24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Aplicación de un protocolo de manejo de masas anexiales: ahorro en actividad clínicamente innecesaria y costes Translated title: Application of a protocol for the management of adnexal masses: savings in clinically unnecessary activity and costs

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Resumen Fundamento: Evaluar si la implantación de un protocolo de masas anexiales basado en el sistema GI-RADS permite un correcto manejo de estas, evitando la actividad clínicamente innecesaria derivada del sobrediagnóstico y sobretratamiento, así como un ahorro en los costes. Método: Estudio de cohortes retrospectivo (julio 2015 - junio 2017). Incluyó mujeres atendidas en la consulta de Ginecología del Hospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos (Móstoles, Madrid) con hallazgo de una masa anexial en ecografía de alta resolución. La masa anexial se catalogó con el sistema GI-RADS y, junto con la imagen ecográfica y el estatus menopáusico de la paciente, se decidió realizar cirugía o seguimiento. Resultados: Se estudiaron 154 mujeres, el 24 % con imágenes sospechosas de malignidad (G4 y G5). Se intervinieron un 33,1 % de las masas anexiales, el 33,3 % de las cuales fueron cáncer de ovario, principalmente en mujeres postmenopáusicas con una imagen ecográfica sospechosa de malignidad (88,2 %). Un 3,2 % de las pacientes rechazaron la indicación de cirugía. Durante el seguimiento desaparecieron el 21,4 % de las masas anexiales, 61 pacientes (39,6 %) no habían sido intervenidas por presentar una masa anexial estable, y dos (1,3 %) por el riesgo quirúrgico. Al final del estudio se evitaron 96 (62,3 %) cirugías, logrando una reducción de costes de 57.683 euros. Conclusiones: La aplicación de un protocolo basado en el sistema de clasificación GI-RADS evitó cirugías innecesarias y las consecuencias y costes derivados de ellas, por lo que constituye una herramienta útil y práctica en el control y tratamiento de las masas anexiales.

          Translated abstract

          Abstract Background: Evaluate whether the implementation of an adnexal masses protocol, based on the GI-RADS system, allows a correct management of these masses, avoiding unnecessary clinical activity produced by overdiagnosis and overtreatment, as well as cost savings. Methods: Retrospective cohort study (July 2015 - June 2017) including women treated at the Gynaecology clinic of the Hospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos (Móstoles, Madrid), with detection of an adnexal mass in high resolution echography. Adnexal masses were classified by the GI-RADS system, and together with the echographic image and menopausal status, surgery or follow-up was decided. Results: A total of 154 women were studied, 24 % with images suggesting malignancy (G4 and G5). Surgery was performed on 33.1 % of adnexal masses; 33.3 % of them were ovarian carcinoma, mainly (88.2 %) in postmenopausal women with echographic images suggesting malignancy. Three point two percent of patients rejected the recommended surgery. During follow-up 21.4 % of the masses disappeared, 61 patients were only monitored due to a stable mass and two (1.3 %) due to surgical risk. Eventually, 96 (62.3 %) surgeries were avoided, achieving a 57,683 Euro saving. Conclusions: The application of a protocol based on the GI-RADS classification system avoided unnecessary surgeries, as well as the consequences and economical cost produced by them. Thus, this protocol is a useful and practical tool for the monitoring and treatment of adnexal masses.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer statistics, 2018

          Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2014, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2015, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, 1,735,350 new cancer cases and 609,640 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2005-2014) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2006-2015) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Of the 10 leading causes of death, only cancer declined from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the cancer death rate was 14% higher in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) than non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) overall (death rate ratio [DRR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13-1.15), but the racial disparity was much larger for individuals aged <65 years (DRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29-1.32) compared with those aged ≥65 years (DRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09) and varied substantially by state. For example, the cancer death rate was lower in NHBs than NHWs in Massachusetts for all ages and in New York for individuals aged ≥65 years, whereas for those aged <65 years, it was 3 times higher in NHBs in the District of Columbia (DRR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.16-3.91) and about 50% higher in Wisconsin (DRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02), Kansas (DRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81), Louisiana (DRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60), Illinois (DRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57), and California (DRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.54). Larger racial inequalities in young and middle-aged adults probably partly reflect less access to high-quality health care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial

            Summary Background Ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis, with just 40% of patients surviving 5 years. We designed this trial to establish the effect of early detection by screening on ovarian cancer mortality. Methods In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited postmenopausal women aged 50–74 years from 13 centres in National Health Service Trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were previous bilateral oophorectomy or ovarian malignancy, increased risk of familial ovarian cancer, and active non-ovarian malignancy. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer-generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA125 interpreted with use of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian cancer by Dec 31, 2014, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening, ascertained by an outcomes committee masked to randomisation group. All analyses were by modified intention to screen, excluding the small number of women we discovered after randomisation to have a bilateral oophorectomy, have ovarian cancer, or had exited the registry before recruitment. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00058032. Findings Between June 1, 2001, and Oct 21, 2005, we randomly allocated 202 638 women: 50 640 (25·0%) to MMS, 50 639 (25·0%) to USS, and 101 359 (50·0%) to no screening. 202 546 (>99·9%) women were eligible for analysis: 50 624 (>99·9%) women in the MMS group, 50 623 (>99·9%) in the USS group, and 101 299 (>99·9%) in the no screening group. Screening ended on Dec 31, 2011, and included 345 570 MMS and 327 775 USS annual screening episodes. At a median follow-up of 11·1 years (IQR 10·0–12·0), we diagnosed ovarian cancer in 1282 (0·6%) women: 338 (0·7%) in the MMS group, 314 (0·6%) in the USS group, and 630 (0·6%) in the no screening group. Of these women, 148 (0·29%) women in the MMS group, 154 (0·30%) in the USS group, and 347 (0·34%) in the no screening group had died of ovarian cancer. The primary analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model gave a mortality reduction over years 0–14 of 15% (95% CI −3 to 30; p=0·10) with MMS and 11% (−7 to 27; p=0·21) with USS. The Royston-Parmar flexible parametric model showed that in the MMS group, this mortality effect was made up of 8% (−20 to 31) in years 0–7 and 23% (1–46) in years 7–14, and in the USS group, of 2% (−27 to 26) in years 0–7 and 21% (−2 to 42) in years 7–14. A prespecified analysis of death from ovarian cancer of MMS versus no screening with exclusion of prevalent cases showed significantly different death rates (p=0·021), with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% (−2 to 40) and a reduction of 8% (−27 to 43) in years 0–7 and 28% (−3 to 49) in years 7–14 in favour of MMS. Interpretation Although the mortality reduction was not significant in the primary analysis, we noted a significant mortality reduction with MMS when prevalent cases were excluded. We noted encouraging evidence of a mortality reduction in years 7–14, but further follow-up is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ovarian cancer screening. Funding Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, The Eve Appeal.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Carcinoma of the ovary. FIGO 26th Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                asisna
                Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra
                Anales Sis San Navarra
                Gobierno de Navarra. Departamento de Salud (Pamplona, Navarra, Spain )
                1137-6627
                August 2020
                : 43
                : 2
                : 151-157
                Affiliations
                [1] Madrid orgnameHospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos
                [2] Madrid Madrid orgnameUniversidad Rey Juan Carlos Spain
                Article
                S1137-66272020000200004 S1137-6627(20)04300200004
                10.23938/assn.0863
                b5d5ee0e-2eed-4c48-8d3d-8a6ff71d237b

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 International License.

                History
                : 28 February 2020
                : 28 April 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 20, Pages: 7
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Artículos Originales

                Unnecessary surgeries,Clasificación GI-RADS,Masa anexial,GI-RADS classification,Adnexal masses,Seguridad del paciente,Cirugías innecesarias,Patient safety

                Comments

                Comment on this article