Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Is the Best Treatment Model for Gynecologic Cancers? Does Centralization Help?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Controversies in the Management of Gynecological Cancers

  • 1028 Accesses

Abstract

Arguments for centralization of EOC treatment: There is considerable debate about whether specialized care has an effect on with the outcome of advanced (stages III–IV) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). It is known that the quality of surgery is one of the most important factors affecting the outcome of women with advanced EOC. We have reviewed the European population-based literature, focusing especially on studies published in the last 10 years, and have found that the evidence shows advantages for patients who undergo surgery performed by gynecologic oncologists over general gynecologists and general surgeons in terms of quality of life, morbidity, and survival. Despite this, population-based studies in Europe show that less than 50 % of patients with advanced EOC have their surgery performed by a gynecologic oncologist, and the debate about the benefits of advanced EOC centralization has continued. It is of great importance that EOC be centralized to centers with sufficiently skilled surgeons and the necessary organization to appropriately handle advanced EOC patients. This requires national health systems to secure sufficient education and training for all medical staff involved. Gynecologic cancers make up the second most common cancer among women. Five major gynecologic malignancies include cervical, ovarian, uterine vaginal, and vulvar cancers. All would agree that their management requires a multidisciplinary approach encompassing combinations of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation treatment and also needing the help of psychologists, social workers, specialized nurses, and others. It has been claimed that centralization of gynecologic cancer improves outcome, but robust evidence is lacking. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries and contains no information on the role of satellite centers or of other care models which can match the outcomes of centralized services. In fact for all gynecologic malignancy, the treatment site does not affect overall survival. All agree that accurate and complete surgical staging is associated with prolonged survival rates in women with early ovarian cancer and that optimal debulking improves progression-free and overall survival rates in advanced disease. But ovarian cancer is but one part of the spectrum of gynecologic malignancy and, indeed, given the epidemic of endometrial cancer due to obesity, which could engulf specialized units, a relatively less common one than previously. The data on surgical outcomes and their importance are still controversial and relate only to ovarian cancers. There are very few studies addressing outcomes in the other more common gynecologic malignancies including cervical and endometrial. It is impossible to prove that centralization is necessary as most of the published evidence is based on retrospective observational studies and therefore is at high risk of bias. To date no randomized trials have been undertaken to confirm this hypothesis

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Verleye L, Vergote I, van der Zee AG. Patterns of care in surgery for ovarian cancer in Europe. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36 Suppl 1:S108–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(4):765–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sant M, Aareleid T, Berrino F, Bielska Lasota M, Carli PM, Faivre J, et al. EUROCARE-3: survival of cancer patients diagnosed 1990–94 – results and commentary. Ann Oncol. 2003;14 Suppl 5:v61–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bray F, Loos AH, Tognazzo S, La Vecchia C. Ovarian cancer in Europe: cross-sectional trends in incidence and mortality in 28 countries, 1953–2000. Int J Cancer. 2005;113(6):977–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Paulsen T, Kjaerheim K, Kaern J, Tretli S, Tropé C. Improved short-term survival for advanced ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancer patients operated at teaching hospitals. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16 Suppl 1:11–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bjørge T, Engeland A, Sundfør K, Tropé CG. Prognosis of 2,800 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed during 1975–94 and treated at the Norwegian Radium Hospital. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77(7):777–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Larsen IK, Grimsrud TK, Haldorsen T, Johannesen TB, Johansen A, Langseth H, et al., editors. Cancer in Norway 2009 – cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. Oslo: Cancer Registry of Norway; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vernooij F, Heintz P, Witteveen E, van der Graaf Y. The outcomes of ovarian cancer treatment are better when provided by gynecologic oncologists and in specialized hospitals: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(3):801–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Meigs JV. Tumors of the female pelvic organs. New York: Macmillan; 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Griffiths CT. Surgical resection of tumor bulk in the primary treatment of ovarian carcinoma. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1975;42:101–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz FJ. Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(5):1248–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chi DS, Eisenhauer EL, Lang J, Huh J, Haddad L, Abu-Rustum NR, et al. What is the optimal goal of primary cytoreductive surgery for bulky stage IIIC epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC)? Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(2):559–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoskins WJ, Bundy BN, Thigpen JT, Omura GA. The influence of cytoreductive surgery on recurrence-free interval and survival in small-volume stage III epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;47(2):159–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, Harter P, Ray-Coquard I, Pfisterer J. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d’Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l’Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer. 2009;115(6):1234–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Harter P, Hilpert F, Mahner S, Kommoss S, Heitz F, Pfisterer J, et al. Prognostic factors for complete debulking in first- and second-line ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19 Suppl 2:S14–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Killeen SD, O’Sullivan MJ, Coffey JC, Kirwan WO, Redmond HP. Provider volume and outcomes for oncological procedures. Br J Surg. 2005;92(4):389–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Desch CE. Hospital and physician volume or specialization and outcomes in cancer treatment: importance in quality of cancer care. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(11):2327–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(6):511–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bentrem DJ, Brennan MF. Outcomes in oncologic surgery: does volume make a difference? World J Surg. 2005;29(10):1210–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Olaitan A, Weeks J, Mocroft A, Smith J, Howe K, Murdoch J. The surgical management of women with ovarian cancer in the south west of England. Br J Cancer. 2001;85(12):1824–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kehoe S, Powell J, Wilson S, Woodman C. The influence of the operating surgeon’s specialisation on patient survival in ovarian carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 1994;70(5):1014–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Junor EJ, Hole DJ, McNulty L, Mason M, Young J. Specialist gynaecologists and survival outcome in ovarian cancer: a Scottish national study of 1866 patients. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106(11):1130–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Covens AL. A critique of surgical cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78(3 Pt 1):269–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Engelen MJ, Kos HE, Willemse PH, Aalders JG, de Vries EG, Schaapveld M, et al. Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologists improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer. 2006;106(3):589–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Oberaigner W, Stühlinger W. Influence of department volume on cancer survival for gynaecological cancers – a population-based study in Tyrol, Austria. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(2):527–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Harlan LC, Clegg LX, Trimble EL. Trends in surgery and chemotherapy for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(18):3488–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, Kristensen GB, Ehlen T, Johnson N, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tsolakidis D, Amant F, Van Gorp T, Leunen K, Neven P, Vergote I. Diaphragmatic surgery during primary debulking in 89 patients with stage IIIB-IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116(3):489–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yildirim Y, Sanci M. The feasibility and morbidity of distal pancreatectomy in extensive cytoreductive surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005;272(1):31–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Crawford SC, Vasey PA, Paul J, Hay A, Davis JA, Kaye SB. Does aggressive surgery only benefit patients with less advanced ovarian cancer? Results from an international comparison within the SCOTROC-1 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8802–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. du Bois A, Rochon J, Pfisterer J, Hoskins WJ. Variations in institutional infrastructure, physician specialization and experience, and outcome in ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(2):422–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bristow RE, Zahurak ML, Diaz-Montes TP, Giuntoli RL, Armstrong DK. Impact of surgeon and hospital ovarian cancer surgical case volume on in-hospital mortality and related short-term outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;115(3):334–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Giede KC, Kieser K, Dodge J, Rosen B. Who should operate on patients with ovarian cancer? An evidence-based review. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99(2):447–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Eisenkop SM, Spirtos NM, Montag TW, Nalick RH, Wang HJ. The impact of subspecialty training on the management of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;47(2):203–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Earle CC, Schrag D, Neville BA, Yabroff KR, Topor M, Fahey A, et al. Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovarian cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(3):172–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tingulstad S, Skjeldestad FE, Hagen B. The effect of centralization of primary surgery on survival in ovarian cancer patients. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(3):499–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wolfe CD, Tilling K, Raju KS. Management and survival of ovarian cancer patients in south east England. Eur J Cancer. 1997;33(11):1835–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Stockton D, Davis T. Multiple cancer site comparison of adjusted survival by hospital of treatment: an East Anglican study. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:208–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Münstedt K, von Georgi R, Misselwitz B, Zygmunt M, Stillger R, Künzel W. Centralizing surgery for gynecologic oncology – a strategy assuring better quality treatment? Gynecol Oncol. 2003;89(1):4–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shylasree TS, Howells RE, Lim K, Jones PW, Fiander A, Adams M, et al. Survival in ovarian cancer in Wales: prior to introduction of all Wales guidelines. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16(5):1770–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kumpulainen S, Kuoppala T, Leminen A, Penttinen J, Puistola U, Pukkala E, et al. Surgical treatment of ovarian cancer in different hospital categories – a prospective nation-wide study in Finland. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(3):388–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Weide R, Arndt M, Pandorf A, Heymanns J, Thomalla J, Köppler H. Ovarian cancer treatment reality in northern Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany). Suboptimal surgical treatment as a possible cause for inferior survival. Onkologie. 2007;30(12):611–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Skírnisdóttir I, Sorbe B. Prognostic factors for surgical outcome and survival in 447 women treated for advanced (FIGO-stages III-IV) epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Int J Oncol. 2007;30(3):727–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Aune G, Torp SH, Syversen U, Hagen B, Tingulstad S. Ten years’ experience with centralized surgery of ovarian cancer in one health region in Norway. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(2):226–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fagö-Olsen CL, Høgdall C, Kehlet H, Christensen IJ, Ottesen B. Centralized treatment of advanced stages of ovarian cancer improves survival: a nationwide Danish survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:273–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Goff BA, Matthews BJ, Wynn M, Muntz HG, Lishner DM, Baldwin LM. Ovarian cancer: patterns of surgical care across the United States. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(2):383–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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(1):94–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Soegaard Andersen E, Knudsen A, Svarrer T, Lund B, Nielsen K, Grove A, et al. The results of treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer after centralisation of primary surgery. Results from North Jutland, Denmark. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99(3):552–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bailey J, Murdoch J, Anderson R, Weeks J, Foy C. Stage III and IV ovarian cancer in the South West of England: five-year outcome analysis for cases treated in 1998. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16 Suppl 1:25–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Petignat P, Vlastos G. Why do ovarian cancer patients not consult a gynecologic oncologist? Gynecol Oncol. 2002;87(1):157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. du Bois A, Rochon J, Lamparter C, Pfisterer J, AGO Organkommission OVAR PFisterer. Pattern of care and impact of participation in clinical studies on the outcome in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15(2):183–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Vergote I. VWOG-oncologieregistratie 1998–2002. Deel 5: Ovariumcarcinoom. Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde. 2006;62(11):853–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Marx C, Bendixen A, Høgdall C, Ottosen C, Kehlet H, Ottesen B. Organisation and quality of primary surgical intervention for ovarian cancer in Denmark. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(12): 1496–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Akeson M, Jakobsen AM, Zetterqvist BM, Holmberg E, Brännström M, Horvath G. A population-based 5-year cohort study including all cases of epithelial ovarian cancer in western Sweden: 10-year survival and prognostic factors. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(1):116–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bristow RE, Palis BE, Chi DS, Cliby WA. The National Cancer Database report on advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of hospital surgical case volume on overall survival and surgical treatment paradigm. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;118(3):262–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kumpulainen S, Sankila R, Leminen A, Kuoppala T, Komulainen M, Puistola U, et al. The effect of hospital operative volume, residual tumor and first-line chemotherapy on survival of ovarian cancer – a prospective nation-wide study in Finland. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;115(2):199–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Schrag D, Earle C, Xu F, Panageas KS, Yabroff KR, Bristow RE, et al. Associations between hospital and surgeon procedure volumes and patient outcomes after ovarian cancer resection. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(3):163–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Vernooij F, Witteveen PO, Verweij E, van der Graaf Y, Heintz AP. The impact of hospital type on the efficacy of chemotherapy treatment in ovarian cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;115(3):343–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Elit L, Bondy SJ, Paszat L, Przybysz R, Levine M. Outcomes in surgery for ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;87:260–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kumpulainen S, Grénman S, Kyyrönen P, Pukkala E, Sankila R. Evidence of benefit from centralised treatment of ovarian cancer: a nationwide population-based survival analysis in Finland. Int J Cancer. 2002;102(5):541–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. du Bois A, Rochon J, Lamparter C, Pfisterer J. Impact of center characteristics on outcome in ovarian cancer in Germany. Zentralbl Gynakol. 2005;127(1):18–30. German.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Szczesny W, Paulsen T, Tropé C. Improved 8-years survival for ovarian cancer patients FIGO stage IIIc operated at teaching hospitals in Norway. Abstract presented at the 17th international meeting of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO). Milan; 11–14 Sept 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Carney ME, Lancaster JM, Ford C, Tsodikov A, Wiggins CL. A population-based study of patterns of care for ovarian cancer: who is seen by a gynecologic oncologist and who is not? Gynecol Oncol. 2002;84(1):36–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Woodman C, Baghdady A, Collins S, Clyma JA. What changes in the organisation of cancer services will improve the outcome for women with ovarian cancer? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104(2):135–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. NIH consensus conference. Ovarian cancer. Screening, treatment, and follow-up. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Ovarian Cancer. JAMA. 1995;273(6):491–7.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Bristow RE, Berek JS. Surgery for ovarian cancer: how to improve survival. Lancet. 2006;367(9522):1558–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Oksefjell H, Sandstad B, Trope C. Ovarian cancer stage IIIC. Consequences of treatment level on overall and progression-free survival. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006;27(3):209–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Powell M, Cliby W, Bristow R, Al-Hammadi N, Chen L, Miller J, et al. Adherence with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines Associated with improved survival in ovarian cancer patients, a study of 144,449 patients from the National Cancer Data Base: a project from the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO) Quality and Outcomes Committee. Late-breaking abstracts presented at the 42nd annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121(2):S1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Cancer treatment policies and their effects on survival – ovary. Key sites study 8. Leeds: Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service; 2002. http://www.nycris.org.uk. Accessed 4 July 2007.

  70. Crawford SM, Brunskill PJ. Centralisation of services for the management of ovarian cancer: arguments against. BJOG. 2007;114(10):1183–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3 Suppl):21–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Vergote I, de Oliveira C, Dargent D. How to organize gynecologic oncology in the future: results of an international questionnaire. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1997;7(5):368–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Cibula D, Kesic V. Surgical education and training in gynecologic oncology I: European perspective. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114(2 Suppl):S52–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kjaerbye-Thygesen A, Huusom LD, Frederiksen K, Kjaer SK. Trends in the incidence and mortality of ovarian cancer in Denmark 1978–2002. Comparison with other Nordic countries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(10):1006–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Ottesen B, Iversen MG, Kehlet H. Surgical treatment for ovarian cancer in Denmark 2004–2007. Ugeskr Laeger. 2009;171(4):217–20. Danish.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Dobbs S. Commentary on “centralisation of ovarian cancer”. BJOG. 2007;114(10):1186–7.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Hackman N, Olaitan A, Mould T, Sherr L. Evaluating women’s experience of a centralized service for gynaecological malignancies. Abstract 740. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004;14 Suppl 1:205.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Olaitan A, Murdoch J, Weeks J, James J, Howe K. The management of women with apparent early ovarian cancer in the south-west region of England. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;22(4):394–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Olaitan A, McCormack M. Centralisation of services for the management of ovarian cancer: arguments for. BJOG. 2007;114(10):1188–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Brookfield KF, et al. Will patients benefit from regionalization of gynecologic cancer care? PLoS One. 2009;4(1):e4049.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Parkin DE, et al. An audit of the quality of endometrial cancer in specialised unit. Scott Med J. 2006;51(2):22–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Hoekstra A, et al. Participation of the general gynecologist in surgical staging of endometrial cancer: analysis of cost and perioperative outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:897–901.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Underhill C, et al. Mapping oncology services in regional and rural Australia. Aust J Rural Health. 2009;17:321–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Junor EJ, Hole DHS, Gill CR. Management of ovarian cancer: referral to a multidisciplinary team matters. Br J Cancer. 1994;70:363–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Crawford R, Greenberg D. Improvements in survival of gynaecological cancer in the Anglia region of England: are these an effect of centralisation of care and use of multidisciplinary management? BJOG. 2012;119(2):160–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Jong KE, Vale PJ, Armstrong BK. Rural inequalities in cancer care and outcome. Med J Aust. 2005;182:13–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Butow PN, Phillips F, Schweder J, White K, Underhill C, Goldstein D. Psychosocial well-being and supportive care needs of cancer patients living in urban and rural/regional areas: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(1):1–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Grimison P, Phillips F, Butow P, White K, Yip D, Sardelic F, Underhill C, Tse R, Simes R, Turley K, Raymond C, Goldstein D. Are visiting oncologists enough? A qualitative study of the needs of Australian rural and regional cancer patients, carers and health professionals. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2012. doi:10.1111/ajco.12014 [Epub ahead of print].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Ke KM, Hollingworth W, Ness AR. The costs of centralisation: a systematic review of the economic impact of the centralisation of cancer services. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2012;21(2):158–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Underhill CR, Goldstein D, Grogan PB. Inequity in rural cancer survival in Australia is not an insurmountable problem. Med J Aust. 2006;185(9):479–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Campbell NC, Ritchie LD, Cassidy J, Little J. Systematic review of cancer treatment programmes in remote and rural areas. Br J Cancer. 1999;80:1275–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Underhill C, Koschel A, Szer J, Steer C, Clarke K, Grigg A, Juneja S, Stella D, Francis H, Josselyn K. Mentoring in the management of hematological malignancies. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2010;6(1):28–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Available from: http://10thnrhc.ruralhealth.org.au/papers/docs/Phillips_Jane_C2.pdf.

  94. McConigley R, Platt V, Holloway K, Smith J. Developing a sustainable model of rural cancer care: the Western Australian Cancer Network project. Aust J Rural Health. 2011;19(6):324–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Vernooij F, et al. Specialized care and survival of ovarian cancer patients in Netherlands; nation wide cohort study [see comment]. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:399–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Tingulstad S, Skjldestad FE, Halvorsen TB, Hagen B. Survival and prognostic factors in patients with ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:885–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Nguyen H, Averette HE, Hoskins W, Penlaver M, Bernd-Uwe S, Steren A. National survey of ovarian carcinoma part V. The impact of physician’s specialty on patient’s survival. Cancer. 1993;72: 3663–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Woo YL, Kyrgio M, Bryant A, et al. Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(3):CD007945.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Jong KE, Smith DP, Yu XQ, et al. Remoteness of residence and survival from cancer in New South Wales. Med J Aust. 2004;b180: 618–22.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Elatter A. Bryant A, Winter-Roach BA. Optimal primary surgical treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(8):CD007565.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Ms. Trudy Perdrix-Thoma for her assistance in editing the chapter and Mrs. Gry Seppola for technical assistance. We also gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Inger and John Fredriksen Foundation for Ovarian Cancer Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, 4953 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway

    Claes Göran Tropé MD, PhD

  2. Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, 0316, Oslo, Norway

    Claes Göran Tropé MD, PhD

  3. Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, 4953 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway

    Torbjørn Paulsen MD, PhD

  4. Medical Oncology, Albury Base Hospital, 1 College Boulevard Coburg, Melbourne, VIC, 3058, Australia

    Ayesha Saqib MBBS

  5. Border Medical Oncology, Nordsvan Drive, Wodonga, VIC, Australia

    Craig Underhill MBBS, FRACP

Authors
  1. Claes Göran Tropé MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Torbjørn Paulsen MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ayesha Saqib MBBS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Craig Underhill MBBS, FRACP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Claes Göran Tropé MD, PhD , Claes Göran Tropé MD, PhD or Craig Underhill MBBS, FRACP .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom

    Jonathan A. Ledermann

  2. Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Carien L. Creutzberg

  3. Royal Women’s Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Michael A. Quinn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tropé, C.G., Paulsen, T., Saqib, A., Underhill, C. (2014). What Is the Best Treatment Model for Gynecologic Cancers? Does Centralization Help?. In: Ledermann, J., Creutzberg, C., Quinn, M. (eds) Controversies in the Management of Gynecological Cancers. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-910-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-910-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-909-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-910-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation