Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Aug;22(4):e282-93.
doi: 10.3747/co.22.2482.

The optimal organization of gynecologic oncology services: a systematic review

Affiliations
Review

The optimal organization of gynecologic oncology services: a systematic review

M Fung-Kee-Fung et al. Curr Oncol. 2015 Aug.

Abstract

Background: A system-level organizational guideline for gynecologic oncology was identified by a provincial cancer agency as a key priority based on input from stakeholders, data showing more limited availability of multidisciplinary or specialist care in lower-volume than in higher-volume hospitals in the relevant jurisdiction, and variable rates of staging for ovarian and endometrial cancer patients.

Methods: A systematic review assessed the relationship of the organization of gynecologic oncology services with patient survival and surgical outcomes. The electronic databases medline and embase (ovid: 1996 through 9 January 2015) were searched using terms related to gynecologic malignancies combined with organization of services, patterns of care, and various facility and physician characteristics. Outcomes of interest included overall or disease-specific survival, short-term survival, adequate staging, and degree of cytoreduction or optimal cytoreduction (or both) for ovarian cancer patients by hospital or physician type, and rate of discrepancy in initial diagnoses and intraoperative consultation between non-specialist pathologists and gyne-oncology-specialist pathologists.

Results: One systematic review and sixteen additional primary studies met the inclusion criteria. The evidence base as a whole was judged to be of lower quality; however, a trend toward improved outcomes with centralization of gynecologic oncology was found, particularly with respect to the gynecologic oncology care of patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

Conclusions: Improvements in outcomes with centralization of gynecologic oncology services can be attributed to a number of factors, including access to specialist care and multidisciplinary team management. Findings of this systematic review should be used with caution because of the limitations of the evidence base; however, an expert consensus process made it possible to create recommendations for implementation.

Keywords: Organization; gynecologic oncology; systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sankaranarayanan R, Ferlay J. Worldwide burden of gynecological cancer. In: Preedy VR, Watson RR, editors. Handbook of Disease Burdens and Quality of Life Measures. New York, NY: Springer; 2010. pp. 803–23. - DOI
    1. Luesley D. Improving outcomes in gynaecological cancers. BJOG. 2000;107:1061–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11100.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marth C, Hiebl S, Oberaigner W, Winter R, Leodolter S, Sevelda P. Influence of department volume on survival for ovarian cancer: results from a prospective quality assurance program of the Austrian Association for Gynecologic Oncology. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19:94–102. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e31819915cb. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lipscomb J. Transcending the volume–outcome relationship in cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:151–4. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djj055. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Geomini P, Kruitwagen RF, Bremer GL, Massuger L, Mol BW. Should we centralise care for the patient suspected of having ovarian malignancy? Gynecol Oncol. 2011;122:95–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.03.005. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources