Borderline Ovarian Tumor Consensus Workshop

1
Borderline Ovarian Tumor Consensus
Workshop August 27-28, 2003 Hyatt Regency
Bethesda Jules Berman, Ph.D., M.D. Program
Director for Pathology Informatics Cancer
Diagnosis Program, NCI
2
Sponsors NIH Office of Rare Diseases NCI
Office of Womens Health NCI Cancer Diagnosis
Program
3
Special Thanks to Rebecca Liddell Pamela
Handon Jeff Seidman, Mark Sherman Ted
Trimble Fred Gorstein Sheila Taube, Anna Levy and
Mary Demory
4
Planning Committee Steven Silverberg
(Co-Chair) Robert Kurman Robert Young Elvia Silva
5
Purpose of Meeting To reach consensus on a
variety of issues related to Borderline
Tumors And To identify issues where there is no
consensus And To recommend questions worthy of
future study And Publish (probably more than
one) consensus paper
6
Should benefit Clinicians Pathologists Research
ers Patients
7
Consensus Does not mean debating Does not
typically mean voting Does mean getting a sense
of where opinions converge and developing a
common understanding of the limitations in our
understanding and some sort of idea of what
questions we need to answer
8
Behavior at a consensus meeting is different
from behavior at other kinds of meetings Need to
avoid Tendency to lose focus Tendency to
polarize the group around tenaciously held
opinions.
9
Needs to have Respected moderators A way to
move past a stalemate For each moment, a purpose

10
Todays talks Not really designed to review our
state of knowledge of borderline tumors Not
intended to give the lecturers an opportunity to
discuss their latest research achievements Intende
d to focus the group on consensus issues
11
Tomorrows charge 800 Planning Committee plus
Drs. Seidman and Ronnett will make final
decisions on the minimal set of issues to be
discussed in breakout sessions. Choose your
session. Best chance to add issues to agenda (see
handout). In afternoon, session leaders will make
presentations followed by more discussion. Publica
tion issues discussion followed by adjournment at
300
12
What kind of people are here today? 1. The
hard-core. People who have made a major
professional/personal investment in borderline
ovarian tumors and who are highly committed to
achieving the goals of the conference, for the
benefit of their patients and of themselves.
13
What kind of people are here today? 2. The
hopeful. People who are experts in the field
(either as clinicians or as pathologists) and who
have a sense that something important is likely
to be accomplished during the meeting, and they
want to be a part of the process.
14
What kind of people are here today? 3. The
watchful. People who are experts in the field and
who are skeptical that anything can be achieved
by the workshop, but who think that theres
something to be gained by observing the process
(includes those confronting their own existential
angst).
15
What kind of people are here today? 4. The
judgmental. Government leadership who either
helped fund this meeting or who are in the
position to fund similar meetings in the future,
and who will judge whether pathologists can work
as an effective group to produce a scientifically
valid consensus report on an historically
difficult problem.
16

• Why I believe I am the perfect person to organize
  this meeting.
• Unbiased by knowledge of the field
• 2. Work in a field (Pathology Informatics)
  sufficiently remote from Gyn-Path that I dont
  have to worry about consequences of anyone in
  this room getting mad at me.
• 3. Have experience organizing a published
  consensus meeting
• 4. Surround myself with people who know what
  theyre talking about

17
BUT 3. Protective bubble will break the moment I
actually express an opinion on the subject of the
borderlines. So I wont.
18
Workshop survival tips Breaks Dinner Check-out
tomorrow Lunch tomorrow Adjournment time tomorrow