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
. 2017 Nov 1;28(suppl_8):viii30-viii35.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx449.

Harmonising clinical trials within the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: consensus and unmet needs from the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference

M A Bookman  1 , A Okamoto  2 , G Stuart  3 , N Yanaihara  2 , D Aoki  2 , M Bacon  4 , K Fujiwara  5 , A González-Martín  6 , P Harter  7 , J W Kim  8 , J Ledermann  9 , E Pujade-Lauraine  10 , M Quinn  11 , K Ochiai  2 ; 5th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference
Affiliations
Review

Harmonising clinical trials within the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup: consensus and unmet needs from the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference

M A Bookman et al. Ann Oncol. .

Abstract

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC) was held in Tokyo, Japan from 7 to 9 November 2015. It provided international consensus on 15 important questions in 4 topic areas, which were generated in accordance with the mission statement to establish 'International Consensus for Designing Better Clinical Trials'. The methodology for obtaining consensus was previously established and followed during the Fifth OCCC. All 29 clinical trial groups of GCIG participated in program development and deliberations. Draft consensus statements were discussed in topic groups as well as in a plenary forum. The final statements were then presented to all 29 member groups for voting and documentation of the level of consensus. Full consensus was obtained for 11 of the 15 statements with 28/29 groups agreeing to 3 statements, and 27/29 groups agreeing to 1 statement. The high acceptance rate of the statements among trial groups reflects the fact that we share common questions, and recognise important unmet needs that will guide future research in ovarian cancer.

Keywords: clinical trial; consensus statement; ovarian cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Neijt JP, Wiltshaw E, Lund B (eds), Advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: where do we stand and where do we go? Ann Oncol 1993; 4(Suppl 4): S1–S88.
    1. Neijt JP, du Bois A, Williams C (eds), Advanced epithelial ovarian cancer—what do we know and what do we need? Ann Oncol 1999; 10(Suppl 1): S1–S92.
    1. du Bois A, Quinn M, Thigpen T. et al. 2004 consensus statements on the management of ovarian cancer: final document of the 3rd International Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (GCIG OCCC 2004). Ann Oncol 2005; 16(Suppl 8): viii7–viii12. - PubMed
    1. Stuart GCE, Kitchener H, Bacon M. et al. 2010 Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus statement on clinical trials in ovarian cancer report from the fourth ovarian cancer consensus conference. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2001; 21: 750–755. - PubMed
    1. McGee J, Bookman M, Harter P. et al. Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference: individualized therapy and patient factors. Ann Oncol 2017; 28: 702–710. - PubMed

Publication types