Weight-loss therapy in patients with obesity with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia and uterine cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Although obesity is an important risk factor for endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and uterine cancer, little is known about the trends in use of weight-loss therapy for patients with obesity with EIN and uterine cancer. We examined the use of weight-loss therapy among patients with obesity with EIN and uterine cancer. METHODS: The Merative MarketScan Database was used to identify patients aged 18-70 years who were obese and diagnosed with EIN or uterine cancer. The primary treatment for EIN or uterine cancer was categorized as either primary hysterectomy or hormonal therapy. Nutrition counseling, bariatric surgeries, and weight-management medications were identified as weight-loss therapy. We analyzed trends in the use of any weight-loss therapies with Cochran-Armitage tests. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to examine factors associated with weight-loss therapy use. RESULTS: Overall, 15,374 patients were identified, including 5561 (36.2%) patients with EIN and obesity, and 9813 (63.8%) patients with uterine cancer and obesity. Weight-loss therapy was utilized within 1 year after diagnosis in 480 (8.6%) patients with EIN and in 802 (8.2%) patients with uterine cancer. Use of any weight-loss therapy after diagnosis of EIN increased from 4.1% in 2009 to 12.6% in 2020 (P < .001), and the use of any weight-loss therapy after diagnosis of uterine cancer increased from 4.9% in 2009 to 11.4% in 2020 (P < .001). In a multivariable regression model, younger age and patients with high comorbidity score were associated with a higher likelihood of using any weight-loss therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Use of weight-loss therapy has increased, however there is still a significant underuse of this adjunctive therapy in patients with obesity with EIN or uterine cancer.

Trends in uterine cancer incidence in the United States: The contribution of age, period and cohort effects.

OBJECTIVE: In the U.S., uterine cancer incidence is rising, with racial and ethnic minorities experiencing the largest increases. We performed age-period-cohort analyses using novel methods to examine the contribution of age at diagnosis (age), year of diagnosis (period), and birth cohort (cohort), to trends in uterine cancer incidence. METHODS: We used uterine cancer incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) 12 database (1992-2019), and performed hysterectomy-correction. We generated hexamaps to visualize age, period, and cohort effects, and used mutual information to estimate the percent contribution of age, period, and cohort effects, individually and combined, on uterine cancer incidence, overall and by race and ethnicity and histology. RESULTS: Hexamaps showed an increase in uterine cancer in later time periods, and a cohort effect around 1933 showing a lower incidence compared with earlier and later cohorts. Age, period, and cohort effects combined contributed 86.6% (95% CI: 86.4%, 86.9%) to the incidence. Age effects had the greatest contribution (65.1%, 95% CI: 64.3%, 65.9), followed by cohort (20.7%, 95% CI: 20.1%, 21.3%) and period (14.2%, 95% CI: 13.7%, 14.8%) effects. Hexamaps showed higher incidence in recent years for non-Hispanic Blacks and non-endometrioid tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Age effects had the largest contribution to uterine cancer incidence, followed by cohort and period effects overall and across racial and ethnic groups and histologies. IMPACT: These findings can inform uterine cancer modeling studies on the effects of interventions that target risk factors which may vary across age, period, or cohort.

The ENGAGE study: a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic services in childhood cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Germline cancer genetic testing has become a standard evidence-based practice, with established risk reduction and screening guidelines for genetic carriers. Access to genetic services is limited in many places, which leaves many genetic carriers unidentified and at risk for late diagnosis of cancers and poor outcomes. This poses a problem for childhood cancer survivors, as this is a population with an increased risk for subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN) due to cancer therapy or inherited cancer predisposition. The ENGaging and Activating cancer survivors in Genetic services (ENGAGE) study evaluates the effectiveness of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors compared to usual care options for genetic testing. METHODS: The ENGAGE study is a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study within the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study population which tests a clinical intervention while gathering information on its delivery during the effectiveness trial and its potential for future implementation among 360 participants. Participants are randomized into three arms. Those randomized to Arm A receive genetic services via videoconferencing, those in Arm B receive these services by phone, and those randomized to Arm C will receive usual care services. DISCUSSION: With many barriers to accessing genetic services, innovative delivery models are needed to address this gap and increase uptake of genetic services. The ENGAGE study evaluates the effectiveness of an adapted model of remote delivery of genetic services to increase the uptake of recommended genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors. This study assesses the uptake in remote genetic services and identify barriers to uptake to inform future recommendations and a theoretically-informed process evaluation which can inform modifications to enhance dissemination beyond this study population and to realize the benefits of precision medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04455698) on July 2, 2020.

Excess morbidity and mortality associated with underuse of estrogen replacement therapy in premenopausal women who undergo surgical menopause.

BACKGROUND: Contrary to clinical guidelines, there has been a decrease over time in estrogen therapy use in premenopausal women undergoing bilateral oophorectomy for benign indications. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the excess morbidity and mortality associated with current patterns of estrogen therapy use in women who undergo bilateral oophorectomy with hysterectomy for benign indications. STUDY DESIGN: We developed 2 Bayesian sampling Markov state-transition models to estimate the excess disease incidence (incidence model) and mortality (mortality model). The starting cohort for both models were women who had undergone bilateral oophorectomy with hysterectomy for benign indications at the age of 45 to 49 years. The models tracked outcomes in 5-year intervals for 25 years. The incidence model estimated excess incidence of breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, coronary heart disease, and stroke, whereas the mortality model estimated excess mortality due to breast cancer, lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and all-other-cause mortality. The models compared current rates of estrogen therapy use with optimal (100%) use and calculated the mean difference in each simulated outcome to determine excess disease incidence and death. RESULTS: By 25 years after bilateral oophorectomy with hysterectomy, there were an estimated 94 (95% confidence interval, -158 to -23) fewer colorectal cancer cases, 658 (95% confidence interval, 339-1025) more coronary heart disease cases, and 881 (95% confidence interval, 402-1483) more stroke cases. By 25 years after bilateral oophorectomy with hysterectomy, there were an estimated 189 (95% confidence interval, 59-387) more breast cancer deaths, 380 (95% confidence interval, 114-792) more coronary heart disease deaths, and 759 (95% confidence interval, 307-1527) more all-other-cause deaths. In sensitivity analyses where we defined estrogen therapy use as a duration of >2 years of use, these differences increased >2-fold. CONCLUSION: Underuse of estrogen therapy in premenopausal women who undergo oophorectomy is associated with substantial excess morbidity and mortality.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Olaparib for Patients With Breast Cancer and Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations.

Importance: The OlympiA trial found that 1 year of adjuvant olaparib therapy can improve distant disease-free survival and overall survival from early-stage breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation. However, olaparib, an oral poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase inhibitor, is estimated to cost approximately $14 000 per month in the US. Objective: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib compared with no olaparib in eligible patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an economic evaluation from a health care system perspective, the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib was analyzed using a Markov state-transition model. The model simulated costs and lifetime health outcomes of 42-year-old women with high-risk early-stage breast cancer and a known BRCA1/2 mutation who completed definitive primary therapy and neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy. The study was conducted from August 2021 to July 2023. The effectiveness of olaparib was based on the findings of the OlympiA randomized clinical trial, and other model parameters were identified from the literature. The model was calibrated to the 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year distant disease-free and overall survival observed in the OlympiA trial, and olaparib was assumed to reduce the risk of distant recurrence only in the first 4 years. Exposure: One year of adjuvant olaparib or no adjuvant olaparib. Main Outcome and Measure: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2021 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. All outcomes were discounted by 3% annually. Results: In the base case, adjuvant olaparib was associated with a 1.25-year increase in life expectancy and a 1.20-QALY increase at an incremental cost of $133 133 compared with no olaparib. The resulting ICER was approximately $111 000 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY, olaparib was cost-effective at its 2021 price and in more than 92% of simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The results were sensitive to assumptions about the effectiveness of olaparib and quality of life for patients with no disease recurrence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, from a US health care system perspective, adjuvant olaparib was a cost-effective option for patients with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation.