Evaluation of surgical resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer: laparoscopic assessment. A European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group survey

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11110%2F20%3A10411826" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11110/20:10411826 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00064165:_____/20:10411826

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=iBR3l90jSd" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=iBR3l90jSd</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-001172" target="_blank" >10.1136/ijgc-2019-001172</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Evaluation of surgical resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer: laparoscopic assessment. A European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group survey

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Objective: Laparoscopy is one of the diagnostic tools available for the complex clinical decision-making process in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma. This article presents the results of a survey conducted within the European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group aimed at reviewing the current patterns of practice at gynecologic oncology centers with regard to the evaluation of resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma. Methods: A 24-item questionnaire was sent to the chair of the 20 cooperative groups that are currently part of the ENGOT group, and forwarded to the members within each group. Results: A total of 142 questionnaires were returned. Only 39 respondents (27.5%) reported using some form of clinical (not operative) score for the evaluation of resection. The frequency of use of diagnostic laparoscopy to assess disease status and feasibility of resection was as follows: never, 21 centers (15%); only in select cases, 83 centers (58.5%); and routinely, 36 centers (25.4%). When laparoscopy was performed, 64% of users declared they made the decision to proceed with maximal effort cytoreductive surgery based on their personal/staff opinion, and 36% based on a laparoscopic score. To the question of whether laparoscopy should be considered the gold standard in the evaluation of resection, 71 respondents (50%) answered no, 66 respondents (46.5%) answered yes, whereas 5 respondents (3.5%) did not provide an answer. Conclusions: This study found that laparoscopy was routinely performed to assess feasibility of cytoreduction in only 25.4% of centers in Europe. However, it was commonly used to select patients and in a minority of centers it was never used . When laparoscopy was adopted, the treatment strategy was based on laparoscopic scores only in a minority of centers.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Evaluation of surgical resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer: laparoscopic assessment. A European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group survey

Popis výsledku anglicky

Objective: Laparoscopy is one of the diagnostic tools available for the complex clinical decision-making process in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma. This article presents the results of a survey conducted within the European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group aimed at reviewing the current patterns of practice at gynecologic oncology centers with regard to the evaluation of resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma. Methods: A 24-item questionnaire was sent to the chair of the 20 cooperative groups that are currently part of the ENGOT group, and forwarded to the members within each group. Results: A total of 142 questionnaires were returned. Only 39 respondents (27.5%) reported using some form of clinical (not operative) score for the evaluation of resection. The frequency of use of diagnostic laparoscopy to assess disease status and feasibility of resection was as follows: never, 21 centers (15%); only in select cases, 83 centers (58.5%); and routinely, 36 centers (25.4%). When laparoscopy was performed, 64% of users declared they made the decision to proceed with maximal effort cytoreductive surgery based on their personal/staff opinion, and 36% based on a laparoscopic score. To the question of whether laparoscopy should be considered the gold standard in the evaluation of resection, 71 respondents (50%) answered no, 66 respondents (46.5%) answered yes, whereas 5 respondents (3.5%) did not provide an answer. Conclusions: This study found that laparoscopy was routinely performed to assess feasibility of cytoreduction in only 25.4% of centers in Europe. However, it was commonly used to select patients and in a minority of centers it was never used . When laparoscopy was adopted, the treatment strategy was based on laparoscopic scores only in a minority of centers.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30214 - Obstetrics and gynaecology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2020

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

ISSN

1048-891X

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

30

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

6

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

6

Strana od-do

819-824

Kód UT WoS článku

000538153300018

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85084309106