Shuk Tak Kwok

Return to intended oncological therapy following advanced ovarian cancer surgery: a narrative review

Summary Introduction Patients with advanced ovarian cancer often require radical cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy, with or without targeted therapy. Return to intended oncological therapy after surgery is a crucial metric, as delay can worsen survival. The concept of return to intended oncological therapy is important because it highlights the need for not just successful surgical outcomes, but also the ability to continue with the comprehensive cancer treatment plan. Methods A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted to identify relevant English language studies published from January 2010 to September 2024. Results Delayed return to intended oncological therapy after surgery was associated with poor survival outcomes in ovarian cancer. This narrative review investigates how pre‐operative counselling and education; optimisation of the patient's medical condition; meticulous surgical planning and execution; early recognition of complications; and comprehensive postoperative care influence return to intended therapy in gynaecological surgery. Effective multidisciplinary care involving anaesthetists; nurses; physiotherapists; dietitians; psychologists; and the patient's relatives or friends, can prevent complications and ensure timely return to intended oncological therapy. Discussion Awareness and management of factors affecting return to intended oncological therapy are essential for improving outcomes in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. We highlight the importance of multidisciplinary care (including enhanced recovery after surgery programmes) and the factors affecting these including age; nutrition; and occurrence of postoperative complications.

Patient-Initiated Follow-Up in Ovarian Cancer

This study aimed to assess the feasibility of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) in combination with regular tumour marker monitoring as an alternative to conventional hospital follow-up for ovarian cancer survivors. Women who had recently completed treatment for ovarian cancer and had a raised pre-treatment tumour marker were recruited. Participants were allocated to PIFU (intervention group) or conventional hospital follow-up (control group) according to their own preference. Both groups had regular tumour marker monitoring. The change in fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) score as measured by the FCR inventory, and the supportive care need (SCN) scores as measured by the SCN survey at baseline and at 6 months between PIFU and hospital follow-up were compared. Out of 64 participants, 37 (58%) opted for hospital follow-up and 27 (42%) opted for PIFU. During the 6-month study period, there was no significant difference in the change of FCR between the two groups (p = 0.35). There was a significant decrease in the sexuality unmet needs score in the intervention group from baseline to 6-month FU (mean difference −8.7, 95% confidence interval −16.1 to −1.4, p = 0.02). PIFU with tumour marker monitoring is a feasible follow-up approach in ovarian cancer survivorship care. FCR and SCN were comparable between PIFU and conventional hospital follow-up.

Current status and challenges in training the next generation of gynecologic cancer care providers in Asia

Gynecologic oncology is undergoing rapid development with continuous advances in treatment strategies, surgical techniques, and clinical research. Training programs must keep pace by providing future specialists with the necessary surgical skills and a solid understanding of evolving practices. This study aimed to examine the current state of gynecologic oncology training in Asia and to identify key challenges and opportunities for improvement. A descriptive survey was conducted in October 2023 under the leadership of the Education Committee of the Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology (ASGO). Key stakeholders involved in clinical training and policy-making from eight countries and regions (China, Hong Kong SAR, India, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand) responded to an online questionnaire assessing the structure and quality of their national training programs. Six of the eight countries/regions have official gynecologic oncology societies. Training duration was three years or more in five regions and two years in the remaining three. Seven reported conducting formal assessments of surgical skills. While five programs offered adequate exposure to minimally invasive surgery, three noted limitations. Satisfaction with research opportunities and overall training quality also varied. The most frequently cited concern was the lack of standardized curricula. This regional overview reveals notable differences in training approaches across Asia. Standardizing educational frameworks and expanding collaborative initiatives - such as virtual tumor boards, elective rotations, and skills-based workshops - may help address current gaps and strengthen gynecologic oncology training in the region.