Centralisation of services for the management of ovarian cancer: arguments against
Article first published online: 12 SEP 2007
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01461.x
RCOG 2007 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Issue

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Volume 114, Issue 10, pages 1183–1187, October 2007
Additional Information
How to Cite
Crawford, S. and Brunskill, P. (2007), Centralisation of services for the management of ovarian cancer: arguments against. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 114: 1183–1187. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01461.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 12 SEP 2007
- Article first published online: 12 SEP 2007
- Accepted 11 June 2007.
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
In 2000, the Commissioning Guidance for gynaecological cancer services relied on a subset analysis within a retrospective study to support its requirement that surgery for carcinoma of the ovary be centralised. We have reviewed the literature covering this issue, especially that published in the past 6 years. There is no evidence for an advantage for specialist gynaecological oncologists over general gynaecologists for these women; studies that suggest that one exists fail to separate patients presenting to general surgeons, whose patients are at a clear disadvantage, from those seen by gynaecologists. There is evidence for the need for appropriate surgery in women with less extensive disease where the diagnostic difficulties are greatest. We argue for investment in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer and the provision of services for its medical treatment over a prolonged period.

1471-0528/asset/BJO_left.gif?v=1&s=0fb87361cdb6be25fdf05019eed6d47f5143f610)
1471-0528/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=3892ef16ff18d6834c302faf85268a49f5fc588f)