METHODS: We performed systematic searches using electronic databases including PubMed and EMBASE until December 2012. Key words included "metformin" AND ("ovarian cancer" OR "ovary tumor"). All human studies assessing the effects of metformin on ovarian cancer were eligible for inclusion. All articles were reviewed independently by 2 authors with a standardized approach for the purpose of study, study design, patient characteristics, exposure, and outcomes. The data were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Of 190 studies retrieved, only 3 observational studies and 1 report of 2 randomized controlled trials were included. Among those studies, 2 reported the effects of metformin on survival outcomes of ovarian cancer, whereas the other 2 reported the effects of metformin on ovarian cancer prevention. The findings of studies reporting the effects on survival outcomes indicated that metformin may prolong overall, disease-specific, and progression-free survival in ovarian cancer patients. The results of studies reporting the effects of metformin on ovarian cancer prevention were meta-analyzed. It indicated that metformin tended to decrease occurrence of ovarian cancer among diabetic patients with the pooled odds ratio of 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.16-1.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed the potential therapeutic effects of metformin on survival outcomes of ovarian cancer and ovarian cancer prevention. However, most of the evidence was observational studies. There is a call for further well-conducted controlled clinical trials to confirm the effects of metformin on ovarian cancer survival and ovarian cancer prevention.
METHODS: Information on reproductive characteristics was collected at recruitment. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and multivariable models were adjusted for age and year of diagnosis, body mass index, tumour stage, smoking status and stratified by study centre.
RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 3.6 years (±3.2 s.d.) following EOC diagnosis, 511 (49.9%) of the 1025 women died from EOC. We observed a suggestive survival advantage in menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) users (ever vs never use, HR=0.80, 95% CI=0.62-1.03) and a significant survival benefit in long-term MHT users (⩾5 years use vs never use, HR=0.70, 95% CI=0.50-0.99, P(trend)=0.04). We observed similar results for MHT use when restricting to serous cases. Other reproductive factors, including parity, breastfeeding, oral contraceptive use and age at menarche or menopause, were not associated with EOC-specific mortality risk.
CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are warranted to investigate the possible improvement in EOC survival in MHT users.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies that examined centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer, and used multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data, and two assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data on survival in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met our inclusion criteria; all were retrospective observational studies and therefore at high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. Adverse event data were not reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality, but consistent evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere. The evidence was stronger for ovarian cancer than for other gynaecological cancers.Further studies of survival are needed, with more robust designs than retrospective observational studies. Research should also assess the quality of life associated with centralisation of gynaecological cancer care. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries; future studies should be extended to other gynaecological cancers within different healthcare systems.