British Gynaecological Cancer Society Research Articles

Supplement: Abstracts of the British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) Annual Scientific Meeting, Liverpool, 11th - 12th July 2024.

Supplement: Abstracts of the British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) Annual Scientific Meeting, Liverpool, 11th - 12th July 2024.

Management of unscheduled bleeding on HRT: A joint guideline on behalf of the British Menopause Society, Royal College Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy, Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health, Royal College of General Practitioners and Getting it Right First Time.

Unscheduled bleeding on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) can affect up to 40% of users. In parallel with the increase in HRT prescribing in the UK, there has been an associated increase in referrals to the urgent suspicion of cancer pathway for unscheduled bleeding. On behalf of the British Menopause Society (BMS) an expert review panel was established, including primary and secondary care clinicians with expertise in the management of menopause, with representatives from key related organisations, including the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, the British Gynaecological Cancer Society, British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy, Royal College of General Practitioners and Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health, and service development partners from NHS England and GIRFT (Getting it Right First Time). For each topic, a focused literature review was completed to develop evidence led recommendations, where available, which were ratified by consensus review within the panel and by guideline groups.

National Survey of Current Follow-up Protocols for Patients Treated for Endometrial Cancer in the UK

AimsThe aim of this study was to establish a baseline of national practice for follow-up after treatment for endometrial cancer in the UK. Materials and methodsAn online cross-sectional survey was developed and distributed through the Royal College of Radiologists via an email link to the audit leads of radiotherapy centres in the UK. The survey was conducted from November 2021 to 5 January 2022. The main themes assessed in the survey were the form, frequency and duration of follow-up practices. ResultsThere were a total of 43/61 (70%) complete responses. 93% of centres had a standard follow-up protocol and 7% who did not have a follow-up protocol discharged patients after the post-operative review. Five centres (13%) used molecular profiling to inform follow-up practices.Patient-initiated follow-up was mainly used in the cohort of patients who had surgery alone with no adjuvant treatment (68%, (19/28)). In the cohort who had face-to-face follow-up, the majority had pelvic examinations as part of their review and total follow-up for five years.93% of respondents are interested in a national follow-up protocol. ConclusionOur data shows that there is national variation in practise with regard to follow-up of women treated for endometrial cancer. Many of the follow-up practises are based on conventional follow-up regimens and these may fail to address the more holistic needs of cancer survivors. Recent publication of updated guidance from the British Gynaecological Cancer Society may help standardise practise and provide a more relevant approach to follow-up for women treated for endometrial cancer.

Can natural language processing be effectively applied for audit data analysis in gynaecological oncology at a UK cancer centre?

BackgroundThe British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) has highlighted the disparity of ovarian cancer outcomes in the UK compared to other European countries. Therefore, cancer quality assurance audits and subspecialty training are important in improving the UK standard of care for these patients. The current workforce crisis afflicting the NHS creates difficulty in dedicating teams of clinicians to these audits. We present a single institution study to evaluate if NLP-generated code can improve the efficiency of ovarian cancer and subspeciality reaccreditations audits. We used the chat bot Google Bard to write Visual Basic Applications algorithms that utilise Excel files from electronic health records. MethodsPrimary ovarian cancer data from 2019 to 2022 was retrospectively collected from the Cambridge University Hospital electronic health records. The surgical subspecialty reaccreditation audit analysed the 2022 surgical database. A modular coding approach with Google Bard was applied to generate audit algorithms. The time to complete these current audits was compared against the 2016 ovarian cancer and 2020 subspeciality reaccreditation audits. ResultsThe previous ovarian cancer audit conducted in 2016 required 3 clinicians for the 135 cases and data collection required 1800 min. Data analysis was completed in 300 min. The current ovarian cancer audit allocated 2 clinicians to the 600 surgical cases. Data collection was completed in 3120 min, 3360 min for code development and 720 min for testing. The 2020 subspecialty reaccreditation audit was completed in 360 min. The 2022 subspecialty reaccreditation audit was completed in 1680 min, with 960 min for code development, 240 for debugging and 480 min for testing. ConclusionWe have demonstrated that NLP-generated code can significantly increase the efficiency of surgical quality assurance audits by eliminating the need for manual data analysis. With the current trajectory of NLP development, increasingly complex algorithms can be developed with minimal programming knowledge.

Fertility-Sparing Management of Early Stage Endometrial Cancer: A Narrative Review of the Literature

Objectives: The incidence of endometrial cancer (EC) is rising largely due to the increasing levels of obesity along with an ageing population. This has led to an increase in the incidence of premenopausal women with EC. 5% of cases are in patients less than 40 years old, 70% of which are nulliparous at diagnosis. Therefore, fertility considerations must be taken into account when managing these patients. The objectives of this review are to present the fertility-sparing management options available. Mechanism: A detailed computerized literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE up to 1st June 2022 was carried out in order to survey the evidence for fertility-sparing treatment. Studies including patients with endometrial hyperplasia and early-stage EC undergoing fertility-sparing management were included. Findings in Brief: Progestin acts by downregulating oestrogen receptors, thereby suppressing endometrial growth. Oral progestins and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) have therefore been used as non-surgical hormonal treatment for EC. Megestrol acetate (MA) has been shown to produce the highest remission rates compared to other progestins in a systematic review and meta-analysis, but medroxyprogesterone acetate exhibited lower recurrence rates. The IUS for atypical hyperplasia (AH) and EC showed that the majority of patients responded by 3 months’ use. A minimum duration of hormonal treatment for AH and EC of 6 months has been advocated, based on randomised studies showing greater efficacy when compared to 3 months treatment. A meta-analysis and systematic review assessing the efficacy of both oral and intra-uterine progestins showed a higher pooled complete response (CR) than with IUS alone. Metformin, gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists and weight loss have also been added to progestin regimes with variable results on EC regression. Hysteroscopic resection allows for targeted excision of early-stage EC, but with the risk of perforation and so this has not been recommended by the British Gynaecological Cancer Society or the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology. Assisted reproduction treatment (ART) may be the quickest way to achieve pregnancy once CR is achieved. Pregnancy rates have varied from 32–100%, with live birth rates varying from 17.9–43.8%. Conclusions: EC incidence is on the increase in the premenopausal population along with obesity rates and the average first age of parenthood. Fertility-sparing management of EC should be considered for women where fertility is desired.

Editorial

Editorial

Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries

The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs. First, we performed an international consultation through a four-stage consensus process to develop a multidomain index for hospital-level assessment (surgical preparedness index; SPI). Second, we measured surgical preparedness across a global network of hospitals in high-income countries (HICs), middle-income countries (MICs), and low-income countries (LICs) to explore the distribution of the SPI at national, subnational, and hospital levels. Finally, using COVID-19 as an example of an external system shock, we compared hospitals' SPI to their planned surgical volume ratio (SVR; ie, operations for which the decision for surgery was made before hospital admission), calculated as the ratio of the observed surgical volume over a 1-month assessment period between June 6 and Aug 5, 2021, against the expected surgical volume based on hospital administrative data from the same period in 2019 (ie, a pre-pandemic baseline). A linear mixed-effects regression model was used to determine the effect of increasing SPI score. In the first phase, from a longlist of 103 candidate indicators, 23 were prioritised as core indicators of elective surgical system preparedness by 69 clinicians (23 [33%] women; 46 [67%] men; 41 from HICs, 22 from MICs, and six from LICs) from 32 countries. The multidomain SPI included 11 indicators on facilities and consumables, two on staffing, two on prioritisation, and eight on systems. Hospitals were scored from 23 (least prepared) to 115 points (most prepared). In the second phase, surgical preparedness was measured in 1632 hospitals by 4714 clinicians from 119 countries. 745 (45·6%) of 1632 hospitals were in MICs or LICs. The mean SPI score was 84·5 (95% CI 84·1-84·9), which varied between HIC (88·5 [89·0-88·0]), MIC (81·8 [82·5-81·1]), and LIC (66·8 [64·9-68·7]) settings. In the third phase, 1217 (74·6%) hospitals did not maintain their expected SVR during the COVID-19 pandemic, of which 625 (51·4%) were from HIC, 538 (44·2%) from MIC, and 54 (4·4%) from LIC settings. In the mixed-effects model, a 10-point increase in SPI corresponded to a 3·6% (95% CI 3·0-4·1; p<0·0001) increase in SVR. This was consistent in HIC (4·8% [4·1-5·5]; p<0·0001), MIC (2·8 [2·0-3·7]; p<0·0001), and LIC (3·8 [1·3-6·7%]; p<0·0001) settings. The SPI contains 23 indicators that are globally applicable, relevant across different system stressors, vary at a subnational level, and are collectable by front-line teams. In the case study of COVID-19, a higher SPI was associated with an increased planned surgical volume ratio independent of country income status, COVID-19 burden, and hospital type. Hospitals should perform annual self-assessment of their surgical preparedness to identify areas that can be improved, create resilience in local surgical systems, and upscale capacity to address elective surgery backlogs. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery, NIHR Academy, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel Research UK, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, and Medtronic.

Gynae-Oncology Surgeons’ Preparedness to Undertake Colorectal Procedures during Cytoreductive Surgery for Ovarian Cancer: A Cross Sectional Survey

Cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer commonly involves bowel resection. Although UK gynaecological oncologists are trained in bowel surgery, the degree to which they perform bowel surgery independently varies nationally. A recent joint policy statement from the British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) emphasises the need for formalised colorectal support. An anonymous, online survey was emailed to BGCS members to assess the status of multidisciplinary working between UK gynaecological oncology and colorectal/general surgical teams. A total of 46 members responded (8.2% response rate). There was a large variety in the involvement of colorectal/general surgical teams in preoperative planning. A total of 13% of respondents had no formalised agreement for intraoperative support, 72.1% of respondents independently performed rectal peritoneal stripping and 60.5% independently performed small bowel resection. This was reduced to 27.9% for right hemicolectomy with primary anastomosis and 16.3% for left hemicolectomy with primary anastomosis. Respondents often involved colorectal support for post-operative complications. The majority of UK gynaecological oncologists involve colorectal/general surgical teams in bowel procedures, more commonly for large bowel procedures compared to small bowel and for left colon compared to right colon procedures. A total of 16.3% of respondents independently performed all surveyed bowel procedures. Future research should examine training and experience within these groups to address this disparity.

Residual disease after primary surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: expert elicitation exercise to explore opinions about potential impact of publication bias in a planned systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesWe consider expert opinion and its incorporation into a planned meta-analysis as a way of adjusting for anticipated publication bias. We conduct an elicitation exercise among eligible British Gynaecological Cancer...

British Gynaecological Cancer Society Recommendations for Women With Gynecological Cancer Who Received Non-standard Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

(Abstracted from Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022;32:9–14) Because of the overwhelming pressure placed on the health care system during the COVID-19 pandemic, resource prioritization and infection risk led to deviation from standard of care treatment for women with gynecologic cancer. The loss of intensive care availability, surgical capacity, as well as radio- and systemic therapy availability particularly impacted this vulnerable population.

Development of a management guide wheel for cervical cancer

We designed and developed a management guide wheel for cervical cancer to facilitate a standard approach and improve the quality of care in managing patients diagnosed with different stages of cervical cancer. Each step of the wheel considers the patient’s current medical condition, FIGO stage, and the possible treatment modalities for cervical cancer in her case. We reviewed existing international guidelines on the management of cervical cancer and compared their respective recommendations. This guide wheel is based on recommendations by the following organizations: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).

Development of a management guidewheel for vulvar cancer

Ismail’s Cancer Vulva Management Guidewheel is designed to enable physicians to refer to a quick and comprehensive reference to recommendations on the management of vulvar cancer at various stages. The wheel consists of patient characteristics, including the FIGO stage and the possible treatment modalities available along with alternatives. We compared guidelines on the management of vulvar cancer by international health organizations including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), the British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS), the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Japanese Society of Gynecologic Oncology (JSGO), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO). Their respective recommendations have been compared and carefully integrated on the guidewheel.

British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) uterine cancer guidelines: Recommendations for practice

The remit of this guideline is to collate and propose evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of uterine cancer. This document covers all uterine cancers of any histological type.

Stratified follow-up for endometrial cancer: a move to more personalized cancer care

ObjectiveHospital based follow-up has been the standard of care for endometrial cancer. Patient initiated follow-up is a useful adjunct for lower risk cancers. The purpose of this study was to...

Resilience of elective cancer surgery systems during COVID-19 lockdowns: an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study

BackgroundSurgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify areas for health system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during COVID-19 in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. MethodsIn this international, multicentre, prospective cohort study, we enrolled patients with 15 cancer types who had a decision for surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (between Jan 21, 2020 and April 14, 2020) to Aug 31, 2020. Any hospital worldwide providing elective cancer surgery was eligible. The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Reasons for non-operation were classified as COVID-19 related (societal, operational, or personal) or unrelated. Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated for each patient during their wait for surgery and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore associations between lockdowns and non-operation. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. FindingsWe enrolled 27 700 participants, of whom 20 006 patients (8526 men and 11480 women) from 466 hospitals and 61 countries did not receive surgery after a minimum of 3-months' follow up (median 23 weeks [IQR 16–30]). All patients had a COVID-19-related reason for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% reference non-operation rate, moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84, p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (0·51, 0·50– 0·53, p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-COV-2 case notification rates, moderate (0·84, 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001) remained independently associated with non-operation. Frail patients with advanced cancer, particularly those from low-income and middle-income countries and those requiring postoperative critical care, were more likely to not have an operation. InterpretationCancer surgery systems worldwide were affected by lockdowns, including in the UK, with one in seven patients not undergoing planned surgery. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which could include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies. In the UK, a whole-health system approach is required to mitigate against further harm for NHS patients. FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, Economic and Social Research Council, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.

Effect of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns on planned cancer surgery for 15 tumour types in 61 countries: an international, prospective, cohort study

SummaryBackgroundSurgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction.MethodsThis international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926.FindingsOf eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays.InterpretationCancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

SummaryBackgroundThe impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsThis international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation.FindingsThis analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p<0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p<0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p<0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047).InterpretationPostoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery.FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.

Patient initiated follow up after gynaecological malignancy: National survey of current UK practice

ObjectiveTo establish the prevalence of follow up regimes following treatment for gynaecological malignancies in the UK. Study designOnline questionnaire Survey of gynaecological cancer centres across the UK. All members of the British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) and the National Forum of Gynaecological Oncology Nurses (NFGON) were invited to complete the survey between 12/07/2018 and 12/04/2019. Responses were grouped into cancer centres for analysis. Results90 % (44/49) of cancer centres from across the UK responded. All centres offer consultant follow up, most commonly for 5 years (77 %). Routine CA125 surveillance was performed for ovarian cancer in 27 % and cervical or vault cytology for cervical cancer in 9 %. Cancer centres also utilised patient initiated follow up (PIFU) (42 %), telephone follow up (36 %) and nurse led follow up (45 %). PIFU was most commonly offered in endometrial cancer (100 %) but also in vulval (26 %), cervical (32 %) and ovarian (26 %) cancer. Timing of PIFU initiation following completion of treatment varied by cancer stage and grade in endometrial cancer. For patients with grade 1 stage 1a endometrial cancer, PIFU was initiated within 3 months in 82 % of centres that use PIFU. ConclusionNon hospital based follow up regimes are increasingly prevalent in the UK following gynaecological malignancy. The appointment and cost savings in secondary care may be significant however there is likely to be a substantial impact on the primary care sector. There is no evidence regarding the impact of PIFU on overall survival and a randomised controlled trial is strongly recommended.

Sentinel lymph node consensus document of the British Gynaecological Cancer Society for endometrial, vulvar, and cervical cancers

The British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) officers and expert members of the UK gynecological oncological community met to discuss evidence around the applicability and oncologic and surgical safety of the...

Current and Future Use of Radiological Images in the Management of Gynecological Malignancies - A Survey of Practice in the UK.

Radiology provides increasingly accurate and complex information. Understanding the clinicians' interpretation of scans could improve surgical planning, decision-making; informed training and development of augmented imaging. This was a survey exploring the interpretation of imaging by clinicians and its use in operative preparation and prediction. The survey was open for two-months and circulated online to British Gynaecological Cancer society members. Seventy-three (19%) members completed the survey. Respondents had a confidence level of 51% in their ability to interpret computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images independently. Preoperative imaging was commonly used to plan operations, predict complications and complete resection. Images were reviewed for primary (96.3%)/interval (92.6%) ovarian debulking, but less so for vulvectomy (45%). Scan (79.6%) and multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) (66.6%) reports were used more often than scan images (50%) for operative planning. Amount and pattern of disease on scan were the most important factors predicting operating time. Imaging influences the surgeon's planning, however respondents lack confidence. Training of clinicians in radiological interpretation needs to improve. Augmented image interfaces could facilitate this.