Mitigating Misogynoir: Inclusive Professionalism as a Health Equity Strategy.

As Obstetrics and Gynecology begins to recognize how structural racism drives inequitable health outcomes, it must also acknowledge the effects of structural racism on its workforce and culture. Black physicians comprise ~5% of the United States physician population. Unique adversities affect Black women physicians, particularly during residency training, and contribute to the lack of equitable workforce representation. Eliminating racialized inequities in clinical care requires addressing these concerns. By applying historical context to present-day realities and harms experienced by Black women (ie, misogynoir), Obstetrics and Gynecology can identify interventions, such as equity-focused recruitment and retention strategies, that transform the profession.

International Gynaecological Cancer Society (IGCS) 2020 Annual Global Meeting: Twitter activity analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Twitter is the most frequently used social media platform by healthcare practitioners, at medical conferences. This study aimed to analyze Twitter conversations during the virtual International Gynecological Cancer Society 2020 conference to understand the interactions between Twitter users related to the conference. METHODS: Tweets using the hashtag '#IGCS2020' were searched using the Twitter Search Application Programming Interface (API) during the period 10-13 September 2020. NodeXL Pro was used to retrieve data. The Clauset-Newman-Moore cluster algorithm clustered users into different groups or 'clusters' based on how users interacted. RESULTS: There were 2009 registrants for the virtual IGCS 2020 conference. The total number of users within the network was 168, and there were 880 edges connecting users. Five types of edges were identified as follows: 'replies to' (n=18), 'mentions' (n=221), 'mentions in retweets' (n=375), retweets (n=198), and tweets (n=68). The most influential account was that of the IGCS account itself (@IGCSociety). The overall network shape resembled a community where distinct groups formed within the network. Our current analyses demonstrated that less than 10% of the total members interacted on Twitter. CONCLUSION: This study identified the most influential Twitter users within the '#IGCS2020' community. he results also confirmed the community network shape of the #IGCS2020 hashtag and found that the most frequent co-related words were 'ovarian' and 'cancer' (n=39).

COVID-19 and its implications for obstetrics and gynecology practice in Africa.

Having to cope with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is likely to create imbalances in health care provision in the obstetrics and gynecology practices in Africa where most countries still battle with high rate of maternal morbidities and mortalities as well as poor or inadequate quality gynecological care. COVID-19 has spread to the continents of the world including all African nations since it was first reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Its impact and implications on the obstetrics and gynecology practice in Africa are yet to be fully explored. Routine essential services are being disrupted; therefore, giving rise to the need to redeploy the already limited health personnel across health services in Africa. This is an attempt to discuss the potential implications for obstetrics and gynecologic practice in Africa.

Prophylactic procedures associated with gynecological surgery for the management of superficial endometriosis and adhesions. Clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF)✰.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines from the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CNGOF), based on the best currently available evidence, for the prophylactic procedures associated with gynecological surgery for benign disease such as superficial endometriosis lesions and adhesions. METHODS: The CNGOF has decided to adopt the AGREE II and GRADE systems for grading scientific evidence. Each recommendation for practice was allocated a grade that reflects the quality of evidence (QE) (clinical practice guidelines). RESULTS: Endometriosis and pelvic pain Superficial endometriosis can be entirely asymptomatic. Surgical treatment of asymptomatic superficial peritoneal endometriosis is not recommended in women of childbearing age for the prevention of pelvic pain, especially in case of proximity to noble organs (e.g., the ureters, rectum and sigmoid, and ovaries in nulligravida) as there is no evidence that the disease will progress to become symptomatic (low level of evidence). In case of accidental discovery of superficial endometriosis in women of childbearing age with pelvic pain, it is recommended that the lesions are excised, if surgically accessible. Removal of superficial endometriosis lesions in patients with painful symptoms improves quality of life and pain (low level of evidence). Endometriosis and infertility It appears that women with isolated superficial endometriosis diagnosed by laparoscopy with histological confirmation have a significantly higher incidence of primary infertility than patients without endometriosis. However, there is no data regarding the impact of treatment of these lesions on the fertility in these women or on the natural course of their disease (low level of evidence). It is recommended that excision is performed rather than monopolar coagulation of superficial endometriosis lesions in infertile women, as this results in a higher spontaneous pregnancy rate (low level of evidence). Adhesions and pelvic pain There is limited data in the literature regarding the benefit of performing systematic adhesiolysis during laparoscopy to prevent pelvic pain when incidental pelvic adhesions are discovered. For patients with pelvic pain, it is probably better not to perform adhesiolysis to prevent pelvic pain, although this can be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on the extent of the adhesions, the topography, and the type of surgery considered (low level of evidence). For asymptomatic patients, it is recommended not to perform adhesiolysis to prevent pelvic pain due to the lack of clear efficacy both short- or long-term and due to the increased risk of surgical injuries (low level of evidence). Adhesions and infertility There is limited data in the literature regarding the potential benefit of performing systematic adhesiolysis when there is an incidental discovery of pelvic adhesions during laparoscopy to prevent infertility. For infertile women, in the event of fortuitous discovery of adhesions at laparoscopy, it is probably better not to perform complex adhesiolysis. Only adhesiolysis of tubo-ovarian adhesions that are minimal or slight in terms of their extension and/or their nature may be useful to improve the chances of spontaneous pregnancy. However, it remains to be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on other potential causes of infertility (low level of evidence). For women without known infertility issues, it is probably better not to perform systematic adhesiolysis in order to improve their pregnancy chances, considering the balance between the unknown benefit and the risks of complications inherent to surgery (low level of evidence). CONCLUSION: Further investigations are needed in order to increase the quality of management regarding associated interventions such as the treatment of superficial endometriosis or adhesions performed during a gynecologic surgical procedure and, thereby, bolster these recommendations.

In which cases should endometrial destruction be performed during an operative hysteroscopy? Clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF).

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines from the French College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (CNGOF), based on the best evidence available, concerning the impact of endometrial destruction on bleeding and endometrial cancer risk reduction in patients candidates for operative hysteroscopy. METHODS: Recommendations were made according to AGREE II and the GRADE® (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) systems to determine separately the quality of evidence (QE) and in the level of recommendation. RESULTS: In a retrospective study comparing the incidence of endometrial cancer in 4776 patients with menorrhagia treated with endometrial destruction vs 229 945 patients with a medical treatment. There was a non-significant reduced risk of developing endometrial cancer (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.15-1.40; p = .17). In premenopausal women, five studies compared the incidence of endometrial cancer in patients treated with endometrial ablation/destruction (EA/D) to the incidence of endometrial cancer in a comparable population of women from national registers, all of which show reduced risk of endometrial cancer after endometrectomy. In case of menopausal metrorrhagia, the prevalence of endometrial cancer is 9%, by analogy with the results found in premenopausal patients, the combination of endometrial ablation during operative hysteroscopy seems justified. In a retrospective cohort of 177 non-menopausal patients treated with myomectomy for metrorrhagia and/or menorrhagia, a significantly better control of bleeding at 12 months was found when myomectomy was combined with endometrectomy using roller-ball (OR: 0.18 [95% Cl 0.05-0.63]; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding, when an operative hysteroscopy is performed, it is recommended to propose an endometrial ablation/destruction in order to prevent the risk of endometrial cancer, (QE3) and to prevent recurrence of bleeding (QE2). In menopausal women, it is probably recommended to also perform an endometrial ablation/destruction in case of operative hysteroscopy in order to prevent the risk of endometrial cancer (QE1).

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Virtual visits among gynecologic oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic are accessible across the social vulnerability spectrum.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has quickly transformed healthcare systems with expansion of telemedicine. The past year has highlighted risks to immunosuppressed cancer patients and shown the need for health equity among vulnerable groups. In this study, we describe the utilization of virtual visits by patients with gynecologic malignancies and assess their social vulnerability. METHODS: Virtual visit data of 270 gynecology oncology patients at a single institution from March 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020 was obtained by querying a cohort discovery tool. Through geocoding, the CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was utilized to assign social vulnerability indices to each patient and the results were analyzed for trends and statistical significance. RESULTS: African American patients were the most vulnerable with a median SVI of 0.71, Asian 0.60, Hispanic 0.41, and Caucasian 0.21. Eighty-seven percent of patients in this study were Caucasian, 8.9% African American, 3.3% Hispanic, and 1.1% Asian, which is comparable to the baseline institutional gynecologic cancer population. The mean census tract SVI variable when comparing patients to all census tracts in the United States was 0.31 (range 0.00 least vulnerable to 0.98 most vulnerable). CONCLUSIONS: Virtual visits were utilized by patients of all ages and gynecologic cancer types. African Americans were the most socially vulnerable patients of the cohort. Telemedicine is a useful platform for cancer care across the social vulnerability spectrum during the pandemic and beyond. To ensure continued access, further research and outreach efforts are needed.

Should we perform cervix removal during hysterectomy for benign uterine disease? Clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF).

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines from the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CNGOF), based on the best evidence available, concerning subtotal or total hysterectomy, for benign disease. METHODS: The CNGOF has decided to adopt the AGREE II and GRADE systems for grading scientific evidence. Each recommendation for practice was allocated a grade, which depends on the quality of evidence (QE) (clinical practice guidelines). RESULTS: Conservation of the uterine cervix is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer (0.05 to 0.27%) and an increased risk of reoperation for cervical bleeding (QE: high). Uterine cervix removal is associated with a moderate (about 11 min) increase in operative time when hysterectomy is performed by the open abdominal route (laparotomy), but is not associated with longer operative time when the hysterectomy is performed by laparoscopy (QE: moderate). Removal of the uterine cervix is not associated with increased prevalence of short-term follow-up complications (blood transfusion, ureteral or bladder injury) (QE: low) or of long-term follow-up complications (pelvic organ prolapse, sexual disorders, urinary incontinence (QE: moderate). CONCLUSION: Removal of the uterine cervix is recommended for hysterectomy in women presenting with benign uterine disease (Recommendation: STRONG [GRADE 1-]; the level of evidence was considered to be sufficient and the risk-benefit balance was considered to be favorable).

The GOG partners: A program for industry sponsored clinical trials in gynecologic oncology within the GOG foundation.

The GOG Foundation, Inc. (GOG-F) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization with the purpose of promoting excellence in the quality and integrity of clinical and basic scientific research in the field of gynecologic malignancies. GOG Partners (GOG-P) is a program of the GOG-F and is positioned alongside NRG Oncology under the GOG-F organizational umbrella. GOG-P operates outside of the federally funded NCI NRG Oncology, a key distinguishing feature. By functioning as a site management organization (SMO), GOG-P provides an additional platform for clinical trial development, mentorship opportunities, patient accrual, and site infrastructure support yielding an expanded gynecologic oncology clinical trials infrastructure in the US. GOG-P has a consistent track record of conducting high quality clinical trials that lead to bringing novel FDA approved treatments for gynecologic cancer. This manuscript summarizes the history and organizational structure of the GOG-P. In addition, we outline the other key supportive programs within the GOG-F that help support the GOG-P effort to perform transformative gynecologic cancer research.

Enhanced Recovery and Surgical Optimization Protocol for Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery: An AAGL White Paper.

This is the first Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guideline dedicated to standardizing and optimizing perioperative care for women undergoing minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. The guideline was rigorously formulated by an American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists Task Force of US and Canadian gynecologic surgeons with special interest and experience in adapting ERAS practices for patients requiring minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. It builds on the 2016 ERAS Society recommendations for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncologic surgery by serving as a more comprehensive reference for minimally invasive endoscopic and vaginal surgery for both benign and malignant gynecologic conditions. For example, the section on preoperative optimization provides more specific recommendations derived from the ambulatory surgery and anesthesia literature for the management of anemia, hyperglycemia, and obstructive sleep apnea. Recommendations pertaining to multimodal analgesia account for the recent Food and Drug Administration warnings about respiratory depression from gabapentinoids. The guideline focuses on workflows important to high-value care in minimally invasive surgery, such as same-day discharge, and tackles controversial issues in minimally invasive surgery, such as thromboprophylaxis. In these ways, the guideline supports the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists and our collective mission to elevate the quality and safety of healthcare for women through excellence in clinical practice.

A mismatch in care: results of a United Kingdom-wide patient and clinician survey of gynaecological services for women with Lynch syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current testing practice, referral pathways and gynaecological services available to women with Lynch syndrome (LS) in the UK. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationwide survey of gynaecological oncologists and women with LS. SETTING: United Kingdom. METHODS: Gynaecological oncologists were contacted directly. Women with LS were identified from national and regional clinical databases and the patient support group, Lynch syndrome UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gynaecological oncologists were asked to report rates of LS testing and current practice regarding risk-reducing strategies and gynaecological surveillance for women with LS. Women with LS were asked to describe their experiences of gynaecological care. RESULTS: In total, 41 gynaecological oncologists and 298 women with LS responded to the survey. Of the gynaecological oncologists surveyed, 37% were unfamiliar with any clinical guidelines for the management of LS. Only 29% of gynaecological oncologists supported universal testing of endometrial cancer for LS; one centre routinely performed such testing. In all, 83% said they perform risk-reducing gynaecological surgery and 43% were aware of a local gynaecological surveillance service for women with LS. Of women with LS, most had undergone a hysterectomy (n = 191/64.1%), most frequently to reduce their gynaecological cancer risk (n = 86/45%). A total of 10% were initially referred for LS testing by their gynaecologist and 55% of those eligible regularly attended gynaecological surveillance; however, 62% wanted more regular surveillance. Regional variation was evident across all standards of care. CONCLUSIONS: There is widespread variation in the services offered to women with LS in the UK. As a community, gynaecological oncologists should move towards a nationally agreed provision of services. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A mismatch in care for mismatch repair. Survey finds significant variation in gynaecological care for #Lynchsyndrome in the UK.

Maintaining surgical care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative cohort study at a tertiary gynecological cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the cornerstone of gynecological cancer management, but inpatient treatment may expose both patients and healthcare staff to COVID-19 infections. Plans to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have been implemented widely, but few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these plans in maintaining safe surgical care delivery. AIM: To evaluate the effects of mitigating plans implemented on the delivery of gynecological cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A comparative cohort study of patients treated in a high-volume tertiary gyneoncological centre in the United Kingdom. Prospectively-recorded consecutive operations performed and early peri-operative outcomes during the same calendar periods (January-August) in 2019 and 2020 were compared. RESULTS: In total, 585 operations were performed (296 in 2019; 289 in 2020). There was no significant difference in patient demographics. Types of surgery performed were different (p = 0.034), with fewer cytoreductive surgeries for ovarian cancer and laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.002) in 2020. There was no difference in intra-operative complication rates, critical care admission rates or length of stay. One patient had confirmed COVID-19 infection (0.4%). The 30-day post-operative complication rates were significantly higher in 2020 than in 2019 (58 [20.1%] versus 32 [10.8%]; p = 0.002) for both minor and major complications. This increase, primarily from March 2020 onwards, coincided with the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining surgical throughput with meticulous and timely planning is feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic but this was associated with an increase in post-operative complications due to a multitude of reasons.

Rural disparities in surgical care from gynecologic oncologists among Midwestern ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Up to one-third of women with ovarian cancer in the United States do not receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist despite guideline recommendations. We aim to investigate the impact of rurality on receiving surgical care from a specialist, referral to a specialist, and specialist surgery after referral, and the consequences of specialist care. METHODS: We utilized a retrospective cohort created through an extension of standard cancer surveillance in three Midwestern states. Multivariable adjusted logistic regression was utilized to assess gynecologic oncologist treatment of women 18-89 years old, who were diagnosed with primary, histologically confirmed, malignant ovarian cancer in 2010-2012 in Kansas, Missouri and Iowa by rurality. RESULTS: Rural women were significantly less likely to receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.58) and referral to a specialist (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59) compared to urban women. There was no significant difference in specialist surgery after a referral (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.26-1.20). Rural women treated surgically by a gynecologic oncologist versus non-specialist were more likely to receive cytoreduction and more complete tumor removal to ≤1 cm. CONCLUSION: There is a large rural-urban difference in receipt of ovarian cancer surgery from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (versus a non-specialist). Disparities in referral rates contribute to the rural-urban difference. Further research will help define the causes of referral disparities, as well as promising strategies to address them.

An increase in multi-site practices: The shifting paradigm for gynecologic cancer care delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the number of practice sites per gynecologic oncologist (GO) and geographic access to GOs has changed over time. METHODS: This is a retrospective repeated cross-sectional study using the 2015-2019 Physician Compare National File. All GOs in the 50 United States and Washington, DC, who had completed at least one year of practice were included in the study. All practice sites with complete addresses were included. Linear regression analyses estimated trends in GOs' number of practice sites and geographic dispersion of practice sites. Secondary analyses assessed temporal trends in the number of geographic areas served by at least one GO. RESULTS: Although there was no significant change in the number of GOs from 2015 to 2019 (n = 1328), there was a significant increase in the number of practice sites (881 to 1416, p = 0.03), zip codes (642 to 984, p = 0.03), HSAs (404 to 536, p = 0.04), and HRRs (218 to 230, p = 0.03) containing a GO practice. The mean number of practice sites (1.64 versus 2.13, p < 0.001) and dispersion of practice sites (0.03 versus 0.43 miles, p = 0.049) per GO increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2015 and 2019, an increasing number of GOs have multi-site practices, and more geographic regions contain a GO practice. Improvements in geographic access to GOs may represent improved access to care for many women in the US, but its effect on patients, physicians, and geographic disparities is unknown.

Rodízio dos médicos-residentes em ginecologia e obstetrícia durante a pandemia de COVID-19 / Rotation of gynecology and obstetrics resident physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic

Os Programas de Residência Médica em Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (PRMGO), com a chegada da pandemia da COVID- 19 no Brasil, precisaram se readequar para que os médicos-residentes (MRs) pudessem dar continuidade ao seu treinamento em serviço. Várias atividades eletivas foram suspensas, prejudicando, assim, esse cenário de prática, e alguns MRs precisaram se afastar por terem fator de risco, gestação ou por terem se contaminado, levando a incerteza e insegurança, principalmente para os MRs do terceiro ano, sem perspectiva de complementarem essa lacuna em seu treinamento. Nosso objetivo foi apresentar como dois serviços de PRMGO organizaram seus rodízios para poder seguir durante o ano de 2020 e proporcionar a carga horária prática e teórica durante esse ano tão inusitado.(AU)

Clinical needs for transgender men in the gynecologic oncology setting.

Transgender men remain at risk for gynecologic malignancies, but are an underserved population. Members of the transgender community experience discrimination and have experiences that contribute to health disparities, including in gynecology and oncology. While efforts have been made within the United States to reduce inequalities experienced by members of this community, many needs in the clinical setting remain. Increased education and training among providers and healthcare professionals, and general improvements towards understanding barriers to health screening and health resource uptake may reduce some disparities. Additional research towards screening and cancer surveillance among this community will be necessary to understand any potential additional risks and survival disparities experienced by transgender men. This review focuses on barriers and clinical needs for transgender men in the gynecologic oncology setting, and suggestions for moving forward to improve care for this patient population.