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: In a cross-sectional study using self-administered questionnaires, a total of 24 nurses and 43 doctors were assessed for patient-centredness, psychological distress, and job satisfaction using the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Job Satisfaction Scale. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, independent samples t-test and MANCOVA, with p<0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS: Overall response rate was 95.6% (43/45) for physicians and 85.7% (24/28) for nurses. Even after adjusting for known covariates, our principal finding was that doctors reported greater psychological distress compared to nurses (p=0.009). Doctors also reported lower job satisfaction compared to nurses (p = 0.017), despite higher levels of patient-centredness found in nurses (p=0.001). Findings may be explained in part by differences in job characteristics and demands.

AIMS: This research project aims to identify attitudes towards cancer and associated information and communication needs of Chinese patients and their relatives in Sydney, thereby providing a framework for the provision of culturally appropriate cancer care for Chinese-Australians.

METHODS: A qualitative data collection strategy was selected as the most appropriate method, because no validated measures are available and no previous research has examined attitudes and needs of Chinese-Australian cancer patients. Patients were recruited from three major teaching hospitals in Sydney and from a Chinese cancer support organisation. Sampling was discontinued when informational redundancy was achieved. Four focus groups and 26 individual telephone interviews were conducted with a total of 36 cancer patients and 12 relatives born in China, Singapore and Malaysia.

RESULTS: While individual differences were observed, a majority view was expressed on a range of issues. Non-disclosure of a poor prognosis was favoured, and the role of the family in liaising between health professionals and the patient was emphasised. Patients preferred a confident and clear diagnosis and treatment recommendation. Most patients wished to incorporate Chinese culture-specific treatments into their care. The need for interpreters and psychological and spiritual support was emphasised.

Methods: A link to the online survey was sent to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Asia interested in AYA cancer care. Questions covered the demographics and training of HCPs, their understanding of AYA definition, availability and access to specialised AYA services, the support and advice offered during and after treatment, and factors of treatment non-compliance.

Results: We received 268 responses from 22 Asian countries. There was a striking variation in the definition of AYA (median lower age 15 years, median higher age 29 years). The majority of the respondents (78%) did not have access to specialised cancer services and 73% were not aware of any research initiatives for AYA. Over two-thirds (69%) had the option to refer their patients for psychological and/or nutritional support and most advised their patients on a healthy lifestyle. Even so, 46% did not ask about smokeless tobacco habits and only half referred smokers to a smoking cessation service. Furthermore, 29% did not promote human papillomavirus vaccination for girls and 17% did not promote hepatitis B virus vaccination for high-risk individuals. In terms of funding, 69% reported governmental insurance coverage, although 65% reported that patients self-paid, at least partially. Almost half (47%) reported treatment non-compliance or abandonment as an issue, attributed to financial and family problems (72%), loss of follow-up (74%) and seeking of alternative treatments (77%).