Search

Objective: To assess the impact of socio-economic deprivation on endometrial cancer survival., Design: Single-centre prospective database study., Setting: North West England., Population: Women with endometrial cancer treated between 2010 and 2015., Methods: Areal-level socio-economic status, using the English indices of multiple deprivation from residential postcodes, was analysed in relation to survival using Kaplan-Meier estimation and multivariable Cox regression., Main Outcome Measures: Overall survival, cancer-specific survival and patterns and rates of recurrence., Results: A total of 539 women, with a median age of 66 years (interquartile range, IQR 56-73 years) and a body mass index (BMI) of 32 kg/m 2 (IQR 26-39 kg/m 2 ), were included in the analysis. Women in the most deprived social group were younger (median 64 years, IQR 55-72 years) and more obese (median 34 kg/m 2 , IQR 28-42 kg/m 2 ) than women in the least deprived group (median age 68 years, IQR 60-74 years; BMI 29 kg/m 2 , IQR 25-36 kg/m 2 ; P = 0.002 and <0.001, respectively). There were no differences in endometrial cancer type, stage or grade between social groups. There was no difference in recurrence rates, however, women in the middle and most deprived social groups were more likely to present with distant/metastatic recurrence (80.6 and 79.2%, respectively) than women in the least deprived group (43.5%, P < 0.001). Women in the middle and most deprived groups had a two-fold (adjusted hazard ratio, HR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.07-3.73, P = 0.030) and 53% (adjusted HR = 1.53, 95% CI 0.77-3.04, P = 0.221) increase in cancer-specific mortality compared with women in the least deprived group. There were no differences in overall survival., Conclusions: We found that socio-economically deprived women with endometrial cancer were more likely to develop fatal recurrence. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and to identify modifiable contributing factors., Tweetable Abstract: Socio-economic deprivation is linked to an increased risk of death from endometrial cancer in the North West of England., (© 2021 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To describe the current testing practice, referral pathways and gynaecological services available to women with Lynch syndrome (LS) in the UK., Design: Cross-sectional nationwide survey of gynaecological oncologists and women with LS., Setting: United Kingdom., Methods: Gynaecological oncologists were contacted directly. Women with LS were identified from national and regional clinical databases and the patient support group, Lynch syndrome UK., Main Outcome Measures: Gynaecological oncologists were asked to report rates of LS testing and current practice regarding risk-reducing strategies and gynaecological surveillance for women with LS. Women with LS were asked to describe their experiences of gynaecological care., Results: In total, 41 gynaecological oncologists and 298 women with LS responded to the survey. Of the gynaecological oncologists surveyed, 37% were unfamiliar with any clinical guidelines for the management of LS. Only 29% of gynaecological oncologists supported universal testing of endometrial cancer for LS; one centre routinely performed such testing. In all, 83% said they perform risk-reducing gynaecological surgery and 43% were aware of a local gynaecological surveillance service for women with LS. Of women with LS, most had undergone a hysterectomy (n = 191/64.1%), most frequently to reduce their gynaecological cancer risk (n = 86/45%). A total of 10% were initially referred for LS testing by their gynaecologist and 55% of those eligible regularly attended gynaecological surveillance; however, 62% wanted more regular surveillance. Regional variation was evident across all standards of care., Conclusions: There is widespread variation in the services offered to women with LS in the UK. As a community, gynaecological oncologists should move towards a nationally agreed provision of services., Tweetable Abstract: A mismatch in care for mismatch repair. Survey finds significant variation in gynaecological care for #Lynchsyndrome in the UK., (© 2020 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Background: Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance., Objective: To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women's health., Search Strategy: Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database., Selection Criteria: Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods., Data Collection and Analysis: Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results., Main Results: Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52-4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39-104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results., Conclusion: Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported., Tweetable Abstract: Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women's health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy., (© 2020 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)