AIM:To examine the influence of gynecologic oncolo-gists(GO) in the United States on surgical/chemotherapeutic standard of care(SOC), and how this translates into improved survival among women with ovarian cancer(OC).METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result(SEER)-Medicare data were used to identify 11688 OC patients(1992-2006). Only Medicare recipients with an initial surgical procedure code(n = 6714) were included. Physician specialty was identified by linking SEER-Medicare to the American Medical Association Masterfile. SOC was defined by a panel of GOs. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of receiving surgical/chemotherapeutic SOCand proportional hazards modeling to estimate the effect of SOC treatment and physician specialty on survival. RESULTS: About 34% received surgery from a GO and 25% received the overall SOC. One-third of women had a GO involved sometime during their care. Women receiving surgery from a GO vs non-GO had 2.35 times the odds of receiving the surgical SOC and 1.25 times the odds of receiving chemotherapeutic SOC(P < 0.01). Risk of mortality was greater among women not receiving surgical SOC compared to those who did [hazard ratio = 1.22(95%CI: 1.12-1.33), P < 0.01], and also was higher among women seen by non-GOs vs GOs(for surgical treatment) after adjusting for covariates. Median survival time was 14 mo longer for women receiving combined SOC. CONCLUSION: A survival advantage associated with receiving surgical SOC and overall treatment by a GO is supported. Persistent survival differences, particularly among those not receiving the SOC, require further investigation. AIM: To examine the influence of gynecologic oncolo-gists (GO) in the United States on surgical / chemotherapeutic standard of care (SOC), and how this translates into improved survival among women with ovarian cancer (OC) .METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology , and End Result (SEER) -Medicare data were used to identify 11688 OC patients (1992-2006). Only Medicare recipients with an initial surgical procedure code (n = 6714) were included. Physician specialty was identified by linking SEER-Medicare to the American Medical Association Masterfile. SOC was defined by a panel of GOs. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of receiving surgical / chemotherapeutic SOC and proportional hazards modeling to estimate the effect of SOC treatment and physician specialty on survival. RESULTS: About 34% received surgery from a GO and 25% received the overall SOC. One-third of women had a GO involved sometime during their care. Women receiving surgery from a GO vs non-GO had 2.35 times the odds of receiving the surgical SOC and 1.25 times the odds of receiving chemotherapeutic SOC (P <0.01). Risk of mortality was greater among women not receiving surgical SOC compared to those who did [hazard ratio = 1.22 (95% CI: 1.12-1.33 ), P <0.01], and also was higher among women seen by non-GOs vs GOs (for surgical treatment) after adjusting for covariates. Median survival time was 14 mo longer for women receiving combined SOC. CONCLUSION: A survival advantage associated with receiving surgical SOC and overall treatment by a GO is supported. Persistent survival differences, particularly among those not receiving the SOC, require further investigation.