Cervical cancer: a new era.

Cervical cancer is a major global health issue, ranking as the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide. Depending on stage, histology, and patient factors, the standard management of cervical cancer is a combination of treatment approaches, including (fertility- or non-fertility-sparing) surgery, radiotherapy, platinum-based chemotherapy, and novel systemic therapies such as bevacizumab, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and antibody-drug conjugates. While ambitious global initiatives seek to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, the management of cervical cancer continues to evolve with major advances in imaging modalities, surgical approaches, identification of histopathological risk factors, radiotherapy techniques, and biomarker-driven personalized therapies. In particular, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors has dramatically altered the treatment of cervical cancer, leading to significant survival benefits in both locally advanced and metastatic/recurrent settings. As the landscape of cervical cancer therapies continues to evolve, the aim of the present review is to provide a comprehensive discussion of the current state and the latest practice-changing updates in cervical cancer.

Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology - a bibliometric study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To characterize robotic surgery publications in gynecologic oncology, and to identify factors associated with high citation metrics. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study SETTING: Original articles on robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. PATIENTS: No patients involved. INTERVENTIONS: Robotic surgeries in gynecologic oncology. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We performed PubMed MeSH search for original articles on robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. We analyzed citation scores and income level of country of publication, as well as factors associated with high citation metrics. Overall, 566 studies during 2005 - 2023 were included. Of those 292, 51.6% were from North America and 182 32.2% from Europe. The leading tumor site studied was endometrial cancer (57.4%). The majority (87.6%) of studies were retrospective and 13 (2.3%) were randomized controlled trials. Most studies (94.2%) originated in high-income countries. Articles from middle-income countries had lower citations per year as compared to high-income countries (median 1.6 vs. 2.5, p=.002) and were published in lower impact factor journals (median 2.6 vs. 4.3, p<.001) when compared with high-income countries. Cervical cancer studies had higher representation in middle-income countries than in high income countries (48.5% vs. 18.4%, p<.001). In a multivariable regression analysis, journal's impact factor [aOR 95% CI 1.26 (1.12-1.40)], cervical cancer topic [aOR 95% CI 3.0 (1.58-5.91)] and North American publications [aOR 95% CI 2.07 (1.08-3.97)] were independently associated with higher number of citations per year. CONCLUSION: The majority of robotic surgery research in gynecologic oncology is retrospective and from high-income countries. Middle-income countries are not as frequently cited and are predominantly in lower impact factor journals.

Secondary databases in gynecologic cancer research.

Observational and cohort studies using large databases have made important contributions to gynecologic oncology. Knowledge of the advantages and potential limitations of commonly used databases benefits both readers and reviewers. In this review, researchers familiar with National Cancer Database (NCDB), Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER), SEER-Medicare, MarketScan, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and Premier, describe each database, its included data, access, management, storage, highlights, and limitations. A better understanding of these commonly used datasets can help readers, reviewers, and researchers to more effectively interpret and apply study results, evaluate new research studies, and develop compelling and practice-changing research.

Surgical site infection prevention bundle in gynecology oncology surgery: a key element in the implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program.

Surgical site infection rates are among 5-35% in all gynecologic oncology procedures. Such infections lead to increased patient morbidity, reduction in quality of life, higher likelihood of readmissions, and reinterventions, which contribute directly to mortality and increase in health-related costs. Some of these are potentially preventable by applying evidence-based strategies in the peri-operative patient setting. The objective of this review is to provide recommendations for the individual components that most commonly comprise the surgical site infection prevention bundles that could be implemented in gynecologic oncology procedures. We searched articles from relevant publications with specific topics related to each surgical site infection intervention chosen to be reviewed. Studies on each topic were selected with an emphasis on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized control studies, non-randomized controlled studies, reviews, clinical practice guidelines, and case series. Data synthesis was done through content and thematic analysis to identify key themes in the included studies. This review intends to serve as the most up-to-date frame of evidence-based peri-operative care in our specialty and could serve as the first initiative to introduce an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program.

Notable surgical trials in gynecologic oncology: a 10-year overview.

In the last decade, we have witnessed important advances in novel therapeutics in the management of gynecologic cancers. These studies have built on the findings from preexisting data and have provided incremental contributions leading to changes that have not only impacted the accuracy of cancer detection and its metastatic components but also led to improvements in oncologic outcomes and quality of life. Key landmark trials have changed the standard of care in cervix, uterine, and ovarian cancer. A number of these have been controversial and have generated significant debate among gynecologic oncologists. The main objective of this review was to provide an overview on each of these trials as a reference for immediate and consolidated access to the study aims, methodology, results, and conclusion.

LACC Trial: Final Analysis on Overall Survival Comparing Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The aim of this study was to compare overall survival between open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with participants followed for 4.5 years. The primary objective was to evaluate whether minimally invasive surgery was noninferior in disease-free survival (DFS) to abdominal radical hysterectomy. Secondary outcomes included overall survival. Sample size was based on DFS of 90% at 4.5 years and 7.2% noninferiority margin for minimally invasive surgery. A total of 631 patients were enrolled: 319 assigned to minimally invasive and 312 to open surgery. Of these, 289 (90.6%) patients underwent minimally invasive surgery and 274 (87.8%) patients open surgery. At 4.5 years, DFS was 85.0% in the minimally invasive group and 96% in the open group (difference of -11.1; 95% CI, -15.8 to -6.3; P = .95 for noninferiority). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with lower rate of DFS compared with open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 3.91 [95% CI, 2.02 to 7.58]; P < .001). Rate of overall survival at 4.5 years was 90.6% versus 96.2% for the minimally invasive and open surgery groups, respectively (HR for death of any cause = 2.71 [95% CI, 1.32 to 5.59]; P = .007). Given higher recurrence rate and worse overall survival with minimally invasive surgery, an open approach should be standard of care.

Association of reviewer experience with discriminating human-written versus ChatGPT-written abstracts.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if reviewer experience impacts the ability to discriminate between human-written and ChatGPT-written abstracts. METHODS: Thirty reviewers (10 seniors, 10 juniors, and 10 residents) were asked to differentiate between 10 ChatGPT-written and 10 human-written (fabricated) abstracts. For the study, 10 gynecologic oncology abstracts were fabricated by the authors. For each human-written abstract we generated a ChatGPT matching abstract by using the same title and the fabricated results of each of the human generated abstracts. A web-based questionnaire was used to gather demographic data and to record the reviewers' evaluation of the 20 abstracts. Comparative statistics and multivariable regression were used to identify factors associated with a higher correct identification rate. RESULTS: The 30 reviewers discriminated 20 abstracts, giving a total of 600 abstract evaluations. The reviewers were able to correctly identify 300/600 (50%) of the abstracts: 139/300 (46.3%) of the ChatGPT-generated abstracts and 161/300 (53.7%) of the human-written abstracts (p=0.07). Human-written abstracts had a higher rate of correct identification (median (IQR) 56.7% (49.2-64.1%) vs 45.0% (43.2-48.3%), p=0.023). Senior reviewers had a higher correct identification rate (60%) than junior reviewers and residents (45% each; p=0.043 and p=0.002, respectively). In a linear regression model including the experience level of the reviewers, familiarity with artificial intelligence (AI) and the country in which the majority of medical training was achieved (English speaking vs non-English speaking), the experience of the reviewer (ß=10.2 (95% CI 1.8 to 18.7)) and familiarity with AI (ß=7.78 (95% CI 0.6 to 15.0)) were independently associated with the correct identification rate (p=0.019 and p=0.035, respectively). In a correlation analysis the number of publications by the reviewer was positively correlated with the correct identification rate (r28)=0.61, p<0.001. CONCLUSION: A total of 46.3% of abstracts written by ChatGPT were detected by reviewers. The correct identification rate increased with reviewer and publication experience.

Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), women who have a systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mm Hg and/or a diastolic pressure ≥ 90 mm Hg before pregnancy or before 20 weeks of gestation have chronic hypertension. Up to 1.5% of women in their childbearing years have a diagnosis of chronic hypertension, and 16% of pregnant women develop hypertension during their pregnancy. Physiological cardiovascular changes from pregnancy may mask or exacerbate hypertensive diseases during gestation, which is why prepregnancy counseling is emphasized for all patients to optimize comorbidities and establish a patient's baseline blood pressure. This review provides an overview of the diagnoses and treatments of hypertensive diseases that can occur in pregnancy, including definitions of key terms and types of hypertension as well as ACOG recommendations.

Fertility-sparing surgery vs standard surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: difference in 5-year life expectancy by tumor size.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer incidence among premenopausal women is rising, and fertility-sparing surgery serves as an important option for this young population. There is a lack of evidence on what tumor size cutoff should be used to define candidacy for fertility-sparing surgery. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe how the association between fertility-sparing surgery (compared with standard surgery) and life expectancy varies by tumor size among patients with cervical cancers measuring ≤4 cm in largest diameter. Our secondary objective was to quantify the probability of undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy among patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery as a function of tumor size. STUDY DESIGN: We identified patients in the National Cancer Database aged ≤45 years, diagnosed with stage I cervical cancer with tumors ≤4 cm between 2006 and 2018, who received no preoperative radiation or chemotherapy, and who underwent either fertility-sparing surgery (cone or trachelectomy, either simple or radical) or standard surgery (simple or radical hysterectomy) as their primary treatment. Propensity-score matching was performed to compare patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery with those who underwent standard surgery. A flexible parametric model was employed to quantify the difference in life expectancy within 5 years of diagnosis (restricted mean survival time) based on tumor size among patients who underwent fertility-sparing and those who underwent standard surgery. In addition, among those who underwent fertility-sparing surgery, a logistic regression model was used to explore the relationship between tumor size and the probability of receiving adjuvant radiation. RESULTS: A total of 11,946 patients met the inclusion criteria of whom 904 (7.6%) underwent fertility-sparing surgery. After propensity-score matching, 897 patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery were matched 1:1 with those who underwent standard surgery. Although the 5-year life expectancy was similar among patients who had fertility sparing surgery and those who had standard surgery regardless of tumor sizes, the estimates of life-expectancy differences associated with fertility-sparing surgery were more precise among patients with smaller tumors (1-cm tumor: restricted mean survival time difference, -0.10 months; 95% confidence interval, -0.67 to 0.47) than among those with larger tumors (4-cm tumor: restricted mean survival time difference, -0.11 months; 95% confidence interval, -3.79 to 3.57). The probability of receiving adjuvant radiation increased with tumor size, ranging from 5.6% (95% confidence interval, 3.9-7.9) for a 1-cm tumor to 37% (95% confidence interval, 24.3-51.8) for a 4-cm tumor. CONCLUSION: Within 5 years of diagnosis, young patients with stage I cancers measuring ≤4 cm had similar survival outcomes after either fertility-sparing surgery or standard surgery. However, because few patients with tumors >2 cm underwent fertility-sparing surgery, a clinically important survival difference could not be excluded in this population.

Consensus on surgical technique for sentinel lymph node dissection in cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish a consensus on the surgical technique for sentinel lymph node (SLN) dissection in cervical cancer. METHODS: A 26 question survey was emailed to international expert gynecological oncology surgeons. A two-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. After a first round of online survey, the questions were amended and a second round, along with semistructured interviews was performed. Consensus was defined using a 70% cut-off for agreement. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 38 (65.8%) experts responded to the first and second rounds of the online survey. Agreement ≥70% was reached for 13 (50.0%) questions in the first round and for 15 (57.7%) in the final round. Consensus agreement identified 15 recommended, three optional, and five not recommended steps. Experts agreed on the following recommended procedures: use of indocyanine green as a tracer; superficial (with or without deep) injection at 3 and 9 o'clock; injection at the margins of uninvolved mucosa avoiding vaginal fornices; grasping the cervix with forceps only in part of the cervix is free of tumor; use of a minimally invasive approach for SLN biopsy in the case of simple trachelectomy/conization; identification of the ureter, obliterated umbilical artery, and external iliac vessels before SLN excision; commencing the dissection at the level of the uterine artery and continuing laterally; and completing dissection in one hemi-pelvis before proceeding to the contralateral side. Consensus was also reached in recommending against injection at 6 and 12 o'clock, and injection directly into the tumor in cases of the tumor completely replacing the cervix; against removal of nodes through port without protective maneuvers; absence of an ultrastaging protocol; and against modifying tracer concentration at the time of re-injection after mapping failure. CONCLUSION: Recommended, optional, and not recommended steps of SLN dissection in cervical cancer have been identified based on consensus among international experts. These represent a surgical guide that may be used by surgeons in clinical trials and for quality assurance in routine practice.

The IDEAL framework for surgical robotics: development, comparative evaluation and long-term monitoring.

The next generation of surgical robotics is poised to disrupt healthcare systems worldwide, requiring new frameworks for evaluation. However, evaluation during a surgical robot's development is challenging due to their complex evolving nature, potential for wider system disruption and integration with complementary technologies like artificial intelligence. Comparative clinical studies require attention to intervention context, learning curves and standardized outcomes. Long-term monitoring needs to transition toward collaborative, transparent and inclusive consortiums for real-world data collection. Here, the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term monitoring (IDEAL) Robotics Colloquium proposes recommendations for evaluation during development, comparative study and clinical monitoring of surgical robots-providing practical recommendations for developers, clinicians, patients and healthcare systems. Multiple perspectives are considered, including economics, surgical training, human factors, ethics, patient perspectives and sustainability. Further work is needed on standardized metrics, health economic assessment models and global applicability of recommendations.

Practice patterns and complications of hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial.

BACKGROUND: After the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial, the standard surgical approach for early-stage cervical cancer is open radical hysterectomy. Only limited data were available regarding whether the change to open abdominal hysterectomy observed after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial led to an increase in postoperative complication rates as a consequence of the decrease in the use of the minimally invasive approach. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze whether there was a correlation between the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial and an increase in the 30-day complications associated with surgical treatment of invasive cervical cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were used to compare the results in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (January 2016 to December 2017) vs the results in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (January 2019 to December 2020). The rates of each surgical approach (open abdominal or minimally invasive) hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer during the 2 periods were assessed. Subsequently, 30-day major complication, minor complication, unplanned hospital readmission, and intra- or postoperative transfusion rates before and after the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 3024 patients undergoing either open abdominal hysterectomy or minimally invasive hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer were included in the study. Of the patients, 1515 (50.1%) were treated in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period, and 1509 (49.9%) were treated in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period. The rate of minimally invasive approaches decreased significantly from 75.6% (1145/1515) in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period to 41.1% (620/1509) in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period, whereas the rate of open abdominal approach increased from 24.4% (370/1515) in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period to 58.9% (889/1509) in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (P<.001). The overall 30-day major complications remained stable between the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (85/1515 [5.6%]) and the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (74/1509 [4.9%]) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.17). The overall 30-day minor complications were similar in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (103/1515 [6.8%]) vs the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (120/1509 [8.0%]) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.55). The unplanned hospital readmission rate remained stable during the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (7.9% per 30 person-days) and during the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (6.3% per 30 person-days) (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.04)]. The intra- and postoperative transfusion rates increased significantly from 3.8% (58/1515) in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period to 6.7% (101/1509) in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (adjusted odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.53). CONCLUSION: This study observed a significant shift in the surgical approach for invasive cervical cancer after the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial, with a reduction in the minimally invasive abdominal approach and an increase in the open abdominal approach. The change in surgical approach was not associated with an increase in the rate of 30-day major or minor complications and unplanned hospital readmission, although it was associated with an increase in the transfusion rate.

Longitudinal perioperative patient-reported outcomes in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: There are few prospective studies in the gynecologic surgical literature that compared patient-reported outcomes between open and minimally invasive hysterectomies within enhanced recovery after surgery pathways. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare prospectively collected perioperative patient-reported symptom burden and interference measures in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy cohorts within enhanced recovery after surgery pathways. STUDY DESIGN: We compared patient-reported symptom burden and functional interference in 646 patients who underwent a hysterectomy (254 underwent open surgery and 392 underwent minimally invasive surgery) for benign and malignant indications under enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Outcomes were prospectively measured using the validated MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, which was administered perioperatively up to 8 weeks after surgery. Cohorts were compared using Fisher exact and chi-squared tests, adjusted longitudinal generalized linear mixed modeling, and Kaplan Meier curves to model return to no or mild symptoms. RESULTS: The open cohort had significantly worse preoperative physical functional interference (P=.001). At the time of hospital discharge postoperatively, the open cohort reported significantly higher mean symptom severity scores and more moderate or severe scores for overall (P<.001) and abdominal pain (P<.001), fatigue (P=.001), lack of appetite (P<.001), bloating (P=.041), and constipation (P<.001) when compared with the minimally invasive cohort. The open cohort also had significantly higher interference in physical functioning (score 5.0 vs 2.7; P<.001) than the minimally invasive cohort at the time of discharge with no differences in affective interference between the 2 groups. In mixed modeling analysis of the first 7 postoperative days, both cohorts reported improved symptom burden and functional interference over time with generally slower recovery in the open cohort. From 1 to 8 postoperative weeks, the open cohort had worse mean scores for all evaluated symptoms and interference measures except for pain with urination, although scores indicated mild symptomatic burden and interference in both cohorts. The time to return to no or mild symptoms was significantly longer in the open cohort for overall pain (14 vs 4 days; P<.001), fatigue (8 vs 4 days; P<.001), disturbed sleep (2 vs 2 days; P<.001), and appetite (1.5 vs 1 days; P<.001) but was significantly longer in the minimally invasive cohort for abdominal pain (42 vs 28 days; P<.001) and bloating (42 vs 8 days; P<.001). The median time to return to no or mild functional interference was longer in the open than in the minimally invasive hysterectomy cohort for physical functioning (36 vs 32 days; P<.001) with no difference in compositive affective functioning (5 vs 5 days; P=.07) between the groups. CONCLUSION: Open hysterectomy was associated with increased symptom burden in the immediate postoperative period and longer time to return to no or mild symptom burden and interference with physical functioning. However, all patient-reported measures improved within days to weeks of both open and minimally invasive surgery and differences were not always clinically significant.

Recurrence After Biopsy-Confirmed Cervical High-Grade Intraepithelial Lesion Followed by Negative Conization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: The aim of the study is to assess the recurrence rate (as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ [CIN2+]) in patients who had a confirmed high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (CIN2-3) in a cervical biopsy specimen followed by a negative conization specimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Ovid/MEDLINE, Ovid/Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until January 2023. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID number CRD42023393951). The search identified 3,089 articles; 1,530 were removed as duplicates, and 1,559 titles and abstracts were assessed for inclusion. The full text of 26 studies was assessed for eligibility, and finally, 12 studies with 1,036 patients were included. All included studies were retrospective cohort studies. A proportion meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: For patients with negative conization specimens, the recurrence rate as CIN2+ during follow-up was 6% (95% CI, 1.8%-12.1%; I2 = 49.2; p < .0001, 215 patients and 4 studies) in the proportion meta-analysis, ranging from 0.3% to 13.0% for the individual studies. For patients with ≤CIN1 conization specimens, the recurrence rate as CIN2+ during follow-up was 3.6% (95% CI, 1.2%-7%; I2 = 75.1; p < .0001, 991 patients and 10 studies) in the proportion meta-analysis and ranged from 0.6% to 13.0% for the individual studies. CONCLUSIONS: The recurrence rate as CIN2+ for patients with a confirmed high-grade intraepithelial lesion on a cervical biopsy followed by a negative conization specimen is 6%. In patients with negative and CIN1 conization specimens, the recurrence rate is 3.6%.

Evaluation of a tiered opioid prescription algorithm in an ERAS pathway: exploring opportunities for further refinement.

BACKGROUND: Opioid over-prescription is wasteful and contributes to the opioid crisis. We implemented a personalized tiered discharge opioid protocol and education on opioid disposal to minimize over-prescription. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intervention by investigating opioid use post-discharge for women undergoing abdomino-pelvic surgery, and patient adherence to opioid disposal education. METHODS: We analyzed post-discharge opioid consumption among 558 patients. Eligible patients included those who underwent elective gynecologic surgery, were not taking scheduled opioids pre-operatively, and received discharge opioids according to a tiered prescribing algorithm. A survey assessing discharge opioid consumption and disposal safety knowledge was distributed on post-discharge day 21. Over-prescription was defined as >20% of the original prescription left over. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 61% and 59% in the minimally invasive surgery and open surgery cohorts, respectively. Overall, 42.8% of patients reported using no opioids after hospital discharge, 45.2% in the minimally invasive surgery and 38.6% in the open surgery cohort. Furthermore, 74.9% of respondents were over-prescribed, with median age being statistically significant for this group (p=0.004). Finally, 46.4% of respondents expressed no knowledge regarding safe disposal practices, with no statistically significant difference between groups (p>0.99). CONCLUSION: Despite implementation of the tiered discharge opioid algorithm aimed to personalize opioid prescriptions to estimated need, we still over-prescribed opioids. Additionally, despite targeted education, nearly half of all patients who completed the survey did not know how to dispose of their opioid tablets. Additional efforts are needed to further refine the algorithm to reduce over-prescription of opioids and improve disposal education.