To assess the impact of 5 or more cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and cytoreductive outcomes on overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing interval debulking surgery (IDS) for advanced ovarian cancer. A retrospective review of patients receiving NACT followed by IDS between 2007 and 2017. Patients were analysed according to number of NACT cycles received: group 1 consisted of patients receiving ≤4 cycles and group 2 consisted of those receiving ≥5 cycles. Outcomes were stratified by cytoreductive outcome, surgical complexity, stage and chemotherapy exposure. 231 patients in group 1 and 167 in group 2 were identified. In group 1, the OS for those achieving Complete (R0), Optimal<1 cm (R1) and Suboptimal (R2) was 51.1, 36.1, and 34.3 months respectively. Statistically significant differences in survival were seen in patients achieving R0vR2 (p < 0.019) but not in R0vR1 (p = 0.125) or R1vR2 (p = 0.358). In group 2, the OS for those achieving R0, R1 and R2 was 53.0, 24.7, and 22.1 months respectively. Statistically significant differences were seen between R0vR1 and R0vR2 (p < 0.00001) but not between R1vR2 (p = 0.917). No difference in OS was seen between groups 1 and 2. In patients achieving R1, there was a trend towards decreasing OS with increasing exposure to NACT from 36.1 (95%CI 32.0-40.2)months with 3 cycles to 24.3 (95%CI 14.4-34.2)months with ≥6 cycles. Surgery with utilisation of cytoreductive procedures to achieve complete clearance should be offered to all patients even after ≥5 cycles if R0 can be achieved. R1 cytoreduction has questionable value in those receiving ≤4 cycles and no value in those receiving ≥5 cycles.

Objective: To determine which descriptors of cytoreductive surgical extent in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) best predict postoperative morbidity.Design: Retrospective notes review.Setting: A gynaecological cancer centre in the UK.Population: Six hundred and eight women operated on for AOC over a period of 114 months at a tertiary cancer centre, between 16 August 2007 and 16 February 2017.Methods: Outcome data were analysed by six approaches to classify the extent of surgery: standard/ultra‐radical surgery; standard/radical/supra‐radical surgery; presence/absence of gastrointestinal resections; low/intermediate/high surgical complexity score (SCS); presence of bowel anastomoses and/or diaphragmatic surgery; and the presence/absence of multiple bowel resections.Main outcome measures: Major (grades 3–5) postoperative morbidity and mortality.Results: Forty‐three (7.1%) patients experienced major complications. Grade‐5 complications occurred in six patients (1.0%). Patients who underwent multiple bowel resections had a relative risk (RR) of 7.73 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 3.92–15.26), patients with a high SCS had an RR of 6.12 (95% CI 3.25–11.52), patients with diaphragmatic surgery and gastrointestinal anastomosis had an RR of 5.57 (95% CI 2.65–11.72), patients with ‘any gastrointestinal resection’ had an RR of 4.69 (95% CI 2.66–8.24), patients with ultra‐radical surgery had an RR of 4.65 (95% CI 2.26–8.79), and patients with supra‐radical surgery had an RR of 4.20 (95% CI 2.35–7.51) of grades 3–5 morbidity, compared with patients undergoing standard surgery as defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK. No significant difference was seen in the rate of major morbidity between standard (6/59, 10.2%) and ultra‐radical (9/81, 11.1%) surgery within the cohort who had intermediate complex surgery (P > 0.05).Conclusions: The numbers of procedures performed significantly correlate with major morbidity. The number of procedures performed better predicted major postoperative morbidity than the performance of certain ‘high risk’ procedures. We recommend using SCS to define a higher risk operation. NICE should re‐evaluate the use of the term ‘ultra‐radical’ surgery.Tweetable Multiple bowel resection is the best predictor of morbidity and is more predictive than ‘ultra‐radical surgery’.

Combined surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy is the internationally agreed standard therapy for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). However international cancer registry datasets demonstrate a significant proportion of patients do not receive both or either therapies. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of total patient cohort data ('Denominator') on median overall survival (OS) and determine how frequently this was reported in literature. We retrospectively reviewed OS outcomes for 593 patients diagnosed with AOC for 77 months at a regional cancer centre. Patients were stratified into five progressively overlapping categories based on treatment received - Primary debulking surgery (PDS), PDS or Interval debulking (IDS), all surgery and those considered for IDS, patients receiving any treatment and total patient cohort. A systematic search of literature was performed. Median OS progressively decreased from 54.5 months in patients receiving PDS, 38.7 months in the PDS+IDS group, 35.4 months in the PDS/IDS+patients considered for IDS, 33.3 months in patients receiving any treatment and 30.2 months in the total patient cohort. OS in the surgically treated group was statistically significantly different from the OS in the total patient cohort (Denominator)(p=0.000353). Denominator descriptors were identified in 11% of studies. Denominator data is critical to understanding selection and OS in AOC. Published outcomes of selected cohorts should routinely incorporate outcomes for all women managed within the reporting Centre. This is essential for benchmarking and quality assurance in gynaecological cancer and should be an integral part of any publication on outcomes from AOC.

Ovarian cancer survival in the UK lags behind comparable countries. Results from the ongoing National Ovarian Cancer Audit feasibility pilot (OCAFP) show that approximately 1 in 4 women with advanced ovarian cancer (Stage 2, 3, 4 and unstaged cancer) do not receive any anticancer treatment and only 51% in England receive international standard of care treatment, i.e., the combination of surgery and chemotherapy. The audit has also demonstrated wide variation in the percentage of women receiving anticancer treatment for advanced ovarian cancer, be it surgery or chemotherapy across the 19 geographical regions for organisation of cancer delivery (Cancer Alliances). Receipt of treatment also correlates with survival: 5 year Cancer survival varies from 28.6% to 49.6% across England. Here, we take a systems wide approach encompassing both diagnostic pathways and cancer treatment, derived from the whole cohort of women with ovarian cancer to set out recommendations and quality performance indicators (QPI). A multidisciplinary panel established by the British Gynaecological Cancer Society carefully identified QPI against criteria: metrics selected were those easily evaluable nationally using routinely available data and where there was a clear evidence base to support interventions. These QPI will be valuable to other taxpayer funded systems with national data collection mechanisms and are to our knowledge the only population level data derived standards in ovarian cancer. We also identify interventions for Best practice and Research recommendations.