Racial disparities in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection and gynecologic malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Mounting evidence suggests disproportionate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations and deaths because of racial disparities. The association of race in a cohort of gynecologic oncology patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection is unknown. METHODS: Data were abstracted from gynecologic oncology patients with COVID-19 infection among 8 New York City area hospital systems. A multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for county clustering was used to analyze COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality. RESULTS: Of 193 patients who had gynecologic cancer and COVID-19, 67 (34.7%) were Black, and 126 (65.3%) were non-Black. Black patients were more likely to require hospitalization compared with non-Black patients (71.6% [48 of 67] vs 46.0% [58 of 126]; P = .001). Of 34 (17.6%) patients who died from COVID-19, 14 (41.2%) were Black. Among those who were hospitalized, compared with non-Black patients, Black patients were more likely to: have ≥3 comorbidities (81.1% [30 of 37] vs 59.2% [29 of 49]; P = .05), to reside in Brooklyn (81.0% [17 of 21] vs 44.4% [12 of 27]; P = .02), to live with family (69.4% [25 of 36] vs 41.6% [37 of 89]; P = .009), and to have public insurance (79.6% [39 of 49] vs 53.4% [39 of 73]; P = .006). In multivariable analysis, among patients aged <65 years, Black patients were more likely to require hospitalization compared with non-Black patients (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.82-12.99; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Although Black patients represented only one-third of patients with gynecologic cancer, they accounted for disproportionate rates of hospitalization (>45%) and death (>40%) because of COVID-19 infection; younger Black patients had a nearly 5-fold greater risk of hospitalization. Efforts to understand and improve these disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among Black patients are critical.

Uptake and timing of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy among patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

BACKGROUND: In women with BRCA mutations, risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy has been shown to decrease gynecologic cancer-specific and overall mortality. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that patients with BRCA mutations undergo risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy between the ages of 35 and 40 years for BRCA1 mutation carriers and between the ages of 40 and 45 years for BRCA2 mutation carriers or after childbearing is complete. Currently, uptake and timing of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and reasons for delays in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate uptake and timing of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy among women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations concerning the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and reasons for delays in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective chart review, we identified women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations who discussed risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with a provider between 2012 and 2021. Uptake of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was documented, and patients were classified as having timely or delay in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. For those with delay in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, reasons cited for delay were collected. Comparative statistical analyses were performed to evaluate characteristics of those with timely vs delayed risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate the associations among factors related to timing of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. RESULTS: We identified 638 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers seen between 2012 and 2021. Of these patients, 306 (48.0%) had undergone risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and 332 (52.0%) had not. When evaluating the timing of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, 136 (21.3%) underwent timely risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, 239 (37.5%) had delays in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and 263 (41.2%) had not undergone risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy but were younger than the National Comprehensive Cancer Network age guidelines; therefore, they were neither timely nor delayed. Patients with delay in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were significantly older at the time of genetic testing than those with timely risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (mean, 49.8 vs 36.3 years; P<.001). Of the 306 patients who underwent risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, those with delayed risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy had a significantly shorter interval between BRCA identification and risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy than those with timely risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (median, 8.7 vs 17.6 months; P<.001). Patients with delay in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were more likely to have a personal history of cancer than those with timely risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (49.8% vs 37.5%; P=.028). Of the 239 women with delay in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, 188 (78.7%) had delayed BRCA mutation identification, 29 (12.1%) had menopausal concerns, 17 (7.1%) had ongoing cancer treatment, 12 (5.0%) had coordination with breast surgery, 20 (8.4%) had miscellaneous reasons, and 19 (7.9%) had no reason documented. In the multivariate model, older age at BRCA diagnosis (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.78; P<.001) was significantly associated with delayed risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy timing; those with BRCA2 mutation type were 7.54 times as likely to have timely risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy than BRCA1 mutation carriers (odds ratio, 7.54; 95% confidence, 3.70-16.42; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Nearly 38% of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers undergo or have yet to undergo risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy over the recommended National Comprehensive Cancer Network age. The most common reason for the delay in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was delayed identification of BRCA mutation, noted in 79% of patients with delayed risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Timely genetic testing for eligible patients can increase appropriately timed risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of ovarian cancer and reduction of mortality in BRCA mutation carriers.

Optimizing Robotic Hysterectomy for the Patient Who Is Morbidly Obese with a Surgical Safety Pathway.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Obesity is a growing worldwide epidemic, and patients classified as obese undergoing gynecologic robotic surgery are at increased risk for surgical complications. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of a surgical safety protocol known as the High BMI [Body Mass Index] Pathway (HBP) for patients with BMI ≥40 kg/m2 undergoing planned robotic hysterectomy. Our primary outcome was the rate of all-cause perioperative complications in patients undergoing surgery with the use of the HBP. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: An academic teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 138 patients classified as morbidly obese (BMI ≥40 kg/m2) undergoing robotic hysterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: The HBP was developed by a multidisciplinary team and was instituted on January 1, 2016, as a quality improvement project. Patients classified as morbidly obese undergoing robotic hysterectomy after this date were compared with consecutive historical controls. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent robotic hysterectomies on the HBP and were compared with 66 controls. There were no differences in age, BMI, blood loss, number of comorbidities, or cancer diagnosis. Since the implementation of the HBP, there has been a decrease in anesthesia time (-57.0 minutes; p = .001) and total operating room time (-47.0 min; p = .020), as well as lower estimated blood loss (median 150 mL [interquartile range 100-200] vs 200 mL [interquartile range 100-300]; p = .002) and reduction in overnight hospital admissions (33.3% vs 63.6%; p <.001). In the HBP group, there were fewer all-cause complications (19.4% vs 37.9%; p = .023) and infectious complications (8.3% vs 33.3%; p = .001), and there was no increase in the readmission rates (p = .400). In multivariable analysis, the HBP reduced all-cause complications (odds ratio 0.353; p = .010) after controlling for the covariate (total time in the operating room). CONCLUSION: The HBP is a feasible method of optimizing the outcome for patients classified as morbidly obese undergoing major gynecologic surgery. Initiation of the HBP can lead to decreased anesthesia and operating times, all-cause complications, and overnight hospital admissions without increasing readmission rates.

COVID-19 outcomes of patients with gynecologic cancer in New York City.

BACKGROUND: New York City (NYC) is the epicenter of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) in the United States. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of vulnerable populations, such as those with gynecologic cancer who develop COVID-19 infections, is limited. METHODS: Patients from 6 NYC-area hospital systems with known gynecologic cancer and a COVID-19 diagnosis were identified. Demographic and clinical outcome data were abstracted through a review of electronic medical records. RESULTS: Records for 121 patients with gynecologic cancer and COVID-19 were abstracted; the median age at the COVID-19 diagnosis was 64.0 years (interquartile range, 51.0-73.0 years). Sixty-six of the 121 patients (54.5%) required hospitalization; among the hospitalized patients, 45 (68.2%) required respiratory intervention, 20 (30.3%) were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 9 (13.6%) underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. Seventeen patients (14.0%) died of COVID-19 complications. No patient requiring mechanical ventilation survived. On multivariable analysis, hospitalization was associated with an age ≥64 years (risk ratio [RR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.51), African American race (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15), and 3 or more comorbidities (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.03-1.98). Only recent immunotherapy use (RR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.08-11.27) was associated with death due to COVID-19 on multivariable analysis; chemotherapy treatment and recent major surgery were not predictive of COVID-19 severity or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The case fatality rate among gynecologic oncology patients with a COVID-19 infection is 14.0%. Recent immunotherapy use is associated with an increased risk of mortality related to COVID-19 infection. LAY SUMMARY: The case fatality rate among gynecologic oncology patients with a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is 14.0%; there is no association between cytotoxic chemotherapy and cancer-directed surgery and COVID-19 severity or death. As such, patients can be counseled regarding the safety of continued anticancer treatments during the pandemic. This is important because the ability to continue cancer therapies for cancer control and cure is critical.