Navigating financial toxicity in patients with cancer: A multidisciplinary management approach.

Approximately one-half of individuals with cancer face personal economic burdens associated with the disease and its treatment, a problem known as financial toxicity (FT). FT more frequently affects socioeconomically vulnerable individuals and leads to subsequent adverse economic and health outcomes. Whereas multilevel systemic factors at the policy, payer, and provider levels drive FT, there are also accompanying intervenable patient-level factors that exacerbate FT in the setting of clinical care delivery. The primary strategy to intervene on FT at the patient level is financial navigation. Financial navigation uses comprehensive assessment of patients' risk factors for FT, guidance toward support resources, and referrals to assist patient financial needs during cancer care. Social workers or nurse navigators most frequently lead financial navigation. Oncologists and clinical provider teams are multidisciplinary partners who can support optimal FT management in the context of their clinical roles. Oncologists and clinical provider teams can proactively assess patient concerns about the financial hardship and employment effects of disease and treatment. They can respond by streamlining clinical treatment and care delivery planning and incorporating FT concerns into comprehensive goals of care discussions and coordinated symptom and psychosocial care. By understanding how age and life stage, socioeconomic, and cultural factors modify FT trajectory, oncologists and multidisciplinary health care teams can be engaged and informative in patient-centered, tailored FT management. The case presentations in this report provide a practical context to summarize authors' recommendations for patient-level FT management, supported by a review of key supporting evidence and a discussion of challenges to mitigating FT in oncology care. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:437-453.

Unmet financial needs among patients crowdfunding to support gynecologic cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Patients may use crowdfunding to solicit donations, typically from multiple small donors using internet-based means, to offset the financial toxicity of cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To describe crowdfunding campaigns by gynecologic cancer patients and to compare campaign characteristics and needs expressed between patients with cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We queried the public crowdfunding forum GoFundMe.com for "cervical cancer," "uterine cancer," and "ovarian cancer." The first 200 consecutive posts for each cancer type fundraising within the United States were analyzed. Data on campaign goals and needs expressed were manually extracted. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among the 600 fundraising pages, the median campaign goal was $10,000 [IQR $5000-$23,000]. Campaigns raised a median of 28.6% of their goal with only 8.7% of campaigns reaching their goal after a median of 54 days online. On average, ovarian cancer campaigns had higher monetary goals, more donors, and larger donation amounts than cervical cancer campaigns and raised more money than both cervical and uterine cancer campaigns. Campaigns were fundraising to support medical costs (80-85%) followed by lost wages (36-56%) or living expenses (27-41%). Cervical cancer campaigns reported need for non-medical costs more frequently than uterine or ovarian cancer campaigns. States without Medicaid expansions (31% of the national population) were over-represented among cervical cancer and uterine cancer, but not ovarian cancer campaigns. CONCLUSIONS: Crowdfunding pages reveal patients fundraising for out-of-pocket costs in the thousands of dollars and a wide range of unmet financial needs based on cancer type.

Dedicated financial hardship screening adds value to routine distress screening among gynecologic cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate existing distress screening to identify patients with financial hardship (FH) compared to dedicated FH screening and assess patient attitudes toward FH screening. METHODS: We screened gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy. Existing screening included: (1) Moderate/severe distress defined as Distress Thermometer score ≥ 4, (2) practical concerns identified from Problem Checklist, and (3) a single question assessing trouble paying for medications. FH screening included: (1) Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and (2) 10-item Financial Needs Checklist to guide referrals. FH was defined as COST score < 26. We calculated sensitivity (patients with moderate/severe distress + FH over total patients with FH) and specificity (patients with no/mild distress + no FH over total patients with no FH) to assess the extent distress screening could capture FH. Surveys and exit interviews assessed patient perspectives toward screening. RESULTS: Of 364 patients screened for distress, average age was 62 years, 25% were Black, 45% were Medicare beneficiaries, 32% had moderate/severe distress, 15% reported ≥1 practical concern, and 0 reported trouble paying for medications. Most (n = 357, 98%) patients also completed FH screening: of them, 24% screened positive for FH, 32% reported ≥1 financial need. Distress screening had 57% sensitivity and 77% specificity for FH. Based on 79 surveys and 43 exit interviews, FH screening was acceptable with feedback to improve the timing and setting of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated FH screening was feasible and acceptable, but sensitivity was low. Importantly, 40% of women with FH would not have been identified with distress screening alone.

Cancer-Related Financial Hardship Screening as Part of Practice Transformation.

BACKGROUND: Data on financial hardship, an "adverse event" in individuals with cancer, are needed to inform policy and supportive care interventions and reduce adverse economic outcomes. METHODS: Lay navigator-led financial hardship screening was piloted among University of Alabama at Birmingham oncology patients initiating treatment in October 2020. Financial hardship screening, including reported financial distress and difficulty, was added to a standard-of-care treatment planning survey. Screening feasibility and completion and proportions of reported financial distress and difficulty were calculated overall and by patient race and rurality. The risk of financial distress by patient sociodemographics was estimated. RESULTS: Patients who completed a treatment planning survey (N=2741) were 18% Black, Indigenous, or persons of color (BIPOC) and 16% rural dwelling. The majority of patients completed financial hardship screening (90%), surpassing the target feasibility completion rate of 75%. The screening revealed 34% of patients were experiencing financial distress, including 49% of BIPOC and 30% of White patients. Adjusted models revealed BIPOC patients had a 48% higher risk of financial distress compared with those who were White (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI, 1.31-1.66). Large differences in reported financial difficulties were seen comparing patients who were BIPOC and White (utilities: 33% vs. 10%, upfront medical payments: 44% vs. 23%, transportation: 28% vs. 12%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The collection of patient-reported financial hardship data via routine clinical care was feasible and identified racial inequities at treatment initiation. Efforts to collect patient economic data should support the design, implementation, and evaluation of patient-centered interventions to improve equity and reduce the impact of financial hardship.

Financial toxicity: A practical review for gynecologic oncology teams to understand and address patient-level financial burdens.

Financial toxicity describes the adverse impact patients experience from the monetary and time costs of cancer care. The financial burden patients experience comes from substantially increased out-of-pocket spending that often occurs concurrent with reduced income due to sick leave from work. Financial toxicity is common affecting approximately half of patients with a gynecological cancer depending on the validated instrument used for measurement. Financial toxicity is experienced by patients in three domains: economic hardship affecting patients' material conditions (i.e., medical debt), psychological response (i.e., distress), and health-related coping behaviors that patients adopt (i.e., foregoing care due to costs). Higher financial toxicity among cancer patients has been associated with decreased quality of life, impaired adherence to recommended care, and worse overall survival. In this review, we describe the current literature on financial toxicity, including how it can be assessed with validated tools, the downstream impact on patients, risk factors, and employment concerns of survivors. Whenever possible, we highlight data from research featuring patients with gynecologic cancer specifically. We also review studies with interventions aimed to mitigate financial toxicity and offer the reader real world examples of interventions currently being used. Lastly, we provide an overview of health policy developments relevant to financial toxicity and advocate for innovation in the development and implementation of strategies to decrease the financial toxicity patients experience following a diagnosis of gynecologic cancer.

Moderate to severe distress in half of ovarian cancer patients undergoing treatment highlights a need for more proactive symptom and psychosocial management.

OBJECTIVE: Distress screening and management is a recommended component of oncology care. Our objective was to evaluate distress rate, sources, and compliance with psychosocial follow-up among ovarian cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: We reviewed patient distress surveys completed by ovarian cancer patients receiving chemotherapy from 10/2017-6/2019. Lay or nurse navigators conducted screening with the NCCN Distress Thermometer from 0 (none) to 10 (highest distress). A distress score ≥ 4 (moderate/severe) was considered a positive screen. A recommendation for psychosocial follow-up was automatically generated in the treatment care plan based upon a yes response to any depression-related concern, independent of distress score. Documentation of referral to a mental health professional or social worker for counseling was considered compliant with psychosocial follow-up. We performed descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses. RESULTS: 97/211 (46%) ovarian cancer patients screened positive for distress. Average score was 6.1 for those who screened positive and 3.3 for the entire cohort (range 0-10). Unmarried status (p < 0.01) was associated with positive screen, whereas non-white race (p = 0.26) and recurrent disease (p = 0.21) were not. Median age was older for patients with a positive distress screen (p < 0.01). Among screened patients, the most frequent sources of distress were: cognitive/physical (87%), psychosocial (62%), practical (84%), and family concerns (40%). Of 50 patients recommended to have psychosocial referral, 4 (8%) patients had documented psychiatric follow-up and 19 (38%) patients had documented psychosocial counseling by a social worker. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of ovarian cancer patients screened positive for moderate/severe distress. Cancer/treatment-related cognitive/physical symptoms were the most frequent sources. Improved methods of symptom monitoring and management during treatment and resources to address psychosocial concerns are needed to improve distress management of ovarian cancer patients.

Navigating job and cancer demands during treatment: A qualitative study of ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to obtain perspectives from ovarian cancer patients on job demands, cancer demands, and workplace or cancer resources and strategies to manage the cancer-work interface using the cancer-work management conceptual framework. METHODS: We recruited ovarian cancer patients receiving systemic therapy who screened positive for financial distress using Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity <26. Interviews were conducted with participants about their costs of care, including employment concerns. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by three researchers using an inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 22 participants, the average age was 57 years old, 36% were Black, 68% had income <$40,000, 41% had public insurance, and 68% were being treated for recurrent disease. Job demands included decreased productivity, inability to return to work, and worry about losing a job or employer-based health insurance coverage. Cancer demands included physical and cognitive limitations due to cancer treatment and reliance on caregivers, especially for transportation. Workplace resources/strategies including having a supportive employer, modifying job responsibilities, and utilizing family medical leave. Cancer care resources/strategies included planning appointments ahead of time and utilizing resources, such as disability. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer care teams should consider screening patients for employment concerns; streamline care to minimize the side effects, time, and transportation demands of treatment on patients and caregivers; maximize utilization of available resources; and proactively communicate with employers to accommodate patients and caregivers who want or need to work.

Total and out-of-pocket costs for PARP inhibitors among insured ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate total and out-of-pocket costs for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and differences based on insurance characteristics. METHODS: We identified ovarian cancer patients who were prescribed niraparib, olaparib, or rucaparib from the MarketScan (2014-2017) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare (2014-2016) databases. Drug costs were estimated for a 30-day supply. Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed. RESULTS: 590 commercially insured beneficiaries from MarketScan and 213 SEER-Medicare beneficiaries were prescribed PARP inhibitors for a median 112 days. For commercially insured beneficiaries, median total cost was $13,342 (IQR $12,022-$14,256). Median out-of-pocket cost was $44 (IQR $0-$120) and PARP inhibitors accounted for a median 90.8% of patients' total out-of-pocket drug spending. High-deductible health plan was not associated with higher out-of-pocket costs (N = 570; median $0 vs. $45, P = 0.87). For SEER-Medicare beneficiaries, median total cost was $12,798 (IQR $11,704-$13,180). Median out-of-pocket cost was $370 (IQR $2-$1234) and PARP inhibitors accounted for a median 99.0% of patients' total out-of-pocket drug spending. Out-of-pocket costs were lower for dual-eligible patients with supplemental Medicaid prescription coverage (N = 209; median $1 vs. $911, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although insurers are responsible for a large proportion of PARP inhibitor costs, out-of-pocket costs for PARP inhibitors account for a majority of patients' drug spending. SEER-Medicare beneficiaries had higher out-of-pocket costs than patients with commercial insurance, which was offset for those with supplemental Medicaid prescription coverage.

The financial burden of PARP inhibitors on patients, payors, and financial assistance programs: Who bears the cost?

OBJECTIVES: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are expensive and their use is expanding. We aimed to evaluate cost sharing patterns between patients, payors, and financial assistance programs. METHODS: We identified ovarian cancer patients prescribed a PARP inhibitor from 5/2015-9/2019 using our pharmacy database. Cost information was collected for patients who filled their prescription at our specialty pharmacy. We calculated descriptive statistics for monthly PARP inhibitor costs for patients, payors, and financial assistance programs. We used Wilcoxon rank sum tests to evaluate monthly costs based on insurance characteristics. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients filled 94 different PARP inhibitor prescriptions with 42 (45%) prescriptions obtained using any type of financial assistance program. We analyzed 232 prescription months for the 41 prescriptions with available cost data. This included 18 (44%) prescriptions for rucaparib, 18 (44%) for niraparib, and 5 (12%) for olaparib. The total monthly drug cost was average $12,422 and median $13,700. The monthly out-of-pocket (OOP) cost for patients was average $46 and median $0 (IQR $0-4). Payors had the highest monthly costs with average $12,019 and median $13,662 (IQR $9914-14,709). Financial assistance programs contributed average $358 and median $0 per month (IQR $0-150). Patients with public (p<0.01) or Medicare insurance (p<0.01) had higher OOP costs than without. CONCLUSIONS: OOP costs were generally low with 75% of patients paying <$5 per month. While limited by small sample size at a single institution, financial assistance programs appear to play a critical role to ensure access to PARP inhibitors as nearly 50% of patients utilized these programs.

Evaluating meaningful levels of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancers.

OBJECTIVE: The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) is a validated instrument measuring the economic burden experienced by patients with cancer. We evaluated the frequency of financial toxicity at different COST levels and stratified risk factors and associations with cost-coping strategies by financial toxicity severity. METHODS: We analyzed previously collected survey data of gynecologic oncology patients from two tertiary care institutions. Both surveys included the COST tool and questions assessing economic and behavioral cost-coping strategies. We adapted a proposed grading scale to define three groups: no/mild, moderate, and severe financial toxicity and used χ2, Fisher's exact test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare groups. We used Poisson regression to calculate crude and adjusted risk ratios for cost-coping strategies, comparing patients with moderate or severe to no/mild financial toxicity. RESULTS: Among 308 patients, 14.9% had severe, 32.1% had moderate, and 52.9% had no/mild financial toxicity. Younger age, non-white race, lower education, unemployment, lower income, use of systemic therapy, and shorter time since diagnosis were associated with worse financial toxicity (all p<0.05). Respondents with moderate or severe financial toxicity were significantly more likely to use economic cost-coping strategies such as changing spending habits (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 2.7, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.0 moderate; aRR 3.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 5.4 severe) and borrowing money (aRR 5.5, 95% CI 1.8 to 16.5 moderate; aRR 12.7, 95% CI 4.3 to 37.1 severe). Those with severe financial toxicity also had a significantly higher risk of behavioral cost-coping through medication non-compliance (aRR 4.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 18.1). CONCLUSIONS: Among a geographically diverse cohort of gynecologic oncology patients, nearly half reported financial toxicity (COST <26), which was associated with economic cost-coping strategies. In those 14.9% of patients reporting severe financial toxicity (COST <14) there was also an increased risk of medication non-compliance, which may lead to worse health outcomes in this group.

Extensive financial hardship among gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the three domains of financial hardship (psychological response, material conditions, and coping behaviors) among gynecologic cancer patients receiving treatment. METHODS: We conducted a single-institution survey of gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy for primary or recurrent disease. Psychological response was measured using Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity, with score < 26 indicating financial distress. We measured material conditions by patient-reported changes in employment or spending and coping behaviors by patient-reported medication non-adherence. We performed descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 121 participants, the mean age was 59 years, 28% were African-American, 50% reported income < $40,000, 74% had private insurance, 20% had only public insurance, and 7% were uninsured. Sixty-five (54%) participants screened positive for financial distress. Age < 65 years (aOR 2.61, 95% CI 1.04-6.52) and income < $40,000 (aOR 3.41, 95% CI 1.28-9.09) were associated with increased odds of screening positive for financial distress. Participants with financial distress were significantly more likely to report material hardship, including losing wages (46% vs. 18%, p < 0.01), not paying bills on time (40% vs. 7%, p < 0.01), and borrowing money (39% vs. 4%, p < 0.01). Financial distress was not associated with coping behaviors, such as not taking (6% vs. 2%, p = 0.37) or refilling medications (5% vs. 2%, p = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Financial distress affects over half of gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of treatment and is associated with material hardship. Younger age and lower income can be used to identify patients at increased risk.

Perspectives on Conversations About Costs of Cancer Care of Breast Cancer Survivors and Cancer Center Staff: A Qualitative Study.

Background: Despite recommendations to discuss the cost of care (CoC) with patients with cancer, little formal guidance is available on how to conduct these sensitive conversations in ways that are acceptable to both patients and providers. Objective: To explore the perspectives of patients and medical and nonmedical cancer center staff on CoC conversations. Design: In individual interviews, participants were asked to discuss the content of, timing of, and ideal person to hold CoC conversations. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Content was analyzed to identify emerging essential elements. Setting: Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham. Participants: 42 women aged 60 to 79 years with a history of breast cancer and 20 cancer center staff (6 physicians, 4 nurses, 5 patient navigators, 3 social workers, and 2 billing specialists). Results: Both patients and providers identified reassurance and action as essential elements of CoC conversations. Participants expressed the importance of reassurance that recommended medical care would not be affected by affordability challenges. Action was intended as discussions on ways to help patients cover treatment-related costs, such as discussion of payment plans or linkage to financial resources. Optimal timing for CoC conversations was felt to be after an initial consult visit but before treatment started. The person to hold these conversations should be compassionate, helpful, and knowledgeable of the patient's specific situation (for example, treatment plan, insurance coverage) and of the resources available to attain the patient's goals of care. Limitation: Interviews were limited to older breast cancer survivors and staff at 1 institution. Conclusion: Conversations about CoC extend beyond discussing costs and must be sensitive to the vulnerability experienced by patients. These findings can guide training of personnel involved in CoC conversations. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Targeted composite value-based endpoints in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: FDA-approved treatments for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) include bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors (PARPi); clinical decisions regarding therapy must be made prior to initiating chemotherapy. Using the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) value frameworks, we assessed relative values of concurrent/maintenance biologic therapies in PSROC. METHODS: Value scores were calculated for key maintenance therapies based on randomized controlled trials: bevacizumab (OCEANS, GOG 213); olaparib (Study 19, SOLO2); niraparib (NOVA); rucaparib (ARIEL3). Personalized value scorecards were constructed for patients with germline/somatic-BRCA mutations, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and wild-type BRCA (wBRCA). ASCO value scores assess clinical benefit, toxicity, long-term survival, symptom palliation, treatment-free interval, and quality of life (QOL). ESMO value scores assess clinical benefit, toxicity, and QOL. RESULTS: ASCO scores were highest for maintenance PARPi in germline/somatic-BRCA mutation cohorts: olaparib (SOLO2) = 47, (Study 19) = 62; niraparib = 50; rucaparib = 54. HRD cohorts had slightly lower scores: niraparib = 46; rucaparib = 37. wBRCA cohorts had the lowest scores: niraparib = 26; rucaparib = 26; and olaparib (Study 19) = 32, as did patients receiving bevacizumab (OCEANS) = 35, (GOG 213) = 26. ESMO scores demonstrated high-value for maintenance PARPi in germline/somatic-BRCA mutation cohorts and low-value for bevacizumab and PARPi in wBRCA cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The value of maintenance PARPi therapy depends heavily on BRCA status, with the highest value scores in germline/somatic-BRCA mutation cohorts. Personalized value scorecards provide a visual aid to assess the harm-benefit balance of maintenance PARPi for PSROC.

Prognostic role of pathologic response and cytoreductive status at interval debulking surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine if complete pathologic response (cPR) and cytoreductive status at interval debulking surgery (IDS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) are associated with improved clinical outcomes in ovarian cancer. METHODS: We evaluated 91 patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent NACT and IDS. Pathologic response, cytoreductive status, and outcomes were determined. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities were calculated. RESULTS: cPR occurred in 9 (10%), microscopic pathologic response (microPR) in 18 (20%), and macroscopic pathologic response (macroPR) in 64 (70%) patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with cPR was significantly improved compared with patients with any pathologic residual disease (microPR/macroPR; undefined vs 10.9 months, P = .01); whereas, microPR was not associated with significantly improved PFS compared with macroPR (16.3 months vs 10 months, P = .08). Cytoreduction to no gross residual disease was associated with improved PFS (undefined vs 7.5 months vs 5.5 months, P < .01) and overall survival (undefined vs 38.7 months vs 12 months, P < .01) compared with visible residual disease less than or equal to 1 cm or suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: cPR is uncommon (10%) after NACT for advanced ovarian cancer. Better pathologic response and cytoreductive status are associated with improved PFS, emphasizing the importance of both chemotherapy response and surgical effort.

Clinical outcomes in ovarian cancer patients receiving three versus more cycles of chemotherapy after neoadjuvant treatment and interval cytoreductive surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes for stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery followed by up to three versus more cycles of post-operative chemotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a multi-institution retrospective cohort study of patients treated from January 2005 to February 2016 with neoadjuvant platinum-based therapy followed by interval surgery and post-operative chemotherapy. The following were exclusion criteria: more than four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, bevacizumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-platinum therapy, prior chemotherapy, and elevated CA125 values after three post-operative chemotherapy cycles. Progression-free and overall survival and toxicity profiles were compared between groups receiving up to three cycles versus more that three cycles post-operatively. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients met inclusion criteria: 41 received up to three cycles and 59 received more than three cycles. The groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index, performance status, tumor histology, optimal cytoreduction rates, and median number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles. Median progression-free survival was 14 vs 16.6 months in those receiving up to three cycles versus more than three cycles, respectively (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.68, p=0.97). Similarly, median overall survival was not different at 47.1 vs 69.4 months, respectively (HR 1.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 4.42, p=0.10). There were no differences in grade 2 or higher chemotherapy-related toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Extending post-operative chemotherapy beyond three cycles in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery with normalization of CA125 levels was not associated with improved survival or greater toxicity. Future study in a larger cohort is warranted to define optimal length of cytotoxic treatment.

Treatment of low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma in a nulligravid woman.

A 32 year-old nulligravid woman with a uterine mass underwent exploratory laparotomy with myomectomy. Final pathology revealed a low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS) with positive margins. She subsequently underwent definitive robotic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy with ovarian preservation. She was diagnosed with a stage IB low-grade ESS. She is currently undergoing observation. Discussion of classification, surgical options, and adjuvant therapy is presented.

Time to chemotherapy in ovarian cancer: Compliance with ovarian cancer quality indicators at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.

OBJECTIVE: To assess compliance with, and outcomes related to, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology quality measure in ovarian cancer to administer chemotherapy within 42 days of cytoreductive surgery in patients with epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancer. METHODS: Institutional ovarian cancer database was evaluated for compliance with the quality measure to administer chemotherapy within 42 days of cytoreductive surgery. The influence of chemotherapy timing on the risk of death was evaluated, and factors related to the timing of chemotherapy after surgery was assessed. RESULTS: Of 668 patients with epithelial ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancer who underwent surgical treatment for their disease (primary or interval), 635 met criteria for administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (with stages IA/IB, grade 2 or 3 disease; stage IC or more advanced stage disease). Compliance to administer chemotherapy within 42 days was 59.1%. The adjusted risk of death was not strongly associated with time to chemotherapy within 42 days (aHR: 0.80; 0.61, 1.05) and this did not differ by primary or interval debulking surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospectively maintained database, 59.1% of patients received chemotherapy within 42 days of surgery. The time to chemotherapy interval of within 42 days was not strongly associated with improved survival, particularly when age, stage of disease, insurance enrollment and surgical characteristics were taken into account. Further, the relationship between time to chemotherapy interval of within 42 days and survival did not vary by patients who received primary versus interval debulking surgery or had no residual disease.

Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing: Perspectives of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients and Gynecologic Oncology Healthcare Providers.

Multi-gene panel testing has expanded the genetic information available to cancer patients. The objective was to assess provider behaviors and attitudes and patient knowledge and attitudes towards genetic counseling and testing. An online survey was distributed to Society of Gynecologic Oncology members and a written questionnaire was administered to patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer at a tertiary care referral center. Most of the 233 (18% response rate) provider respondents were gynecologic oncologists. Access to a genetic counselor was reported by 87% of providers and 55% deferred all testing to genetic counselors. Of 53 ovarian cancer patient respondents, two-thirds had previously seen a genetic counselor or undergone testing. Patients' attitudes about genetic counseling and/or testing were favorable with respect to themselves (70-81%) and their family members (94%). Less than 25% of patients indicated worrying about health care discrimination, lack of privacy, or high cost. Seventy-seven percent of patients demonstrated a desire to obtain genetic information even if the results were not currently actionable, and 20% of providers stated they test for only those genes with guideline-supported actionable results. Provider practice differences were identified in screening and prevention strategies for patients with deleterious non-BRCA mutations and variants of uncertain significance. The variation in clinical interpretation of results associated with poorly defined cancer risks signals a need for more comprehensive training and guidelines to ensure access to evidence-based care.

Setting the bar: compliance with ovarian cancer quality indicators at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.

OBJECTIVES: Ovarian cancer quality measures are being developed to improve health care delivery and outcomes. Our objective is to evaluate compliance with 8 quality indicators proposed by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. METHODS: A review of 123 ovarian cancer patients who underwent primary surgical staging/cytoreduction and chemotherapy from 2010-2012 was undertaken. Medical records were reviewed, and descriptive statistics were performed to determine compliance. RESULTS: A timely operative report documenting residual disease was dictated for 121/123 (98.4%) patients. Complete surgical staging was performed in 33/55 (60.0%) stage I-IIIB patients, with lymphadenectomy most frequently omitted. For optimally debulked stage III patients, 52/56 (92.9%) were offered intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ultimately, 29/56 (51.8%) received this route and 19/56 (33.9%) within 42 days (range 18-48, median 40 days). Clinical trial randomization and co-morbidities accounted for most cases of non-compliance. All 105 patients for whom chemotherapy was indicated received platin/taxane therapy, and 79/105 (75.2%) within 42 days (range 4-82, median 37days). Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis was provided mechanically in 122/123 (99.2%) and pharmacologically in 99/123 (80.5%) patients within 24h of surgery. Prophylactic parenteral antibiotics were administered within 60 min of cytoreduction in 119/123 (96.7%) and discontinued within 24h after surgery in 120/123 (97.6%) cases. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with strict definitions of ovarian cancer quality indicators varies depending on the care delivered and documentation of that care. Increased attention to comprehensive surgical staging and timely initiation of chemotherapy appears warranted. With the move toward value-based payment models, quality indicators will play a significant role in health care delivery.