staging guidelines in patients with clinical early-stage ovarian carcinoma. The aim of this study was to identify guideline... Show moreObjective: Previous studies have shown low adherence to surgical staging guidelines in patients with clinical early-stage ovarian carcinoma. The aim of this study was to identify guideline adherence for surgical staging and to show the distribution of each surgical item within the study population. In addition, we examined whether regional variation in the Netherlands exists for complete surgical staging. Methods: Patients with ovarian cancer and surgical staging registered in the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019 in the Netherlands were included. Complete surgical staging was defined according to the Dutch evidence-based guideline. Surgical items were ranked and illustrated. Variation in complete surgical staging for eight regional cancer networks was shown in funnel plots. Manual validation of registered data was performed in three gynecological oncology centers. Results: 604 patients underwent surgical staging, 365 (60%) underwent an incomplete staging procedure, 295 (81%) were registered with early-stage disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics I-IIA) and, of these patients, 115 (39%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with incomplete surgical staging were operated more often with minimal invasive techniques (laparoscopy or robot) compared with patients in the complete staging group (p<0.001). Sampling of cytology/ascites was the most frequently lacking factor (29%). Manual validation of data in three gynecological oncology centers identified reasons for incomplete staging, the most common being 'perioperative findings' such as dense adhesions between tumor and peritoneum, consistent with advanced stage disease (>= IIA). Regional variation for complete surgical staging showed two regions performing outside the confidence intervals (12.5% and 25.5%, mean 40%). Conclusion: Guideline adherence for staging was lower than expected and validation of data gave additional insights into the reasons that were contributing to incomplete surgical staging. Moreover, this analysis showed that regional variation for surgical staging exists, which forms a starting point to improve and harmonize staging procedures for these patients nationwide. Show less
Olthof, E.P.; Wenzel, H.; Velden, J. van der; Spijkerboer, A.M.; Bekkers, R.; Beltman, J.J.; ... ; Mom, C. 2022
Objective Treatment strategies for bulky lymph nodes in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer scheduled for definitive chemoradiation include nodal boosting with radiotherapy, surgical... Show moreObjective Treatment strategies for bulky lymph nodes in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer scheduled for definitive chemoradiation include nodal boosting with radiotherapy, surgical debulking, or both. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare survival and toxicity in patients receiving these treatments and to compare them with a group that received neither form of treatment. Methods Women diagnosed between January 2009 and January 2017 with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB2, IIA2-IVA cervical cancer with lymph nodes >= 1.5 cm without upper limit on pretreatment imaging and treated with definitive chemoradiation were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were categorized by intention-to-treat strategy: boosting, debulking, or neither treatment, with subgroup analysis for patients receiving both treatments, that is, debulking with boosting. Overall and relapse-free survival outcomes were compared by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses and toxicity by logistic regression analysis. Results Of 190 patients, 101 (53%) received only nodal boosting, 31 (16%) debulking alone, 29 (15%) debulking combined with boosting, and 29 (15%) received neither treatment. The 5 year overall and relapse-free survival for the treatment groups were 58%, 45% and 45% (p=0.19), and 47%, 44% and 46% (p=0.87), respectively. Multivariable Cox regression analyses demonstrated no differences in overall and relapse-free survival. Combination of debulking with boosting was associated with decreased overall and relapse-free survival compared with debulking alone (HR 2.47, 95% CI 1.22 to 5.00; and HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.93). Nodal boosting was independently associated with a decreased toxicity risk compared with debulking strategy (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.83). Conclusions This study showed no survival benefit from either nodal boosting or debulking strategy in patients with suspicious bulky nodes. Nodal boosting might, however, be associated with less toxicity. Dual treatment with debulking and boosting showed a worse survival outcome because this group probably represents patients with poor prognostic factors. Show less
