IntroductionEnhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to improve clinical outcomes in gynecologic oncology, with the majority of published reports originating from a small number of specialized centers. It is unclear to what degree ERAS is implemented in hospitals globally. This international survey investigated the status of ERAS protocol implementation in open gynecologic oncology surgery to provide a worldwide perspective on peri-operative practice patterns.MethodsRequests to participate in an online survey of ERAS practices were distributed via social media (WhatsApp, Twitter, and Social Link). The survey was active between January 15 and March 15, 2020. Additionally, four national gynecologic oncology societies agreed to distribute the study among their members. Respondents were requested to answer a 17-item questionnaire about their ERAS practice preferences in the pre-, intra-, and post-operative periods.ResultsData from 454 respondents representing 62 countries were analyzed. Overall, 37% reported that ERAS was implemented at their institution. The regional distribution was: Europe 61%, Americas 53%, Asia 30%, and Africa 17%. ERAS gynecologic oncology guidelines were well adhered to (>80%) in the domains of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, early removal of urinary catheter after surgery, and early introduction of ambulation. Areas with poor adherence to the guidelines included the use of bowel preparation, adoption of modern fasting guidelines, carbohydrate loading, use of nasogastric tubes and peritoneal drains, intra-operative temperature monitoring, and early feeding.ConclusionThis international survey of ERAS in open gynecologic oncology surgery shows that, while some practices are consistent with guideline recommendations, many practices contradict the established evidence. Efforts are required to decrease the variation in peri-operative care that exists in order to improve clinical outcomes for patients with gynecologic cancer globally.

Women with synchronous primary endometrial and ovarian cancers are young, nulliparous, obese, and premenopausal and have a favorable overall prognosis. Grade 3 disease at both sites and presence of lymphovascular space invasion are independent prognostic factors for recurrence and survival, respectively.

Purpose The notorious COVID 19 pandemic has caused rapid and drastic changes in cancer care worldwide in 2020. This online survey aims to assess the extent to which the pandemic has affected cancer care in gynecological oncology amongst members of the Association of Gynecological Oncologists of India (AGOI), a registered professional society founded in 1991. Methods We developed and administered a cross-sectional, flash survey to members of AGOI in the first week of April 2020. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Office Excel 2016. Results were expressed as percentages of total responses excluding blank or unattended response. Overall theme-specific responses were described as a spectrum of findings, and related inferences were drawn. Results Among approached practitioners, 90 responded to the survey, more than 80% were practicing consultants, and more than 50% from academic institutions. The results of the study showed that the ongoing pandemic had severely affected gynecological oncology practice and care amongst all respondents. There were modifications in diagnostic pathways, interventions, and follow-ups across all organ sites. There was a near-unanimous opinion on the use of general safety measures to combat the virus and to use complete PPEs in a high-risk situation. There were mixed responses to alternative educational activities, especially using electronic technology and distant learning methods. There was optimism among respondents with regards to the current situation normalizing in 3-6 months. Conclusion This study documents the pandemic affected scenario of gynecological cancer care and perceptions of Gynecological Oncologists in India. A significant effect on all aspects of cancer care was observed. Technological learning methods, both for patient care and educational activities, were being adopted by many respondents.

In India, there are marked variations in resources for cervical cancer screening. For the first time, resourcestratified screening guidelines have been developed that will be suitable for low middle-income countries with similar diversities. The current article describes the process and outcomes of these resource stratified guidelines for screening and treatment of preinvasive lesions of cervix. Evidence from literature was collated and various guidelines were reviewed by an expert panel. Based on the level of evidence, guidelines were developed for screening by human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, cytology and visual inspection after application of acetic acid (VIA), and management of screen positive lesions in different resource settings. Expert opinion was used for certain country-specific situations. The healthcare system was stratified into two resource settingsgood or limited. The mode of screening and treatment for each was described. HPV testing is the preferred method for cervical cancer screening. VIA by trained providers is especially suitable for low resource settings until an affordable HPV test becomes available. Healthcare providers can choose the most appropriate screening and treatment modality. A single visit approach is encouraged and treatment may be offered based on colposcopy diagnosis ('see and treat') or even on the basis of HPV test or VIA results ('screen and treat'), if compliance cannot be ensured. The Federation of Obsterician and Gynaecologists of India Good Clinical Practice Recommendations (FOGSI) GCPR are appropriately designed for countries with varied resource situations to ensure an acceptable cervical cancer prevention strategy.The three main modalities of screening in use are HPV testing, cytology and visual inspection with 202

The R-VEIL allows the removal of inguinal lymph nodes within the same limits as the open procedure for inguinal lymph node dissection and has a potential to reduce the surgical morbidity associated with the open procedure. Long-term oncological results are not available though our initial results appear promising. Prospective multi-institutional studies are required to prove its efficacy over open inguinal lymph node dissection.