Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 18, 2026
Quantitation of Intra-peritoneal Ovarian Cancer Metastasis
Published on: July 18, 2016
The quality of the operative report for women with ovarian cancer in Ontario
Laurie Elit1, Susan Bondy2, Zhongliang Chen3
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton ON.
Objective:
To assess the quality of the operative reports from cases of ovarian cancer surgery in Ontario.
Methods:
We undertook a population cohort study including all newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients treated initially with surgery from January 1996 to December 1998 in Ontario (n = 1341). We abstracted charts from hospitals and cancer centres. All surgical and pathology notes were abstracted into an ACCESS database.
Results:
A total of 1,341 women had surgery as the first step in management of ovarian cancer. A vertical abdominal incision was used in 87.6% of these cases. Peritoneal cytology was obtained in 87.8% of cases overall, but in only 69.5% of stage 1 cases. A description of the ovaries was provided in 85% of reports, of the uterus in 70%, the diaphragm in 53%, the liver in 69%, the pelvic lymph nodes in 10%, and the para-aortic lymph nodes in 41%. In stage 1 cases, the ovaries were assessed histologically in 89% of cases, the uterus in 80%, the omentum in 69%, the peritoneum in 20%, the appendix in 9%, the pelvic lymph nodes in 10%, and the para-aortic lymph nodes in 7%. Frozen section was obtained in half of the stage 1 cases, and the false negative rate for identifying malignancy was 6%. In all, 23% of women received adequate surgical staging for stage 1 disease, and 12% of women with advanced disease had optimal debulking (to less than 1 cm residual disease). There are clear differences between centres with a gynaecologic oncologist on staff and other centres in the adequacy of surgical staging in women with stage 1 disease (chi2 = 60.6, P < 0.0001) and in optimal debulking for advanced disease (chi2 = 39.1, P < 0.0001). In 40% of cases with advanced disease, the amount of residual disease following surgery is not reported.
Conclusion:
The current approach of dictating operative notes does not provide sufficient detail in a large number of cases; this affects treatment decisions and limits our ability to assess quality indicators for operative care in ovarian cancer. This problem is pervasive but is more significant in centres without a gynaecologic oncologist.
