RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is a challenging disease to diagnose and treat effectively with five-year survival rates below 50%. Previous patient experience research in high-income countries highlighted common challenges and opportunities to improve survival and quality of life for women affected by ovarian cancer. However, no comparable data exist for low-and middle-income countries, where 70% of women with the disease live. This study aims to address this evidence gap. METHODS: This is an observational multi-country study set in low- and middle-income countries. We aim to recruit over 2000 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer across multiple hospitals in 24 countries in Asia, Africa and South America. Country sample sizes have been calculated (n = 70-96 participants /country), taking account of varying national five-year disease prevalence rates. Women within five years of their diagnosis, who are in contact with participating hospitals, are invited to take part in the study. A questionnaire has been adapted from a tool previously used in high-income countries. It comprises 57 multiple choice and two open-ended questions designed to collect information on demographics, women's knowledge of ovarian cancer, route to diagnosis, access to treatments, surgery and genetic testing, support needs, the impact of the disease on women and their families, and their priorities for action. The questionnaire has been designed in English, translated into local languages and tested according to local ethics requirements. Questionnaires will be administered by a trained member of the clinical team. CONCLUSION: This study will inform further research, advocacy, and action in low- and middle-income countries based on tailored approaches to the national, regional and global challenges and opportunities. In addition, participating countries can choose to repeat the study to track progress and the protocol can be adapted for other countries and other diseases.
Assuntos
Países em Desenvolvimento , Neoplasias Ovarianas , Qualidade de Vida , Humanos , Feminino , Neoplasias Ovarianas/terapia , Neoplasias Ovarianas/mortalidade , Neoplasias Ovarianas/diagnóstico , Inquéritos e Questionários , Ásia/epidemiologia , África/epidemiologia , América do Sul/epidemiologia , Taxa de Sobrevida , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive radical trachelectomy has emerged as an alternative to open radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer desiring future fertility. Recent data suggest worse oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy than after open radical hysterectomy in stage I cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare 4.5-year disease-free survival after open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a collaborative, international retrospective study (International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study) of patients treated during 2005-2017 at 18 centers in 12 countries. Eligible patients had squamous carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma; had a preoperative tumor size of ≤2 cm; and underwent open or minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) radical trachelectomy with nodal assessment (pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or sentinel lymph node biopsy). The exclusion criteria included neoadjuvant chemotherapy or preoperative pelvic radiotherapy, previous lymphadenectomy or pelvic retroperitoneal surgery, pregnancy, stage IA1 disease with lymphovascular space invasion, aborted trachelectomy (conversion to radical hysterectomy), or vaginal approach. Surgical approach, indication, and adjuvant therapy regimen were at the discretion of the treating institution. A total of 715 patients were entered into the study database. However, 69 patients were excluded, leaving 646 in the analysis. Endpoints were the 4.5-year disease-free survival rate (primary), 4.5-year overall survival rate (secondary), and recurrence rate (secondary). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate disease-free survival and overall survival. A post hoc weighted analysis was performed, comparing the recurrence rates between surgical approaches, with open surgery being considered as standard and minimally invasive surgery as experimental. RESULTS: Of 646 patients, 358 underwent open surgery, and 288 underwent minimally invasive surgery. The median (range) patient age was 32 (20-42) years for open surgery vs 31 (18-45) years for minimally invasive surgery (P=.11). Median (range) pathologic tumor size was 15 (0-31) mm for open surgery and 12 (0.8-40) mm for minimally invasive surgery (P=.33). The rates of pelvic nodal involvement were 5.3% (19 of 358 patients) for open surgery and 4.9% (14 of 288 patients) for minimally invasive surgery (P=.81). Median (range) follow-up time was 5.5 (0.20-16.70) years for open surgery and 3.1 years (0.02-11.10) years for minimally invasive surgery (P<.001). At 4.5 years, 17 of 358 patients (4.7%) with open surgery and 18 of 288 patients (6.2%) with minimally invasive surgery had recurrence (P=.40). The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates were 94.3% (95% confidence interval, 91.6-97.0) for open surgery and 91.5% (95% confidence interval, 87.6-95.6) for minimally invasive surgery (log-rank P=.37). Post hoc propensity score analysis of recurrence risk showed no difference between surgical approaches (P=.42). At 4.5 years, there were 6 disease-related deaths (open surgery, 3; minimally invasive surgery, 3) (log-rank P=.49). The 4.5-year overall survival rates were 99.2% (95% confidence interval, 97.6-99.7) for open surgery and 99.0% (95% confidence interval, 79.0-99.8) for minimally invasive surgery. CONCLUSION: The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates did not differ between open radical trachelectomy and minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. However, recurrence rates in each group were low. Ongoing prospective studies of conservative management of early-stage cervical cancer may help guide future management.