OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies that examined centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer, and used multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data, and two assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data on survival in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met our inclusion criteria; all were retrospective observational studies and therefore at high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. Adverse event data were not reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality, but consistent evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere. The evidence was stronger for ovarian cancer than for other gynaecological cancers.Further studies of survival are needed, with more robust designs than retrospective observational studies. Research should also assess the quality of life associated with centralisation of gynaecological cancer care. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries; future studies should be extended to other gynaecological cancers within different healthcare systems.
METHODS: A nested case-control study in nonsmoking postmenopausal women (334 cases, 417 controls) was conducted within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. Unconditional logistic regression models were used to estimate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between HbAA, HbGA, HbAA+HbGA, and HbGA/HbAA and EOC and invasive serous EOC risk.
RESULTS: No overall associations were observed between biomarkers of acrylamide exposure analyzed in quintiles and EOC risk; however, positive associations were observed between some middle quintiles of HbGA and HbAA+HbGA. Elevated but nonstatistically significant ORs for serous EOC were observed for HbGA and HbAA+HbGA (ORQ5vsQ1, 1.91; 95% CI, 0.96-3.81 and ORQ5vsQ1, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.94-3.83, respectively); however, no linear dose-response trends were observed.
CONCLUSION: This EPIC nested case-control study failed to observe a clear association between biomarkers of acrylamide exposure and the risk of EOC or invasive serous EOC.
IMPACT: It is unlikely that dietary acrylamide exposure increases ovarian cancer risk; however, additional studies with larger sample size should be performed to exclude any possible association with EOC risk.
METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort to evaluate C-reactive protein (CRP), IL6, and EOC risk by tumor characteristics. A total of 754 eligible EOC cases were identified; two controls (n = 1,497) were matched per case. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to assess associations.
RESULTS: CRP and IL6 were not associated with overall EOC risk. However, consistent with prior research, CRP >10 versus CRP ≤1 mg/L was associated with higher overall EOC risk [OR, 1.67 (1.03-2.70)]. We did not observe significant associations or heterogeneity in analyses by tumor characteristics. In analyses stratified by waist circumference, inflammatory markers were associated with higher risk among women with higher waist circumference; no association was observed for women with normal waist circumference [e.g., IL6: waist ≤80: ORlog2, 0.97 (0.81-1.16); waist >88: ORlog2, 1.78 (1.28-2.48), Pheterogeneity ≤ 0.01].
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that high CRP is associated with increased risk of overall EOC, and that IL6 and CRP may be associated with EOC risk among women with higher adiposity.
IMPACT: Our data add to global evidence that ovarian carcinogenesis may be promoted by an inflammatory milieu.
OBJECTIVE: We used a nutrient-wide association study approach to systematically test the association between dietary factors and invasive EOC risk while accounting for multiple hypothesis testing by using the false discovery rate and evaluated the findings in an independent cohort.
DESIGN: We assessed dietary intake amounts of 28 foods/food groups and 29 nutrients estimated by using dietary questionnaires in the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) study (n = 1095 cases). We selected 4 foods/nutrients that were statistically significantly associated with EOC risk when comparing the extreme quartiles of intake in the EPIC study (false discovery rate = 0.43) and evaluated these factors in the NLCS (Netherlands Cohort Study; n = 383 cases). Cox regression models were used to estimate HRs and 95% CIs.
RESULTS: None of the 4 dietary factors that were associated with EOC risk in the EPIC study (cholesterol, polyunsaturated and saturated fat, and bananas) were statistically significantly associated with EOC risk in the NLCS; however, in meta-analysis of the EPIC study and the NLCS, we observed a higher risk of EOC with a high than with a low intake of saturated fat (quartile 4 compared with quartile 1; overall HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.41).
CONCLUSION: In the meta-analysis of both studies, there was a higher risk of EOC with a high than with a low intake of saturated fat.