暂无摘要。

Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy reduces mortality from high-grade serous carcinoma in patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer associated gene mutations. Ideal surgical management includes 5 steps outlined in 2005 by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In addition, it is recommended that pathologic examination include serial sectioning of specimens. In practice, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is performed by both gynecologic oncologists and general gynecologists. To ensure optimal detection of occult malignancy, standardized adherence to outlined guidelines is necessary.
This study aimed to evaluate the adherence to optimal surgical and pathologic examination guidelines and to compare the rate of occult malignancy at the time of surgery between 2 provider types.
Institutional review board exemption was obtained. A retrospective review of patients undergoing risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy without hysterectomy from October 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020, at 3 sites within a healthcare system was conducted. The inclusion criteria included age ≥18 years and a documented indication for surgery being a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 or a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Compliance with 5 surgical steps and pathologic specimen preparation was based on medical record documentation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine differences in adherence between provider groups and surgical and pathologic examination guidelines. A P value of <.025 was considered statistically significant for the 2 primary outcomes after Bonferroni correction was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons.
A total of 185 patients were included. Among the 96 cases performed by gynecologic oncologists, 69 (72%) performed all 5 steps of surgery, 22 (23%) performed 4 steps, 5 (5%) performed 3 steps, and none performed 1 or 2 steps. Among the 89 cases performed by general gynecologists, 4 (5%) performed all 5 steps, 33 (37%) performed 4 steps, 38 (43%) performed 3 steps, 13 (15%) performed 2 steps, and 1 (1%) performed 1 step. Gynecologic oncologists were more likely to document adherence to all 5 recommended surgical steps in their surgical dictation (odds ratio, 54.3; 95% confidence interval, 18.1-162.7; P<.0001). Among the 96 cases documented by gynecologic oncologists, 41 (43%) had serial sectioning of all specimens performed, compared with 23 of 89 cases (26%) performed by general gynecologists. No difference in adherence to pathologic guidelines was identified between the 2 provider groups (P=.0489; note: P value of >.025). Overall, 5 patients (2.70%) had occult malignancy diagnosed at the time of risk-reducing surgery, with all surgeries performed by general gynecologists.
Our results demonstrated greater compliance with surgical guidelines for risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in gynecologic oncologists than in general gynecologists. No considerable difference was determined between the 2 provider types in adherence to pathologic guidelines. Our findings demonstrated a need for institution-wide protocol education and implementation of standardized nomenclature to ensure provider adherence to evidence-based guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Reliably diagnosing or safely excluding serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC), a precursor lesion of tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), is crucial for individual patient care, for better understanding the oncogenesis of HGSC, and for safely investigating novel strategies to prevent tubo-ovarian carcinoma. To optimize STIC diagnosis and increase its reproducibility, we set up a three-round Delphi study.
RESULTS: In round 1, an international expert panel of 34 gynecologic pathologists, from 11 countries, was assembled to provide input regarding STIC diagnosis, which was used to develop a set of statements. In round 2, the panel rated their level of agreement with those statements on a 9-point Likert scale. In round 3, statements without previous consensus were rated again by the panel while anonymously disclosing the responses of the other panel members. Finally, each expert was asked to approve or disapprove the complete set of consensus statements. The panel indicated their level of agreement with 64 statements. A total of 27 statements (42%) reached consensus after three rounds. These statements reflect the entire diagnostic work-up for pathologists, regarding processing and macroscopy (three statements); microscopy (eight statements); immunohistochemistry (nine statements); interpretation and reporting (four statements); and miscellaneous (three statements). The final set of consensus statements was approved by 85%.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an overview of current clinical practice regarding STIC diagnosis amongst expert gynecopathologists. The experts\' consensus statements form the basis for a set of recommendations, which may help towards more consistent STIC diagnosis.

This study aims to provide guidance for the use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy in women with newly diagnosed stage II-IV epithelial ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma.
EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were investigated for relevant systematic reviews and phase III trials. Articles focusing on consolidation and maintenance therapies were excluded.
For women with potentially resectable disease, primary cytoreductive surgery, followed by six to eight cycles of intravenous three-weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin is recommended. For those with a high-risk profile for primary cytoreductive surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be an option. Adjuvant chemotherapy with six cycles of dose-dense weekly paclitaxel plus three-weekly carboplatin can be considered for women of Japanese descent. In women with stage III or IV disease, the incorporation of bevacizumab concurrent with paclitaxel and carboplatin is not recommended for use as adjuvant therapy unless bevacizumab is continued as maintenance therapy. Intravenous paclitaxel plus intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel can be considered for stage III optimally debulked women who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, intraperitoneal administration of chemotherapy with bevacizumab should not be considered as an option for stage II-IV optimally debulked women.
The recommendations represent a current standard of care that is feasible to implement and valued by both clinicians and patients.

To provide recommendations on systemic therapy options in consolidation or maintenance therapy for women with newly diagnosed stage II, III, or IV epithelial ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma including all histological types.
Consistent with the Program in Evidence-based Program\'s standardized approach, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO (the international prospective register of systematic reviews) databases, and four relevant conferences were systematically searched. The Working Group drafted recommendations and revised them based on the comments from internal and external reviewers.
We have one recommendation for consolidation therapy and eight recommendations for maintenance therapy. Overall, consolidation therapy with chemotherapy should not be recommended in the target population. For maintenance therapy, we recommended olaparib (Recommendation), niraparib (Weak Recommendation), veliparib (Weak Recommendation), and bevacizumab (Weak Recommendation) for certain patients with newly diagnosed stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma, respectively. We do not recommend some agents as maintenance therapy in four recommendations. We are unable to specify the patient population by histological types for different maintenance therapy recommendations. When new evidence that can impact the recommendations is available, the recommendations will be updated as soon as possible.

The fifth edition of the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines for the treatment of ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer was published in 2020. The guidelines contain 6 chapters-namely, (1) overview of the guidelines; (2) epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer; (3) recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer; (4) borderline epithelial tumors of the ovary; (5) malignant germ cell tumors of the ovary; and (6) malignant sex cord-stromal tumors. Furthermore, the guidelines comprise 5 algorithms-namely, (1) initial treatment for ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer; (2) treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer; (3) initial treatment for borderline epithelial ovarian tumor; (4) treatment for malignant germ cell tumor; and (5) treatment for sex cord-stromal tumor. Major changes in the new edition include the following: (1) revision of the title to \"guidelines for the treatment of ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer\"; (2) involvement of patients and general (male/female) participants in addition to physicians, pharmacists, and nurses; (3) clinical questions (CQs) in the PICO format; (4) change in the expression of grades of recommendation and level of evidence in accordance with the GRADE system; (5) introduction of the idea of a body of evidence; (6) categorization of references according to research design; (7) performance of systematic reviews and meta-analysis for three CQs; and (8) voting for each CQ/recommendation and description of the consensus.

The British Gynecological Cancer Society and the British Association of Gynecological Pathologists established a multidisciplinary consensus group comprising experts in surgical gynecological oncology, medical oncology, genetics, and laboratory science, and clinical nurse specialists to identify the optimal pathways to BRCA germline and tumor testing in patients with ovarian cancer in routine clinical practice. In particular, the group explored models of consent, quality standards identified at pathology laboratories, and experience and data from pioneering cancer centers. The group liaised with representatives from ovarian cancer charities to also identify patient perspectives that would be important to implementation. Recommendations from these consensus group deliberations are presented in this manuscript.

To aid primary care physicians, emergency medicine physicians, and gynaecologists in the initial investigation of adnexal masses, defined as lumps that appear near the uterus or in or around ovaries, fallopian tubes, or surrounding connective tissue, and to outline recommendations for identifying women who would benefit from a referral to a gynaecologic oncologist for further management.
Gynaecologists, obstetricians, family physicians, general surgeons, emergency medicine specialists, radiologists, sonographers, nurses, medical learners, residents, and fellows.
Adult women 18 years of age and older presenting for the evaluation of an adnexal mass.
Women with adnexal masses should be assessed for personal risk factors, history, and physical findings. Initial evaluation should also include imaging and laboratory testing to triage women for management of their care either by a gynaecologic oncologist or as per SOGC guideline no. 404 on the initial investigation and management of benign ovarian masses.
A search of PubMed, Cochrane Wiley, and the Cochrane systematic reviews was conducted in January 2018 for English-language materials involving human subjects published since 2000 using three sets of terms: (i) ovarian cancer, ovarian carcinoma, adnexal disease, ovarian neoplasm, adnexal mass, fallopian tube disease, fallopian tube neoplasm, ovarian cyst, and ovarian tumour; (ii) the above terms in combination with predict neoplasm staging, follow-up, and staging; and (iii) the above two sets of terms in combination with ultrasound, tumour marker, CA 125, CEA, CA19-9, HE4, multivariable-index-assay, risk-of-ovarian-malignancy-algorithm, risk-of-malignancy-index, diagnostic imaging, CT, MRI, and PET. Relevant evidence was selected for inclusion in descending order of quality of evidence as follows: meta-analyses, systematic reviews, guidelines, randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, observational studies, non-systematic reviews, case series, and reports. Additional articles were identified through cross-referencing the identified reviews. The total number of studies identified was 2350, with 59 being included in this review.
The content and recommendations were drafted and agreed upon by the authors. The Executive and Board of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada reviewed the content and submitted comments for consideration. The Board of Directors of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada approved the final draft for publication. The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology framework (Table A1 of Online Appendix A). See Table A2 of Online Appendix A for the interpretation of strong and weak recommendations. The summary of findings is available upon request.
Adnexal masses are common, and guidelines on how to triage them and manage the care of patients presenting with adnexal masses will continue to guide the practice of primary care providers and gynaecologists. Ovarian cancer outcomes are improved when initial surgery is performed by a gynaecologic oncologist, likely as a result of complete surgical staging and optimal cytoreduction. Given these superior outcomes, guidelines to assist in the triage of adnexal masses and the referral and management of the care of patients with an adnexal mass are critical.
RECOMMENDATIONS (GRADE RATINGS IN PARENTHESES).

To evaluate health care provider adherence to the surgical protocol endorsed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists at the time of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and compare adherence between gynecologic oncologists and obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns).
In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, women were included if they had a pathogenic BRCA mutation and underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy between 2011 and 2017. Adherence was defined as completing all of the following: collection of washings, complete resection of the fallopian tube, and performing the Sectioning and Extensively Examining the Fimbriated End (SEE-FIM) pathologic protocol.
Of 290 patients who met inclusion criteria, 160 patients were treated by 18 gynecologic oncologists and 130 patients by 75 ob-gyns. Surgery was performed at 10 different hospitals throughout a single metropolitan area. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, 199 cases (69%) were adherent to the surgical protocol. Gynecologic oncologists were more than twice as likely to fully adhere to the full surgical protocol as ob-gyns (91% vs 41%, P<.01). Specifically, gynecologic oncologists were more likely to resect the entire tube (99% vs 95%, P=.03), to have followed the SEE-FIM protocol (98% vs 82%, P<.01), and collect washings (94% vs 49%, P<.01). Complication rates did not differ between groups. Occult neoplasia was diagnosed in 11 patients (3.8%). The incidence of occult neoplasia was 6.3% in gynecologic oncology patients and 0.8% in obstetrics and gynecology patients (P=.03).
Despite clear surgical guidelines, only two thirds of all health care providers were fully adherent to guidelines. Gynecologic oncologists were more likely to follow surgical guidelines compared with general ob-gyns and more likely to diagnose occult neoplasia despite similar patient populations. Rates of risk-reducing surgery will likely continue to increase as genetic testing becomes more widespread, highlighting the importance of health care provider education for this procedure. Centralized care or referral to subspecialists for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy may be warranted.

An MRI is recommended for an ovarian mass that is indeterminate on ultrasound. The ROMA score (combining CA125 and HE4) can also be calculated (grade A). In presumed early-stage ovarian or tubal cancers, the following procedures should be performed: an omentectomy (at a minimum, infracolic), an appendectomy, multiple peritoneal biopsies, peritoneal cytology (grade C), and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomies (grade B) for all histologic types, except the expansile mucinous subtypes, for which lymphadenectomies can be omitted (grade C). Minimally invasive surgery is recommended for early-stage ovarian cancer, when there is no risk of tumor rupture (grade B). For FIGO stages III or IV ovarian, tubal, and primary peritoneal cancers, a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan of the thorax/abdomen/pelvis is recommended (grade B), as well as laparoscopic exploration to take multiple biopsies (grade A) and a carcinomatosis score (Fagotti score at a minimum) (grade C) to assess the possibility of complete surgery (i.e., leaving no macroscopic tumor residue). Complete surgery by a midline laparotomy is recommended for advanced ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (grade B). For advanced cancers, para-aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomies are recommended when metastatic adenopathy is clinically or radiologically suspected (grade B). When adenopathy is not suspected and when complete peritoneal surgery is performed as the initial surgery for advanced cancer, the lymphadenectomies can be omitted because they do not modify either the medical treatment or overall survival (grade B). Primary surgery (before other treatment) is recommended whenever it appears possible to leave no tumor residue (grade B).