1
|
Burnell M, Iyer R, Gentry-Maharaj A, Nordin A, Liston R, Manchanda R, Das N, Gornall R, Beardmore-Gray A, Hillaby K, Leeson S, Linder A, Lopes A, Meechan D, Mould T, Nevin J, Olaitan A, Rufford B, Shanbhag S, Thackeray A, Wood N, Reynolds K, Ryan A, Menon U. Benchmarking of surgical complications in gynaecological oncology: prospective multicentre study. BJOG 2016; 123:2171-2180. [DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13994] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/27/2015] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- M Burnell
- Department of Women's Cancer; Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre; Institute for Women's Health; University College London; London UK
| | - R Iyer
- Department of Women's Cancer; Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre; Institute for Women's Health; University College London; London UK
| | - A Gentry-Maharaj
- Department of Women's Cancer; Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre; Institute for Women's Health; University College London; London UK
| | - A Nordin
- East Kent Gynaecological Oncology Centre; Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital; Margate UK
| | - R Liston
- Department of Women's Cancer; Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre; Institute for Women's Health; University College London; London UK
| | - R Manchanda
- Department of Women's Cancer; Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre; Institute for Women's Health; University College London; London UK
- Department of Gynaecological Cancer; Barts Cancer Centre; Barts and the London NHS Trust; London UK
| | - N Das
- Department of Gynaecological Cancer; Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust; Truro UK
| | - R Gornall
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology; Cheltenham General Hospital; Cheltenham UK
| | - A Beardmore-Gray
- Department of Women's Cancer; Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre; Institute for Women's Health; University College London; London UK
| | - K Hillaby
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology; Cheltenham General Hospital; Cheltenham UK
| | - S Leeson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; BetsiCadwaladr University Health Board; Bangor UK
| | - A Linder
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology; The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust; Ipswich Suffolk UK
| | - A Lopes
- Department of Gynaecological Cancer; Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust; Truro UK
| | | | - T Mould
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology; University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; London UK
| | - J Nevin
- Pan Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre; Birmingham City Hospital; Birmingham UK
| | - A Olaitan
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology; University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; London UK
| | - B Rufford
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology; The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust; Ipswich Suffolk UK
| | - S Shanbhag
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology; Glasgow Royal Infirmary; Glasgow UK
| | | | - N Wood
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology; Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation trust; Royal Preston Hospital; Preston UK
| | - K Reynolds
- Department of Gynaecological Cancer; Barts Cancer Centre; Barts and the London NHS Trust; London UK
| | - A Ryan
- Department of Women's Cancer; Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre; Institute for Women's Health; University College London; London UK
| | - U Menon
- Department of Women's Cancer; Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre; Institute for Women's Health; University College London; London UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Iyer R, Gentry-Maharaj A, Nordin A, Burnell M, Liston R, Manchanda R, Das N, Desai R, Gornall R, Beardmore-Gray A, Nevin J, Hillaby K, Leeson S, Linder A, Lopes A, Meechan D, Mould T, Varkey S, Olaitan A, Rufford B, Ryan A, Shanbhag S, Thackeray A, Wood N, Reynolds K, Menon U. Predictors of complications in gynaecological oncological surgery: a prospective multicentre study (UKGOSOC-UK gynaecological oncology surgical outcomes and complications). Br J Cancer 2015; 112:475-84. [PMID: 25535730 PMCID: PMC4453652 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.630] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2014] [Revised: 11/16/2014] [Accepted: 11/30/2014] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are limited data on surgical outcomes in gynaecological oncology. We report on predictors of complications in a multicentre prospective study. METHODS Data on surgical procedures and resulting complications were contemporaneously recorded on consented patients in 10 participating UK gynaecological cancer centres. Patients were sent follow-up letters to capture any further complications. Post-operative (Post-op) complications were graded (I-V) in increasing severity using the Clavien-Dindo system. Grade I complications were excluded from the analysis. Univariable and multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of complications using all surgery for intra-operative (Intra-op) and only those with both hospital and patient-reported data for Post-op complications. RESULTS Prospective data were available on 2948 major operations undertaken between April 2010 and February 2012. Median age was 62 years, with 35% obese and 20.4% ASA grade ⩾3. Consultant gynaecological oncologists performed 74.3% of operations. Intra-op complications were reported in 139 of 2948 and Grade II-V Post-op complications in 379 of 1462 surgeries. The predictors of risk were different for Intra-op and Post-op complications. For Intra-op complications, previous abdominal surgery, metabolic/endocrine disorders (excluding diabetes), surgical complexity and final diagnosis were significant in univariable and multivariable regression (P<0.05), with diabetes only in multivariable regression (P=0.006). For Post-op complications, age, comorbidity status, diabetes, surgical approach, duration of surgery, and final diagnosis were significant in both univariable and multivariable regression (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS This multicentre prospective audit benchmarks the considerable morbidity associated with gynaecological oncology surgery. There are significant patient and surgical factors that influence this risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Iyer
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 1st Floor Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7DN, UK
| | - A Gentry-Maharaj
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 1st Floor Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7DN, UK
| | - A Nordin
- National Cancer Intelligence Network Gynaecology Clinical Reference Group, 5th Floor, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UG, UK
| | - M Burnell
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 1st Floor Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7DN, UK
| | - R Liston
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 1st Floor Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7DN, UK
| | - R Manchanda
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 1st Floor Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7DN, UK
| | - N Das
- Department of Gynaecological Cancer, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall TR1 3LJ, UK
| | - R Desai
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 1st Floor Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7DN, UK
| | - R Gornall
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Cheltenham General Hospital, Sandford Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL53 7AN, UK
| | - A Beardmore-Gray
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 1st Floor Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7DN, UK
| | - J Nevin
- Pan Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Birmingham City Hospital, Dudley Road, Birmingham, West Midlands B18 7QH, UK
| | - K Hillaby
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Cheltenham General Hospital, Sandford Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL53 7AN, UK
| | - S Leeson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Penrhosgarnedd, Bangor, Gwynedd, North Wales LL57 2PW, UK
| | - A Linder
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust, Heath Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP4 5PD, UK
| | - A Lopes
- Department of Gynaecological Cancer, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall TR1 3LJ, UK
| | - D Meechan
- Trent Cancer Registry, 5 Old Fulwood Road, Sheffield S10 3TG, UK
| | - T Mould
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 2nd Floor North, 250 Euston Road, London NW1 2PG, UK
| | - S Varkey
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 1st Floor Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7DN, UK
| | - A Olaitan
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 2nd Floor North, 250 Euston Road, London NW1 2PG, UK
| | - B Rufford
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust, Heath Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP4 5PD, UK
| | - A Ryan
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 1st Floor Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7DN, UK
| | - S Shanbhag
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 16 Alexandra Parade, Glasgow G31 2ER, UK
| | - A Thackeray
- Trent Cancer Registry, 5 Old Fulwood Road, Sheffield S10 3TG, UK
| | - N Wood
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Preston Hospital, Sharoe Green Lane, North Fulwood, Preston Lancashire PR2 9HT, UK
| | - K Reynolds
- Department of Gynaecological Cancer, Barts Cancer Centre, Barts and the London NHS Trust, St Bartholomew's Hospital (Barts), West Smithfield, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - U Menon
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 1st Floor Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7DN, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Iyer R, Gentry-Maharaj A, Nordin A, Liston R, Burnell M, Das N, Desai R, Gornall R, Beardmore-Gray A, Hillaby K, Leeson S, Linder A, Lopes A, Meechan D, Mould T, Nevin J, Olaitan A, Rufford B, Ryan A, Shanbhag S, Thackeray A, Wood N, Reynolds K, Menon U. Patient-reporting improves estimates of postoperative complication rates: a prospective cohort study in gynaecological oncology. Br J Cancer 2013; 109:623-32. [PMID: 23846170 PMCID: PMC3738134 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.366] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2013] [Revised: 06/16/2013] [Accepted: 06/22/2013] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Most studies use hospital data to calculate postoperative complication rates (PCRs). We report on improving PCR estimates through use of patient-reporting. Methods: A prospective cohort study of major surgery performed at 10 UK gynaecological cancer centres was undertaken. Hospitals entered the data contemporaneously into an online database. Patients were sent follow-up letters to capture postoperative complications. Grade II–V (Clavien–Dindo classification) patient-reported postoperative complications were verified from hospital records. Postoperative complication rate was defined as the proportion of surgeries with a Grade II–V postoperative complication. Results: Patient replies were received for 1462 (68%) of 2152 surgeries undertaken between April 2010 and February 2012. Overall, 452 Grade II–V (402 II, 50 III–V) complications were reported in 379 of the 1462 surgeries. This included 172 surgeries with 200 hospital-reported complications and 231 with 280 patient-reported complications. All (100% concordance) 36 Grade III–V and 158 of 280 (56.4% concordance) Grade II patient-reported complications were verified on hospital case-note review. The PCR using hospital-reported data was 11.8% (172 out of 1462; 95% CI 11–14), patient-reported was 15.8% (231 out of 1462; 95% CI 14–17.8), hospital and verified patient-reported was 19.4% (283 out of 1462; 95% CI 17.4–21.4) and all data were 25.9% (379 out of 1462; 95% CI 24–28). After excluding Grade II complications, the hospital and patient verified Grade III–V PCR was 3.3% (48 out of 1462; 95% CI 2.5–4.3). Conclusion: This is the first prospective study of postoperative complications we are aware of in gynaecological oncology to include the patient-reported data. Patient-reporting is invaluable for obtaining complete information on postoperative complications. Primary care case-note review is likely to improve verification rates of patient-reported Grade II complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Iyer
- University College, London, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Yazbek J, Raju KS, Ben-Nagi J, Holland T, Hillaby K, Jurkovic D. Accuracy of ultrasound subjective 'pattern recognition' for the diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29:489-95. [PMID: 17444554 DOI: 10.1002/uog.4002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess the value of pattern recognition for the preoperative ultrasound diagnosis of borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs). METHODS This was a prospective study of women who were referred to our regional cancer center with the diagnosis of an adnexal mass on a Level II (routine) gynecological ultrasound scan. Women with lesions of uncertain nature were referred for a Level III (expert) ultrasound scan in our tertiary center. The tumor pattern recognition method was used to differentiate between various types of ovarian tumors. Morphological features suggestive of BOTs were: unilocular cyst with a positive ovarian crescent sign and extensive papillary projections arising from the inner wall, or a cyst with a well defined multilocular nodule. The ultrasound findings were compared with the final histological diagnosis. RESULTS A total of 224 women with an adnexal mass of uncertain nature were referred for an expert scan, 166 (74.1%) of whom underwent surgery. In this group of women the final histological diagnoses were: 99 (60%) benign lesions, 32 (19%) invasive ovarian cancer and 35 (21%) BOTs. Using pattern recognition combining the different morphological features, a correct preoperative diagnosis of BOT was made in 24/35 (68.6%) women: area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve 0.812 (standard error 0.049; 95% CI, 0.716-0.908), sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI, 0.52-0.81), specificity 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-0.97), positive likelihood ratio 11.3 (95% CI, 5.53-22.8) and negative likelihood ratio 0.34 (95% CI, 0.21-0.55). CONCLUSIONS Ultrasound diagnosis of BOTs is highly specific. However, typical features are absent in one-third of cases, which are typically misdiagnosed as benign lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Yazbek
- Early Pregnancy and Gynaecology Assessment Unit, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Yazbek J, Aslam N, Tailor A, Hillaby K, Raju KS, Jurkovic D. A comparative study of the risk of malignancy index and the ovarian crescent sign for the diagnosis of invasive ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28:320-4. [PMID: 16881074 DOI: 10.1002/uog.2842] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the value of the risk of malignancy index (RMI) and the ovarian crescent sign (OCS) in the diagnosis of ovarian malignancy. METHODS This was a prospective observational study of women with ultrasonographic diagnosis of an ovarian cyst. The RMI was calculated in all cases using a previously published formula (RMI = U (ultrasound score) x M (menopausal status) x serum CA125 (kU/L)). A value > 200 was considered to be diagnostic of ovarian cancer. The OCS was defined as a rim of visible healthy ovarian tissue in the ipsilateral ovary. Its absence was taken as being diagnostic of invasive cancer. RESULTS A total of 106 consecutive women were included in the study, of whom 92 (86.8%) had a benign ovarian tumor, five (4.7%) had borderline lesions and nine (8.5%) had an invasive ovarian cancer. The absence of an OCS diagnosed invasive ovarian cancer with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 70-100%), specificity of 93% (95% CI, 86-96%), positive predictive value (PPV) of 56%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 13.86 (95% CI, 6.79-28.29). This compared favorably with a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI, 57-98%), specificity of 92% (95% CI, 85-96%), PPV of 50%, NPV of 99% and LR+ of 10.78 (95% CI, 5.34-21.77), which were achieved using RMI > 200 (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS The RMI and the OCS are useful tests for discriminating between invasive and non-invasive ovarian tumors. The application of these tests in a sequential manner might improve the overall accuracy of ovarian cancer diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Yazbek
- Early Pregnancy and Gynaecology Assessment Unit, King's College Hospital, London, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Elson J, Tailor A, Salim R, Hillaby K, Dew T, Jurkovic D. Expectant management of miscarriage—prediction of outcome using ultrasound and novel biochemical markers. Hum Reprod 2005; 20:2330-3. [PMID: 15860494 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dei038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to examine the value of various ultrasound and biochemical parameters for the prediction of successful expectant management of miscarriage. METHODS This was a prospective observational study. Clinically stable women with an ultrasound diagnosis of miscarriage were offered expectant management. In all cases, gestational age, size of retained products of conception, serum HCG, progesterone, 17-hydroxyprogesterone, insulin growth factor-binding protein 1 (IGFBP-1), inhibin A and inhibin pro alpha-C RI levels were recorded. Follow-up continued until resolution of the pregnancy. Clinical data, ultrasound findings and biochemical markers were analysed using univariate analysis and decision tree analysis. RESULTS Fifty-four women underwent expectant management of miscarriage. Thirty-seven (69%) had successful expectant management and 17 (31%) required surgery. The size of retained products, serum HCG, progesterone, inhibin A and inhibin pro alpha-C RI were all significantly different in those pregnancies that resolved spontaneously (P<0.05). Serum inhibin A was the best predictor of a complete miscarriage. CONCLUSION This study shows that novel biochemical markers may be used to predict the likelihood of successful expectant management of miscarriage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Elson
- Early Pregnancy and Gynaecology Assessment Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King's College Hospital, London, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Elson J, Tailor A, Banerjee S, Salim R, Hillaby K, Jurkovic D. Expectant management of tubal ectopic pregnancy: prediction of successful outcome using decision tree analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23:552-556. [PMID: 15170794 DOI: 10.1002/uog.1061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To establish whether a decision tree based on a combination of clinical, morphological and biochemical parameters could be constructed to help in the selection of women with tubal ectopic pregnancies for expectant management. METHODS This was a prospective observational study in a tertiary referral early pregnancy unit in an inner city teaching hospital. The study group consisted of 179 women with ultrasound diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Demographic, clinical and ultrasound data were recorded in each case at the initial visit. In addition all women had a blood sample taken for the measurements of serum beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG) and progesterone. Clinically stable women with non-viable pregnancies and no signs of hematoperitoneum were managed expectantly on an outpatient basis until their serum beta-hCG declined to <20 IU/L. Women who developed pelvic pain during follow-up and those with non-declining serum beta-hCG were offered surgery. RESULTS A total of 107/179 (59.8%) tubal ectopics were considered suitable for expectant management. Ectopic pregnancy resolved spontaneously in 75/107 (70%) women, which was 41.9% of the total number of tubal ectopics. Maternal age, initial serum beta-hCG and progesterone were all significantly different in pregnancies that resolved spontaneously compared to those requiring surgery (P < 0.05). Initial serum beta-hCG level was the best predictor of the outcome of expectant management. These differences enabled a construction of a four-level decision tree to estimate the likelihood of successful expectant management. CONCLUSIONS There are significant differences in demographic, ultrasound and biochemical findings between spontaneously resolving ectopics and those requiring treatment. Decision tree analysis may be used as a guide to estimate the probability of successful expectant management in individual cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Elson
- Early Pregnancy and Gynaecology Assessment Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King's College Hospital, London, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|