BACKGROUND: This report describes the oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had bowel surgery performed by gynecologic oncologists (GOs) and compares the outcomes with those for bowel surgery performed by general surgeons (GSs) during maximal cytoreductive surgery.
METHODS: Patients from six academic institutions who had FIGO stage III or IV ovarian cancer and underwent any bowel surgeries during maximal cytoreductive surgery were eligible for the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether bowel surgery was performed by a GO or a GS. In both groups, the GOs were mainly involved in extra bowel debulking procedures. Perioperative and survival outcomes were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The 761 patients in this study included 113 patients who underwent bowel surgery by a GO and 648 who had bowel surgery by a GS. No discernible differences were observed in age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, FIGO stage, histologic type, timing of cytoreductive surgery (primary or interval debulking surgery), or complications between the two groups. The GO group exhibited a shorter operation time than the GS group. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no survival differences between the two groups. In the Cox analysis, non-serous cell types and gross residual diseases were associated with adverse effects on overall survival. However, performance of bowel surgery by a GO did not have an impact on survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Performance of bowel surgery by a GO during maximal cytoreductive surgery is both feasible and safe. These results should be reflected in the training system for GOs regarding bowel surgery, and further research is needed to confirm that GOs can play a more leading role in performing extra-uterine procedures.

To assess (i) clinical and pregnancy characteristics, (ii) patterns of surgical procedures, and (iii) surgical morbidity associated with cesarean hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum based on the specialty of the attending surgeon.
The Premier Healthcare Database was queried retrospectively to study patients with placenta accreta spectrum who underwent cesarean delivery and concurrent hysterectomy from 2016 to 2020. Surgical morbidity was assessed with propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting based on surgeon specialty for hysterectomy: general obstetrician-gynecologists, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, and gynecologic oncologists.
A total of 2240 cesarean hysterectomies were studies. The most common surgeon type was general obstetrician-gynecologist (n = 1534, 68.5%), followed by gynecologic oncologist (n = 532, 23.8%) and maternal-fetal medicine specialist (n = 174, 7.8%). Patients in the gynecologic oncologist group had the highest rate of placenta increta or percreta, followed by the maternal-fetal medicine specialist and general obstetrician-gynecologist groups (43.4%, 39.6%, and 30.6%, P < .001). In a propensity score-weighted model, measured surgical morbidity was similar across the three subspecialty groups, including hemorrhage / blood transfusion (59.4-63.7%), bladder injury (18.3-24.0%), ureteral injury (2.2-4.3%), shock (8.6-10.5%), and coagulopathy (3.3-7.4%) (all, P > .05). Among the cesarean hysterectomy performed by gynecologic oncologist, hemorrhage / transfusion rates remained substantial despite additional surgical procedures: tranexamic acid / ureteral stent (60.4%), tranexamic acid / endo-arterial procedure (76.2%), ureteral stent / endo-arterial procedure (51.6%), and all three procedures (55.4%). Tranexamic acid administration with ureteral stent placement was associated with decreased bladder injury (12.8% vs 23.8-32.2%, P < .001).
These data suggest that patient characteristics and surgical procedures related to cesarean hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum differ based on surgeon specialty. Gynecologic oncologists appear to manage more severe forms of placenta accreta spectrum. Regardless of surgeon\'s specialty, surgical morbidity of cesarean hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum is significant.

暂无摘要。

Background: Treatment by a gynecologic oncologist is an important part of ovarian cancer care; however, implementation strategies are needed to increase care by these specialists. We partnered with National Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs in Iowa, Michigan, and Rhode Island in a demonstration project to deepen the evidence base for promising strategies that would facilitate care for ovarian cancer by gynecologic oncologists. Methods: Five main implementation strategies (increase knowledge/awareness; improve models of care; improve payment structures; increase insurance coverage; enhance workforce) were identified in the literature and used to develop initiatives. Specific activities were chosen by state programs according to feasibility and needs. Results: Activities included: (1) qualitative interviews with patients to determine barriers to receipt of specialized care; (2) development of patient/provider educational materials; (3) creation of patient/provider checklists to facilitate appropriate referrals; (4) expansion of a toll-free patient navigation hotline for ovarian cancer patients; (5) training of the health care workforce. The programs developed resources (educational handouts, toolkits, 2 webinars, 2 podcasts); trained 167 medical and nursing students during 8 Survivors Teaching Students® workshops; and conducted 3 provider education sessions reaching 362 providers in 45 states. Evaluations showed increases in providers\' knowledge, awareness, abilities, and intentions to refer ovarian cancer patients to a gynecologic oncologist. Conclusion: The state program resources we discussed are available for other cancer control programs interested in initiating or expanding activities to improve access/referrals to gynecologic oncologists for ovarian cancer care. They serve as a valuable repository for public health professionals seeking to implement similar interventions.

UNASSIGNED: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that patients with ovarian cancer receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist. However, 15%-30% of patients with ovarian cancer do not receive surgical care from this specialist. The reasons for this remain unknown. We aim at assessing the barriers and attitudes perceived by patients with ovarian cancer who did not receive their primary surgery from a gynecologic oncologist and by diagnosing providers in an exploratory qualitative study.
UNASSIGNED: Patients and providers were sampled through the Iowa Cancer Registry. Participants were interviewed by telephone about barriers that patients face receiving surgical care from a specialist. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was completed by two team members.
UNASSIGNED: Providers (n = 10, 13% participation rate) identified many system-level barriers, including poor provider-to-provider communication, long time-to-surgery wait times, and a limited number of gynecologic oncologists working in their referral range. Patients (n = 16, 38% participation rate) denied system-level barriers; however, no patients reported receiving a referral to a gynecologic oncologist. This, in and of itself, constitutes a system-level barrier. Providers identified many barriers that their patients face, whereas patients failed to identify these barriers and denied facing them. Patients described the shock that they experienced after diagnosis and its limitations on their decision-making process. Both providers and patients agreed that the providers were influential in determining care decisions.
UNASSIGNED: There is a divergence in the perceptions of barriers to care between providers and patients. Open discussions are needed about options and clinical guidelines for surgical ovarian cancer care. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate mechanisms to improve provider-to-patient discussions about surgical recommendations.

Practice guidelines advocating for regionalization of endometrial cancer surgery to gynecologic oncologists practicing in designated gynecologic oncology centres were published in Ontario in June 2013. Our objectives were to determine whether this policy affected surgical wait times, and whether longer wait time to surgery is a predictor of survival in high grade endometrial cancer patients.
This was a population-based retrospective cohort study, which included patients diagnosed with high-grade non-endometrioid endometrial cancer who had a hysterectomy between 2003 and 2017. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with a spline function was used to model the relationship between surgical wait time and overall survival (OS).
We identified 3518 patients who underwent hysterectomy for high-grade non-endometrioid endometrial cancer. Patients who had surgery with a gynecologic oncologist had a median surgical wait time from diagnosis to hysterectomy of 53 days compared to 57 days pre-regionalization (p = 0.0007), and from first gynecologic oncology consultation to hysterectomy of 29 days compared to 32 days pre-regionalization (p = 0.0006). Survival was inferior for patients who had surgery within 14 days of diagnosis (HR death 2.7 for 1-7 days, 95% CI 1.61-4.51, and HR death 1.96 for 8-14 days, 95% CI 1.50-2.57), reflective of disease severity. Decreased survival occurred with surgical wait times of more than 45 days from the patient\'s first gynecologic oncology appointment (HR death 1.19 for 46-60 days, 95% CI 1.04-1.36, and HR death 1.42 for 61-75 days, 95% CI 1.11-1.83).
Regionalization of surgery for high-grade endometrial cancer has not had an impact on surgical wait times. Patients who have surgery more than 45 days after surgical consultation have reduced survival.

We aim to evaluate the impact gynecologic oncologists have on ovarian cancer adjuvant chemotherapy care from their role as surgeons recommending adjuvant chemotherapy care and their role as adjuvant chemotherapy providers while considering rural-urban differences.
Multivariable adjusted logistic regressions and Cox proportional hazards models were developed using a population-based, retrospective cohort of stage II-IV and unknown stage ovarian cancer patients diagnosed in Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri in 2010-2012 whose medical records were abstracted in 2017-2018.
Gynecologic oncologist surgeons (versus other type of surgeon) were associated with increased odds of adjuvant chemotherapy initiation (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-4.33) and having a gynecologic oncologist adjuvant chemotherapy provider (OR 10.0; 95% CI 4.58-21.8). Independent of type of surgeon, rural patients were less likely to have a gynecologic oncologist chemotherapy provider (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.91). Gynecologic oncologist adjuvant chemotherapy providers (versus other providers) were associated with decreased surgery-to-chemotherapy time (rural: 6 days; urban: 8 days) and increased distance to chemotherapy (rural: 22 miles; urban: 11 miles). Rural women (versus urban) traveled 38 miles farther when their chemotherapy provider was a gynecologic oncologist and 27 miles farther when it was not.
Gynecologic oncologist surgeons may impact adjuvant chemotherapy initiation. Gynecologic oncologists serving as adjuvant chemotherapy providers were associated with some care benefits, such as reduced time from surgery-to-chemotherapy, and some care barriers, such as travel distance. The barriers and benefits of having a gynecologic oncologist involved in adjuvant chemotherapy care, including rural-urban differences, warrant further research in other populations.

Palliative care evidently increases the quality of life among the patients with advanced cancer. However, there are very few studies on the aspects of the physicians\' ideas, conceptions, or the effects of their ideas in palliative care quality, especially in Asian countries. This study aimed to evaluate the conception and perspective on palliative care in Thai gynecologic oncologists.
The online survey was distributed to all certificated Thai gynecologic oncologists. The survey could be accessed via working email address, hyperlink, or QR code during May 2020 and January 2021. A 5-point Likert scale captured the perspectives and concepts of palliative care. The association between respondents\' characteristics and their choices of content in palliative care, together with their decision making in specified clinical scenarios was analyzed.
A total of 207 completed surveys from 320 Thai gynecologic oncologists were received (64.69% participation rate). They prospected a willingness to give the advices to both patients and their families (85.50%), and strongly agreed to introduce palliative care in any stage of cancer at the time of diagnosis (75.80%). The numbers of their palliative cases per year were 5-20 (57.97%) and the palliative care teams were available in their hospitals. They decided to offer early palliative care and do-not-resuscitate, especially for the elders, or patients with advance stages, or recurrent disease. We found that gynecologic oncologists who previously experienced a palliative care training did not show any difference in decision making in specified clinical scenarios, compared with who did not.
Thai gynecologic oncologists responded to the conceptions and perspectives in palliative care. Their concepts of early and willingness to offer a palliative care especially in the elders, advanced stage, or recurrent patients were proven, regardless of the experience in palliative care training.

Evidence shows that treatment by gynecologic oncologists (GOs) increases overall survival among women with ovarian cancer. However, specific strategies for institutions and community-based public health programs to promote treatment by GOs are lacking. To address this, we conducted a literature review to identify evidence-based and promising system- and environmental-change strategies for increasing treatment by GOs, in effort to ensure that all women with ovarian cancer receive the standard of care. We searched for English-language literature published from 2008 to 2018. We used PubMed, PubMed Central, OVID, and EBSCO for peer-reviewed literature and Google and Google Scholar for gray literature related to increasing receipt of care by GOs among ovarian cancer patients. Numerous suggested and proposed strategies that have potential to increase treatment by GOs were discussed in several articles. We grouped these approaches into five strategic categories: increasing knowledge/awareness of role and importance of GOs, improving models of care, improving payment structures, improving/increasing insurance coverage for GO care, and expanding or enhancing the GO workforce. We identified several strategies with the potential for increasing GO care among ovarian cancer patients, although currently there is little evidence regarding their effectiveness across US populations. Public health programs and entities that measure delivery of quality health care may pilot the strategies in their populations. Certain strategies may work better in certain environments and a combination of strategies may be necessary for any one entity to increase GO ovarian cancer care. Findings, lessons learned, and recommendations from implementation projects would inform community and public health practice.

In June 2013, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), the agency responsible for advancing cancer care in Ontario, Canada, published practice guidelines recommending that gynecologic oncologists at tertiary care centers manage the treatment of patients with high-grade endometrial cancers. This study examines the effects of this regionalization of care on patient outcomes.
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the regionalization of surgery for high-grade endometrial cancer on patient and treatment outcomes.
In this retrospective cohort study, patients diagnosed with nonendometrioid high-grade endometrial cancer from 2003 to 2017 were identified using province-wide administrative databases. To allow 6 months for knowledge translation, 2 periods were defined, with January 1, 2014, as the cutoff. Methods for segmented regression were used to test the effect of the guidelines. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate whether regionalization of care had an impact on patient survival.
There were 3518 patients with nonendometrioid high-grade endometrial cancer identified. The case mix as represented by patient comorbidities and the disease stage distribution did not differ significantly between the 2 regionalization periods. There was a significant increase (69%-85%; P<.001) in the proportion of primary surgeries performed by gynecologic oncologists after regionalization, which was not explained by secular trends. After regionalization, the proportion of patients who had surgical staging (50%-63%; P<.001) and the proportion of patients who received adjuvant treatment (65%-71%; P<.001) increased significantly. After adjusting for age, stage, and comorbidities, there was a decrease in the hazard of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.99]; P=.04) after regionalization.
The publication of a regionalization policy for the treatment of high-grade endometrial cancers in Ontario led to an increase in the proportion of surgeries performed by gynecologic oncologists. This also translated into a significant improvement in patient survival.