39 research outputs found
European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer
Background: optimizing and ensuring the quality of surgical care is essential to improve the management and outcome of patients with cervical cancer.To develop a list of quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice. Methods: quality indicators were developed using a four-step evaluation process that included a systematic literature search to identify potential quality indicators, in-person meetings of an ad hoc group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large panel of European clinicians and patient representatives. Results: fifteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were selected. Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are also detailed to define how the indicator will be measured in practice. Each indicator has a target which gives practitioners and health administrators a quantitative basis for improving care and organizational processes. Discussion: implementation of institutional quality assurance programs can improve quality of care, even in high-volume centers. This set of quality indicators from the European Society of Gynaecological Cancer may be a major instrument to improve the quality of surgical treatment of cervical cancer
ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer – Update 2023*
Funding Information: Open access publishing supported by the National Technical Library in Prague. Funding Information: The authors thank ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP for their support. The authors also thank the 155 international reviewers (physicians and patient representatives, see Appendix 2 ) for their valuable comments and suggestions. The authors thank the ESGO office, especially Kamila Macku, Tereza Cicakova, and Kateřina Šibravová, provided invaluable logistical and administrative support throughout the process. Publisher Copyright: © 2023, ESGO, ESTRO, ESP.In 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer. To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.publishersversionpublishe
ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer - Update 2023∗
In 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer.To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined
ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer – Update 2023
Funding Information: The authors thank ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP for their support. The authors also thank the 155 international reviewers (physicians and patient representatives, see Appendix 2 in Online Supplemental File 2) for their valuable comments and suggestions. The authors thank the ESGO office, especially Kamila Macku, Tereza Cicakova, and Kateřina Šibravová, provided invaluable logistical and administrative support throughout the process. The development group (including all authors) is collectively responsible for the decision to submit for publication. DC (chair), JL (chair), MRR (chair) and FP (methodologist) wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All other contributors have actively given personal input, reviewed the manuscript, and have given final approval before submission. DC is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor. Initiated through the ESGO the decision to develop multidisciplinary guidelines was made jointly by the ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP. The ESGO provided administrative support. The ESGO, ESTRO and ESP are nonprofit knowledgeable societies. *These guidelines were developed by ESGO, ESTRO and ESP and are published in the Int J Gynecol Cancer, Radiother Oncol and Virchows Archiv. CCh has reported advisory boards for GSK, MSD and EISAI; SFL has reported advisory boards for MSD, GSK, AstraZeneca and Novartis; DL has reported consultant honoria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Seagen and PharmaMar, advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Seagen, Immunogen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept and Sutro, research institutional funding from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar, research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Seagen and Novartis, and speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; UM has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca (Steering committee member for CALLA Study); RN has reported research grants from Elekta, Varian, Accuray, Dutch Research Council, and Dutch Cancer Society; AO has reported personal fees for advisory board membersip from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab/Seagen, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana, SA, Mersana Thereapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, piIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Sutro Biopharma and Tesaro, and personal fees for travel/accomodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; DQ has reported advisory boards for Mimark inc; MPS has reported research grants and personal fees for workshops from Elekta AB; DC, MRR, FP, CC, AF, DF, DJK, FJ, CK, PM, RN, FPec, JP, SR, AS, VS, KT, IZ and JCL have reported no conflicts of interest. Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed. Not applicable. Not applicable. David Cibula, Maria Rosaria Raspollini, François Planchamp, Carlos Centeno, Cyrus Chargari, Ana Felix, Daniela Fischerova, Daniela Jahn-Kuch, Florence Joly, Christhardt Kohler, Sigurd F. Lax, Domenica Lorusso, Umesh Mahantshetty, Patrice Mathevet, Raj Naik, Remi Nout, Ana Oaknin, Fedro Peccatori, Jan Persson, Denis Querleu, Sandra Rubio, Maximilian Paul Schmid, Artem Stepanyan, Valentyn Svintsitskyi, Karl Tamussino, Ignacio Zapardiel, Jacob Christian Lindegaard. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Funding Information: CCh has reported advisory boards for GSK, MSD and EISAI; SFL has reported advisory boards for MSD, GSK, AstraZeneca and Novartis; DL has reported consultant honoria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Seagen and PharmaMar, advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Seagen, Immunogen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept and Sutro, research institutional funding from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar, research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Seagen and Novartis, and speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; UM has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca (Steering committee member for CALLA Study); RN has reported research grants from Elekta, Varian, Accuray, Dutch Research Council, and Dutch Cancer Society; AO has reported personal fees for advisory board membersip from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab/Seagen, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana, SA, Mersana Thereapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, piIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Sutro Biopharma and Tesaro, and personal fees for travel/accomodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; DQ has reported advisory boards for Mimark inc; MPS has reported research grants and personal fees for workshops from Elekta AB; DC, MRR, FP, CC, AF, DF, DJK, FJ, CK, PM, RN, FPec, JP, SR, AS, VS, KT, IZ and JCL have reported no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 ESGO, ESTRO, ESPIn 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer. To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.publishersversionpublishe
An International Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Radical Hysterectomy and Pelvic Node Dissection (RH) vs Simple Hysterectomy and Pelvic Node Dissection (SH) in Patients with Low-Risk Early-Stage Cervical Cancer (LRESCC). A Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Study led by Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG CX.5-SHAPE).
peer reviewe
Patient Reported Outcomes From CCTG CX.5 (SHAPE): Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Hysterectomy (RH) And Pelvic Node Dissection (PND) Vs Simple Hysterectomy (SH) And PND In Women With Low-Risk Early-Stag
peer reviewe
Central Pathology Review in SENTIX, a Prospective Observational International Study on Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer (ENGOT-CX2)
The quality of pathological assessment is crucial for the safety of patients with cervical cancer if pelvic lymph node dissection is to be replaced by sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy. Central pathology review of SLN pathological ultrastaging was conducted in the prospective SENTIX/European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial (ENGOT)-CX2 study. All specimens from at least two patients per site were submitted for the central review. For cases with major or critical deviations, the sites were requested to submit all samples from all additional patients for second-round assessment. From the group of 300 patients, samples from 83 cases from 37 sites were reviewed in the first round. Minor, major, critical, and no deviations were identified in 28%, 19%, 14%, and 39% of cases, respectively. Samples from 26 patients were submitted for the second-round review, with only two major deviations found. In conclusion, a high rate of major or critical deviations was identified in the first round of the central pathology review (28% of samples). This reflects a substantial heterogeneity in current practice, despite trial protocol requirements. The importance of the central review conducted prospectively at the early phase of the trial is demonstrated by a substantial improvement of SLN ultrastaging quality in the second-round review
Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans of the vulva: a case report
Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is a low-grade to intermediate-grade well-differentiated sarcoma of dermal origin. Local recurrence rates are high but distant metastases are rare. This report describes a case of vulvar DFSP requiring four resections for primary clearance. A 56-year-old woman referred after excision of a vulvar tumour and histology had DFSP extending to the resection margins. Two more extended excisions again yielded a specimen with positive margins. The last excision was performed with intraoperative frozen section analysis of the margins. Frozen section analysis of the resected specimen revealed clear margins and this was confirmed by final pathology. The postoperative course was uneventful. The patient has been without recurrence for 15 months. A wide and deep local excision is recommended for both primary and recurrent lesions. The patient had three resections before clear surgical margins were achieved. Intraoperative frozen section analysis is helpful in assessing resection margins
Quality of life and objective outcome assessment in women with tape division after surgery for stress urinary incontinence.
BACKGROUND:Midurethral tapes may cause long-term complications such as voiding dysfunction, groin pain, de novo urgency or mesh erosion, which necessitate a reoperation. There is a paucity of data regarding health related quality of life in patients undergoing tape removal. The aim of the study was to evaluate quality of life (QoL) and objective outcome after midurethral tape division or excision. METHODS:All patients who underwent a midurethral tape division for voiding difficulties, pain or therapy resistant de novo overactive bladder between 1999 and 2014 were invited for follow-up. A control group with a suburethral tape without division was established in a 1:2 ratio and matched for age, tape used and year of tape insertion. Patients completed the Kings´ Health Questionnaire (KHQ), Incontinence Outcome Questionnaire, Female Sexual Function Index Questionnaire and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement score. RESULTS:Tape division or excision was performed in 32 women. Overall, 15 (60%) of 25 women who were alive were available for clinical examination and completed the questionnaires. Tape division was performed for voiding dysfunction (n = 7), overactive bladder (n = 2), mesh extrusion (n = 3) and ongoing pain (n = 3). Median time to tape division/excision was 10 months. Three women in the tape division group had undergone reoperation for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). At a median follow-up of 11 years (IQR 9-13) subjective SUI rate was 53% (8/15 women) in the tape division group and 17% (5/30) in the control group (p = 0.016), with no significant differences in objective SUI rates between groups. With regard to quality of life, the study group had significantly worse scores in the SUI related domains role limitation, physical limitation, severity measures and social limitations (KHQ) compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS:Women needing tape division or excision have lower SUI related QoL scores compared to controls mostly because of higher subjective SUI rates
Vulvodynia and chronic pelvic pain in a gynecologic outpatient clinic
Introduction: Vulvodynia and chronic pelvic pain are common but underdiagnosed chronic gynecologic pain syndromes. Insufficient knowledge regarding prevalence, typical pain patterns and associated factors contribute to delayed diagnosis. The present study explored the symptoms and characteristics of women presenting with vulvodynia and/or chronic pelvic pain to a gynecologic outpatient clinic. Materials and methods: Electronic charts of women diagnosed with vulvodynia and/or chronic pelvic pain between January 2010 and December 2015 were reviewed. Type of pain, duration of symptoms, previous medical assessments and therapies, comorbidities and patient characteristics were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results: One hundred and twenty-seven women (mean age 36, range 18–75 years) met the diagnostic criteria for chronic gynecologic pain syndromes. Sixty-five women were diagnosed with CPP only, 42 with vulvodynia and 20 with both conditions. Endometriosis was suspected or diagnosed in 35 (54%) women with CPP. History of pain ranged from 3 months to 20 years. Comorbidities were common, with 40% of women being diagnosed with depression or other mood disorders, 15% with urological and 9% with gastrointestinal conditions. Conclusions: There is a need for increased awareness regarding vulvodynia and CPP among health care providers. A comprehensive history is important for adequate diagnosis