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.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 300 healthy women were recruited comprising 150 premenopausal and 150 postmenopausal women, aged from 20-76 years. All women were subjected to a pelvic ultrasonograph and were confirmed to be free from ovarian pathology on recruitment. Serum HE4 levels were determined by chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA, Abbott Architect). The reference intervals were determined following CLSI guidelines (C28-A2) using a non-parametric method.

RESULTS: The upper limits of the 95th percentile reference interval (90%CI) for all the women collectively were 64.6 pmol/L, and 58.4 pmol/L for premenopausal) and 69.0 pmol/L for postmenopausal. The concentration of HE4 was noted to increase with age especially in women who were more than 50 years old. We also noted that our proposed reference limit was lower compared to the level given by manufacturer Abbott Architect HE4 kit insert (58.4 vs 70 pmol/L for premenopausal group and 69.0 vs 140 pmol/L in the postmenopausal group). The study also showed a significant difference in HE4 concentrations between ethnic groups (Malays and Indians). The levels of HE4 in Indians appeared higher than in Malays (p<0.05), while no significant differences were noted between the Malays and Chinese ethnic groups.