The rationale of opportunistic bilateral salpingectomies (OBS) during benign gynaecological and obstetric surgery: a consensus text of the Flemish Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (VVOG).

Ovarian cancer (OC), is a disease difficult to diagnose in an early stage implicating a poor prognosis. The 5-year overall survival in Belgium has not changed in the last 18 years and remains 44 %. There is no effective screening method (secondary prevention) to detect ovarian cancer at an early stage. Primary prevention of ovarian cancer came in the picture through the paradigm shift that the fallopian tube is often the origin of ovarian cancer and not the ovary itself. Opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy (OBS) during benign gynaecological and obstetric surgery might have the potential to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer by as much as 65 %. Bilateral risk-reducing salpingectomy during a benign procedure is feasible, safe, appears to have no impact on the ovarian function and seems to be cost effective. The key question is whether we should wait for a RCT or implement OBS directly in our daily practice. Guidelines regarding OBS within our societies are therefore urgently needed. Our recommendation is to inform all women without a child wish, undergoing a benign gynaecological or obstetrical surgical procedure about the pro's and the con's of OBS and advise a bilateral salpingectomy. Furthermore, there is an urgent need for a prospective registry of OBS. The present article is the consensus text of the Flemish Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (VVOG) regarding OBS.

A randomised crossover trial of chemotherapy in the home: patient preferences and cost analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine patient preferences and cost differences between home-based and hospital-based chemotherapy. DESIGN: Randomised crossover trial. SETTING: A tertiary cancer hospital in Melbourne, Victoria. PARTICIPANTS: 20 patients who required chemotherapy suitable for administration at home. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned at random to receive their first chemotherapy treatment in either the home or the hospital and the second treatment in the alternative setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient preference, costs. RESULTS: There was universal agreement by the 20 patients in the randomised trial that home-based chemotherapy was the preferred option (P < 0.0001). No problems were nominated by the patients as being associated with home-based chemotherapy. Home-based treatment was estimated to result in an increased cost of $83 (P = 0.0002) for each chemotherapy treatment compared with hospital-based treatment. Reported advantages for chemotherapy in the home included the elimination of travel, reduction in treatment-associated anxiety, reduction in the burden on carers and family, and the ability to continue other duties. There were no significant complications associated with administration of chemotherapy in the home. CONCLUSIONS: Patients prefer home-based chemotherapy to hospital-based treatment. The future of chemotherapy-in-the-home programs in Australia will depend on whether patient preferences are deemed to offset any potential increase in costs.