Secondary validation of an ovarian cancer-specific comorbidity index in a US population.

OBJECTIVES: The Ovarian Cancer Comorbidity Index (OCCI) is an age-specific index developed and previously found to be more predictive of overall and cancer-specific survival than the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The objective was to perform secondary validation of the OCCI in a US population. METHODS: A cohort of ovarian cancer patients undergoing primary or interval cytoreductive surgery from January 2005 to January 2012 was identified in SEER-Medicare. OCCI scores were calculated with the regression coefficients determined from the original developmental cohort for five comorbidities. Cox regression analyses were used to calculate associations between the OCCI risk groups and 5-year overall survival and 5-year cancer-specific survival in comparison to the CCI. RESULTS: A total of 5052 patients were included. Median age was 74 (range 66-82) years. 47% (n=2375) had stage III and 24% (n=1197) had stage IV disease at diagnosis. 67% had a serous histology subtype (n=3403). All patients were categorized as moderate (48.4%) or high risk (51.6%). The prevalence of the five predictive comorbidities were: coronary artery disease 3.7%, hypertension 67.5%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 16.7%, diabetes 21.8%, and dementia 1.2%. Controlling for histology, grade, and age-stratification, worse overall survival was associated with both a higher OCCI (hazard ratio (HR) 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46 to 1.69) and CCI (HR 1.96; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.32). Cancer-specific survival was associated with the OCCI (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.44) but was not associated with the CCI (HR 1.15; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: This internationally developed comorbidity score for ovarian cancer patients is predictive for both overall and cancer-specific survival in a US population. CCI was not predictive for cancer-specific survival. This score may have research applications when utilizing large administrative datasets.

Assessing gaps in motherhood after cancer: development and psychometric testing of the Survivorship Oncofertility Barriers Scale.

OBJECTIVE: With a growing population of young cancer survivors, there is an increasing need to address the gaps in evidence regarding cancer survivors' obstetric outcomes, fertility care access, and experiences. As part of a large research program, this study engaged survivors and experts in co-developing and testing the validity, reliability, acceptability, and feasibility of a scale to assess survivor-reported barriers to motherhood after cancer. METHODS: Scale items were developed based on literature and expert review of 226 reproductive health items, and six experience and focus groups with 26 survivors of breast and gynecological cancers. We then invited 128 survivors to complete the scale twice, 48 hours apart, and assessed the scale's psychometric properties using exploratory factor analyses including reliability, known-group validity, and convergent validity. RESULTS: Item development identified three primary themes: multifaceted barriers for cancer survivors; challenging decisions about whether and how to pursue motherhood; and a timely need for evidence about obstetric outcomes. Retained items were developed into a 24-item prototype scale with four subscales. Prototype testing showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.71) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.70). Known-group validity was supported; the scale discriminated between groups by age (x=70.0 for patients ≥35 years old vs 54.5 for patients <35 years old, p=0.02) and years since diagnosis (x=71.5 for ≥6 years vs 54.3 for<6 years, p=0.01). The financial subscale was correlated with the Economic StraiN and Resilience in Cancer measure of financial toxicity (ρ=0.39, p<0.001). The scale was acceptable and feasibly delivered online. The final 22-item scale is organized in four subscales: personal, medical, relational, and financial barriers to motherhood. CONCLUSION: The Survivorship Oncofertility Barriers Scale demonstrated validity, reliability, and was acceptable and feasible when delivered online. Implementing the scale can gather the data needed to inform shared decision making and to address disparities in fertility care for survivors.

Medicaid Expansion and Postoperative Mortality in Women with Gynecologic Cancer: A Difference-in-Difference Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The association between Medicaid expansion and postoperative mortality after surgery for gynecologic cancer is unknown. Our objective was to compare 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality after gynecologic cancer surgery before and after 2014 in states that did and did not expand Medicaid. METHODS: We searched the National Cancer Database for women aged 40-64 years old between 2010 and 2016 who underwent surgery for a primary gynecologic malignancy. We used pre/post and quasi-experimental difference-in-difference (DID) multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate mortality pre-2014 (2010-2013) and post-2014 (2014-2016) for states that did and did not expand Medicaid in January 2014. We completed univariable logistic regressions for covariates of interest. RESULTS: Among 169,731 women, 30-day postoperative mortality in expansion states after 2014 significantly decreased for endometrial cancer (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-0.67) and ovarian cancer (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.99) and increased for cervical cancer (OR 3.82, 95% CI 1.12-13.01). Compared with non-expansion states, expansion states had improved 30-day postoperative mortality for endometrial cancer after 2014 (DID OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96). Univariable analysis demonstrated improved 30-day postoperative mortality for Black women with endometrial cancer in expansion states (DID OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.95). There was improved 90-day postoperative mortality for endometrial cancer in expansion states (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.85), and improved 90-day postoperative mortality for Midwestern women with ovarian cancer in expansion states on univariable analysis (DID OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: State Medicaid legislation was associated with improved postoperative survival in women with endometrial cancer and subgroups of women with endometrial and ovarian cancer.

Obstetric and Neonatal Outcomes 1 or More Years After a Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate obstetric and neonatal outcomes of the first live birth conceived 1 or more years after breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a population-based study to compare live births between women with a history of breast cancer (case group) and matched women with no cancer history (control group). Individuals in the case and control groups were identified using linked data from the California Cancer Registry and California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development data sets. Individuals in the case group were diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age 18-45 years between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2012, and conceived 12 or more months after breast cancer diagnosis. Individuals in the control group were covariate-matched women without a history of breast cancer who delivered during 2000-2012. The primary outcome was preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation, small for gestational age (SGA), cesarean delivery, severe maternal morbidity, and neonatal morbidity. Subgroup analyses were used to assess the effect of time from initial treatment to fertilization and receipt of additional adjuvant therapy before pregnancy on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 30,021 women aged 18-45 years diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer during 2000-2012, 553 met the study inclusion criteria. Those with a history of breast cancer and matched women in the control group had similar odds of preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI 0.95-1.74), preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.34-1.79), delivering an SGA neonate (less than the 5th percentile: OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.35-1.03; less than the 10th percentile: OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.68-1.30), and experiencing severe maternal morbidity (OR 1.61; 95% CI 0.74-3.50). Patients with a history of breast cancer had higher odds of undergoing cesarean delivery (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53); however, their offspring did not have increased odds of neonatal morbidity compared with women in the control group (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.62). CONCLUSION: Breast cancer 1 or more years before fertilization was not strongly associated with obstetric and neonatal complications.

Association between time to diagnosis, time to treatment, and ovarian cancer survival in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the association between time to diagnosis and treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with overall and ovarian cancer specific mortality using a retrospective cross sectional study of a population based cancer registry database. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was searched from 1992 to 2015 for women aged ≥66 years with epithelial ovarian cancer and abdominal/pelvic pain, bloating, difficulty eating, or urinary symptoms within 1 year of cancer diagnosis. Time from presentation to diagnosis and treatment were evaluated as outcomes and covariables. Cox regression models and adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves evaluated 5 year overall and cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Among 13 872 women, better survival was associated with longer time from presentation to diagnosis (overall survival hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.95; cancer specific survival HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.96) and diagnosis to treatment (overall survival HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.96; cancer specific survival HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.96). There was longer time from presentation to diagnosis in Hispanic women (relative risk (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32) and from diagnosis to treatment in non-Hispanic black women (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.54), with lower likelihood of survival at 5 years after adjustment for time to diagnosis and treatment among non-Hispanic black women (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.26) compared with non-Hispanic white women. Gynecologic oncology visit was associated with improved overall (p<0.001) and cancer specific (p<0.001) survival despite a longer time from presentation to treatment (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Longer time to diagnosis and treatment were associated with improved survival, suggesting that tumor specific features are more important prognostic factors than the time interval of workup and treatment. Significant sociodemographic disparities indicate social determinants of health influencing workup and care. Gynecologic oncologist visits were associated with improved survival, highlighting the importance of appropriate referral for suspected ovarian cancer.

Survival outcomes following pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies after breast cancer: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine the impact of pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies (ART) on breast-cancer-specific survival among breast cancer survivors. METHODS: The authors performed a cohort study using a novel data linkage from the California Cancer Registry, the California birth cohort, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System data sets. They performed risk-set matching in women with stages I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2012. For each pregnant woman, comparable women who were not pregnant at that point but were otherwise similar based on observed characteristics were matched at the time of pregnancy. After matching, Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of pregnancy with breast-cancer-specific survival. We repeated these analyses for women who received ART. RESULTS: Among 30,021 women with breast cancer, 553 had a pregnancy and 189 attempted at least one cycle of ART. In Cox proportional hazards modeling, the pregnancy group had a higher 5-year disease-specific survival rate; 95.6% in the pregnancy group and 90.6% in the nonpregnant group (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.77). In women with hormone receptor-positive cancer, we found similar results (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.2-0.91). In the ART analysis, there was no difference in survival between groups; the 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 96.9% in the ART group and 94.1% in the non-ART group (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.17-1.13). CONCLUSION: Pregnancy and ART are not associated with worse survival in women with breast cancer. LAY SUMMARY: We sought to determine the impact of pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies (ART) among breast cancer survivors. We performed a study of 30,021 women by linking available data from California and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System. For each pregnant woman, we matched at the time of pregnancy comparable women who were not pregnant at that point but were otherwise similar based on observed characteristics. We repeated these analyses for women who received ART. We found that pregnancy and ART were not associated with worse survival.

Medicaid expansion and 2-year survival in women with gynecologic cancer: a difference-in-difference analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act implemented optional Medicaid expansion starting in 2014, but the association between Medicaid expansion and gynecologic cancer survival is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of Medicaid expansion by comparing 2-year survival among gynecologic cancers before and after 2014 in states that did and did not expand Medicaid using a difference-in-difference analysis. STUDY DESIGN: We searched the National Cancer Database for women aged 40 to 64 years, diagnosed with a primary gynecologic malignancy (endometrial, ovarian, cervical, vulvar, and vaginal) between 2010 and 2016. We used a quasiexperimental difference-in-difference multivariable Cox regression analysis to compare 2-year survival between states that expanded Medicaid in January 2014 and states that did not expand Medicaid as of 2016. We performed univariable subgroup difference-in-difference Cox regression analyses on the basis of stage, income, race, ethnicity, and geographic location. Adjusted linear difference-in-difference regressions evaluated the proportion of uninsured patients on the basis of expansion status after 2014. We evaluated adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves to examine differences on the basis of study period and expansion status. RESULTS: Our sample included 169,731 women, including 78,669 (46.3%) in expansion states and 91,062 (53.7%) in nonexpansion states. There was improved 2-year survival on adjusted difference-in-difference Cox regressions for women with ovarian cancer in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014 (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.94; P<.001) with no differences in endometrial, cervical, vaginal, vulvar, or combined gynecologic cancer sites on the basis of expansion status. On univariable subgroup difference-in-difference Cox analyses, women with ovarian cancer with stage III-IV disease (P=.008), non-Hispanic ethnicity (P=.042), those in the South (P=.016), and women with vulvar cancer in the Northeast (P=.022), had improved 2-year survival in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014. In contrast, women with cervical cancer in the South (P=.018) had worse 2-year survival in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014. All cancer sites had lower proportions of uninsured patients in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014. CONCLUSION: There was a significant association between Medicaid expansion and improved 2-year survival for women with ovarian cancer in states that expanded Medicaid after 2014. Despite improved insurance coverage, racial, ethnic, and regional survival differences exist between expansion and nonexpansion states.

Financial toxicity impact on younger versus older adults with cancer in the setting of care delivery.

BACKGROUND: Young adults and other working-age adults with cancer are at risk for cancer-related financial toxicity (FT), including material hardships, depletion of coping resources, and psychological burden. This study compares FT domains in young adults (18-39 years old) (YAs), other working-age adults (40-64 years old), and older adults (≥65 years old) receiving cancer care. METHODS: A total of 311 adults were surveyed using the multi-domain Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer instrument measuring FT (0-10 score indicating least to greatest FT; score ≥5 severe FT). Participants were receiving ambulatory care from March-September 2019. Associations of age with overall FT and material hardship, coping resource depletion, and psychological burden FT domains were tested using Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests and multivariable generalized linear models with gamma distribution. RESULTS: YAs (median age, 31.5 years) comprised 9.6% of the sample; other working-age adults comprised 56.9%. Overall, material, coping, and psychological FT scores were worse in younger age adults versus older adults (P < .001 in all multivariable models). Compared with older adults, younger age adults demonstrated worse material hardship (median scores, 3.70 vs 4.80 vs 1.30 for YAs, other working-age, and older adults, respectively; P < .001), coping resource depletion (4.50 vs 3.40 vs 0.80; P < .001), and psychological burden (6.50 vs 7.00 vs 1.00; P < .001). Fifty percent of YAs had severe overall FT versus 40.7% of other working-age adults and 9.6% of older adults (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Younger age adults with cancer bore disproportionate FT. Interventions to address unmet needs are critical components for addressing FT in this population.

Algorithm to Identify Incident Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Cases Using Claims Data.

PURPOSE: To create an algorithm to identify incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases in claims-based data sets and evaluate performance of the algorithm using SEER-Medicare claims data. METHODS: We created a five-step algorithm on the basis of clinical expertise to identify incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases using claims data for (1) ovarian cancer diagnosis, (2) receipt of platinum-based chemotherapy, (3) no claim for platinum-based chemotherapy but claim for tumor debulking surgery, (4) removed cases with nonplatinum chemotherapy, and (5) removed patients with prior claims with personal history of ovarian cancer code to exclude prevalent cases. We evaluated algorithm performance using SEER-Medicare claims data by creating four cohorts: incident epithelial ovarian cancer, a 5% random sample of cancer-free Medicare beneficiaries, a 5% random sample of incident nonovarian cancer, and prevalent ovarian cancer cases. RESULTS: Using SEER tumor registry data as the gold standard, our algorithm correctly classified 89.9% of incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases (cohort n = 572) and almost 100% of cancer-free controls (n = 97,127), nonovarian cancer (n = 714), and prevalent ovarian cancer cases (n = 3,712). The overall algorithm sensitivity was 89.9%, the positive predictive value was 93.8%, and the specificity and negative predictive value were > 99.9%. Patients were more likely to be correctly classified as incident ovarian cancer if they had stage III or IV disease compared with early stage I or II disease (93.5% v 83.7%, P < .01), and grade 1-4 compared with unknown grade tumors (93.8% v 81.4%, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Our algorithm correctly identified most incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases, especially those with advanced disease. This algorithm will facilitate research in other claims-based data sets where cancer registry data are unavailable.

Temporal trends of healthcare system use between symptomatic presentation and ovarian cancer diagnosis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in healthcare system use over time between onset of classic ovarian cancer symptoms and ovarian cancer diagnosis in the United States. METHODS: A population-based study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was conducted on patients aged ≥66 years with stage II-IV epithelial ovarian cancer between 1992 and 2015 with at least one of the following diagnosis codes: abdominal pain, bloating, difficulty eating, and/or urinary symptoms. The outcomes were frequency of visit type, frequency of diagnostic modality, and Medicare reimbursement between first symptomatic claim and cancer diagnosis. Jonckheere-Terpstra and Cochran-Armitage tests were used to evaluate trends over time. RESULTS: Among 13 872 women, 13 541 (97.6%) had outpatient, 6466 (46.6%) had inpatient, and 4906 (35.4%) had emergency room visits. The frequency of outpatient (p<0.001) and emergency room visits (p<0.001) increased while the frequency of inpatient visits (p<0.001) decreased between 1992 and 2015. The median number of outpatient visits (p<0.001) and physician specialties seen (p<0.001) increased over time. The median hospital length of stay decreased from 10 days in 1992 to 5 days in 2015 (p<0.001). Between 1992 and 2015, the frequency of ultrasound decreased (p<0.001) while the frequency of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography imaging, and cancer antigen 125 tumor immunoassay increased (p<0.001). Median monthly total (p<0.001), inpatient (p<0.001), and outpatient (p=0.006) reimbursements decreased while emergency room reimbursements increased (p<0.001) over time. CONCLUSION: Healthcare reimbursement between symptomatic presentation and ovarian cancer diagnosis has decreased over time and may reflect the trends in fewer and shorter hospitalizations and increased use of emergency and outpatient management during the evaluation of symptoms of women with ovarian cancer.

Patient, physician, and policy factors underlying variation in use of telemedicine for radiation oncology cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Oncology telemedicine was implemented rapidly after COVID-19. We examined multilevel correlates and outcomes of telemedicine use for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for cancer. METHODS: Upon implementation of a telemedicine platform at a comprehensive cancer center, we analyzed 468 consecutive patient RT courses from March 16, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients were categorized as using telemedicine during ≥1 weekly oncologist visits versus in-person oncologist management only. Temporal trends were evaluated with Cochran-Armitage tests; chi-squared test and multilevel multivariable logistic models identified correlates of use and outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 33% used telemedicine versus 67% in-person only oncologist management. Temporal trends (ptrend  < 0.001) correlated with policy changes: uptake was rapid after local social-distancing restrictions, reaching peak use (35% of visits) within 4 weeks of implementation. Use declined to 15% after national "Opening Up America Again" guidelines. In the multilevel model, patients more likely to use telemedicine were White non-Hispanic versus Black or Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.72; p = 0.04) or receiving ≥6 fractions of RT versus 1-5 fractions (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.29-8.80; p < 0.001). Model intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated 43% utilization variation was physician-level driven. Treatment toxicities and 30-day emergency visits or unplanned hospitalizations did not differ for patients using versus not using telemedicine (p > 0.05, all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Though toxicities were similar with telemedicine oncology management, there remained lower uptake among non-White patients. Continuing strategies for oncology telemedicine implementation should address multilevel patient, physician, and policy factors to optimize telemedicine's potential to surmount-and not exacerbate-barriers to quality cancer care.

p53 in Proximal Tubules Mediates Chronic Kidney Problems after Cisplatin Treatment.

Nephrotoxicity is a major side-effect of cisplatin in chemotherapy, which can occur acutely or progress into chronic kidney disease (CKD). The protein p53 plays an important role in acute kidney injury induced by cisplatin, but its involvement in CKD following cisplatin exposure is unclear. Here, we address this question by using experimental models of repeated low-dose cisplatin (RLDC) treatment. In mouse proximal tubular BUMPT cells, RLDC treatment induced p53 activation, apoptosis, and fibrotic changes, which were suppressed by pifithrin-α, a pharmacologic inhibitor of p53. In vivo, chronic kidney problems following RLDC treatment were ameliorated in proximal tubule-specific p53-knockout mice (PT-p53-KO mice). Compared with wild-type littermates, PT-p53-KO mice showed less renal damage (KIM-1 positive area: 0.97% vs. 2.5%), less tubular degeneration (LTL positive area: 15.97% vs. 10.54%), and increased proliferation (Ki67 positive area: 2.42% vs. 0.45%), resulting in better renal function after RLDC treatment. Together, these results indicate that p53 in proximal tubular cells contributes significantly to the development of chronic kidney problems following cisplatin chemotherapy.

Employment disruption among women with gynecologic cancers.

BACKGROUND: Adverse employment outcomes pose significant challenges for cancer patients, though data patients with gynecologic cancers are sparse. We evaluated the decrease in employment among patients in the year following the diagnosis of a gynecologic cancer compared with population-based controls. METHODS: Patients aged 18 to 63 years old, who were diagnosed with cervical, ovarian, endometrial, or vulvar cancer between January 2009 and December 2017, were identified in Truven MarketScan, an insurance claims database of commercially insured patients in the USA. Patients working full- or part-time at diagnosis were matched to population-based controls in a 1:4 ratio via propensity score. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the risk of employment disruption in patients versus controls. RESULTS: We identified 7446 women with gynecologic cancers (191 vulvar, 941 cervical, 1839 ovarian, and 4475 endometrial). Although most continued working following diagnosis, 1579 (21.2%) changed from full- or part-time employment to long-term disability, retirement, or work cessation. In an adjusted model, older age, the presence of comorbidities, and treatment with surgery plus adjuvant therapy versus surgery alone were associated with an increased risk of employment disruption (p<0.0003, p=0.01, and p<0.0001, respectively) among patients with gynecologic cancer. In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with gynecologic cancers had over a threefold increased risk of employment disruption relative to controls (HR 3.67, 95% CI 3.44 to 3.95). CONCLUSION: Approximately 21% of patients with gynecologic cancer experienced a decrease in employment in the year after diagnosis. These patients had over a threefold increased risk of employment disruption compared with controls.

Outcomes of the First Pregnancy After Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of the first pregnancy after fertility-sparing surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS: We performed a population-based study of women aged 18-45 years with a history of stage I cervical cancer reported to the 2000-2012 California Cancer Registry. Data were linked to the OSHPD (California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development) birth and discharge data sets. We included patients with cervical cancer who conceived at least 3 months after a fertility-sparing surgery, which included cervical conization or loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Those undergoing trachelectomy were excluded. The primary outcome was preterm birth. Secondary outcomes included growth restriction, neonatal morbidity, stillbirth, cesarean delivery, and severe maternal morbidity. We used propensity scores to match similar women from two groups in a 1:2 ratio of case group participants to control group participants: population individuals without cancer and individuals with cervical cancer (women who delivered before their cervical cancer diagnosis). Wald statistics and logistic regressions were used to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: Of 4,087 patients with cervical cancer, 118 (2.9%) conceived after fertility-sparing surgery, and 107 met inclusion criteria and were matched to control group participants. Squamous cell carcinoma was the most common histology (63.2%), followed by adenocarcinoma (30.8%). Patients in the case group had higher odds of preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation compared with both control groups (21.5% vs 9.3%, odds ratio [OR] 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-5.1; 21.5% vs 12.7%, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.6), but not preterm birth before 32 weeks. Neonatal morbidity was more common among the patients in the case group relative to those in the cervical cancer control group (15.9% vs 6.9%, OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2-5.5). There were no differences in rates of growth restriction, stillbirth, cesarean delivery, and maternal morbidity. CONCLUSION: In a population-based cohort, patients who conceived after surgery for cervical cancer had higher odds of preterm delivery compared with control groups.

Factors impacting the time to ovarian cancer diagnosis based on classic symptom presentation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ovarian cancer often present with late-stage disease and nonspecific symptoms, but little is known about factors affecting the time to diagnosis (TTD) in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective, population-based study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was conducted. It included women 66 years old or older with stage II to IV epithelial ovarian cancer with at least 1 code for abdominal/pelvic pain, bloating, difficulty eating, or urinary symptoms within 1 year of the cancer diagnosis. TTD was defined from the first claim with a prespecified symptom to the ovarian cancer diagnosis. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess for differences in TTD by group medians. Univariate and generalized linear models with a log-link function evaluated TTD by covariables. RESULTS: For the 13,872 women analyzed, the mean and median times to diagnosis were 2.9 and 1.1 months, respectively. The median TTD differed significantly by first symptom (P < .001), number of symptoms (P < .001), and first physician specialty seen (P < .001). In a multivariable analysis, TTD differed significantly according to race/ethnicity (P < .001), geographic region (P = .001), urban-rural location (P = .031), emergency room presentation (P < .001), and number of specialties seen (P < .001). A shorter TTD was associated with a diagnosis in 2006-2010 (relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.98) or 2011-2015 (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93) in comparison with 1992-1999. CONCLUSIONS: The time from a symptomatic presentation to care to a diagnosis of ovarian cancer is influenced by clinical and demographic variables. This study's findings reinforce the importance of educating all physicians on ovarian cancer symptoms to aid in diagnosis. LAY SUMMARY: Ovarian cancer is often diagnosed once disease has spread because the classic symptoms of ovarian cancer-abdominal or pelvic pain, bloating, difficulty eating, and urinary issues-can be mistaken for other problems. This study examined the time between when women with classic ovarian cancer symptoms went to a physician and when they received a cancer diagnosis in a large database population. The authors found that the time to diagnosis differed according to the type and number of symptoms and what type of physician a woman saw as well as factors such as race, geographic location, and year of diagnosis.

Work Outcomes after Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) versus Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy (IMRT) for Oropharyngeal Cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared work outcomes in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), randomized to intensity-modulated proton (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for chemoradiation therapy (CRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 147 patients with stage II-IVB squamous cell OPC participating in patient-reported outcomes assessments, a prespecified secondary aim of a randomized phase II/III trial of IMPT (n = 69) versus IMRT (n = 78), we compared absenteeism, presenteeism (i.e., the extent to which an employee is not fully functional at work), and work productivity losses. We used the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire at baseline (pre-CRT), at the end of CRT, and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. A one-sided Cochran-Armitage test was used to analyze within-arm temporal trends, and a χ2 test was used to compare between-arm differences. Among working patients, at each follow-up point, a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare work-productivity scores. RESULTS: Patient characteristics in IMPT versus IMRT arms were similar. In the IMPT arm, within-arm analysis demonstrated that an increasing proportion of patients resumed working after IMPT, from 60% (40 of 67) pre-CRT and 71% (30 of 42) at 1 year to 78% (18 of 23) at 2 years (P = 0.025). In the IMRT arm, the proportion remained stable, with 57% (43 of 76) pre-CRT, 54% (21 of 39) at 1 year, and 52% (13 of 25) working at 2 years (P = 0.47). By 2 years after CRT, the between-arm difference between patients who had IMPT and those who had IMRT trended toward significance (P = 0.06). Regardless of treatment arm, among working patients, the most severe work impairments occurred from treatment initiation to the end of CRT, with significant recovery from absenteeism, presenteeism, and productivity impairments by the 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001 for all). Higher magnitudes of recovery from absenteeism (at 1 year, P = 0.05; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) and composite work impairment scores (at 1 year, P = 0.04; and at 2 years, P = 0.04) were seen in patients treated with IMPT versus those treated with IMRT. CONCLUSION: In patients with OPC receiving curative CRT, patients randomized to IMPT demonstrated increasing work and productivity recovery trends. Studies are needed to identify mechanisms underlying head and neck CRT treatment causing work disability and impairment.

Outcomes of the First Pregnancy After Fertility-Sparing Surgery for Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of the first pregnancy after fertility-sparing surgery in patients treated for early-stage ovarian cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of women aged 18-45 years with a history of stage IA or IC ovarian cancer reported to the California Cancer Registry for the years 2000-2012. These data were linked to the 2000-2012 California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development birth and discharge data sets to ascertain oncologic characteristics and obstetric outcomes. We included in the case group ovarian cancer patients who conceived at least 3 months after fertility-sparing surgery. The primary outcome was preterm birth, and only the first pregnancy after cancer diagnosis was considered. Secondary outcomes included small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates, neonatal morbidity (respiratory support within 72 hours after birth, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, seizures, infection, meconium aspiration syndrome, birth trauma, and intracranial or subgaleal hemorrhage), and severe maternal morbidity as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Propensity scores were used to match women in a 1:2 ratio for the case group and the control group. Wald statistics and logistic regressions were used to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients who conceived after fertility-sparing surgery were matched to 306 women in a control group. Histologic types included epithelial (55%), germ-cell (37%), and sex-cord stromal (7%). Treatment for ovarian cancer was not associated with preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation (13.7% vs 11.4%; odds ratio [OR] 1.23, 95% CI 0.69-2.20), SGA neonates (birth weight less than the 10th percentile: 11.8% vs 12.7%; OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50-1.66), severe maternal morbidity (2.6% vs 1.3%; OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.50-8.25), or neonatal morbidity (both 5.9% OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44-2.28). CONCLUSION: Patients who conceived at least 3 months after surgery for early-stage ovarian cancer did not have an increased risk of adverse obstetric outcomes.

Sensitivity of Psychosocial Distress Screening to Identify Cancer Patients at Risk for Financial Hardship During Care Delivery.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer frequently encounter financial hardship, yet systematic strategies to identify at-risk patients are not established in care delivery. We assessed sensitivity of distress-based screening to identify patients with cancer-related financial hardship and associated care delivery outcomes. METHODS: A survey of 225 patients at a large cancer center assessed cancer-related financial hardship (0-10 Likert scale; highest quintile scores ≥ 5 defined severe hardship). Responses were linked to electronic medical records identifying patients' distress screening scores 6 months presurvey (0-10 scale) and outcomes of missed cancer care visits and bad debt charges (unrecovered patient charges) within 6 months postsurvey. A positive screen for distress was defined as score ≥ 4. We analyzed screening test characteristics for identifying severe financial hardship within 6 months and associations between financial hardship and outcomes using logistic models. RESULTS: Although patients with positive distress screens were more likely to report financial hardship (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 1.08-1.37; P < .001), a positive distress screen was only 48% sensitive and 70% specific for identifying severe financial hardship. Patients with worse financial hardship scores were more likely to miss oncology care visits within 6 months (for every additional point in financial hardship score from 0 to 10, OR, 1.28; 1.12-1.47; P < .001). Of patients with severe hardship, 72% missed oncology visits versus 35% without severe hardship (P = .006). Patients with worse hardship were more likely to incur any bad debt charges within 6 months (OR, 1.32; 1.13-1.54; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Systematic financial hardship screening is needed to help mitigate adverse care delivery outcomes. Existing distress-based screening lacks sensitivity.

Patient cost sharing during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: More patients with ovarian cancer are being treated with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors because regulatory agencies have granted these drugs new approvals for a variety of treatment indications. However, poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are expensive. When administered as a maintenance therapy, these drugs may be administered for months or years. How much of this cost patients experience as out-of-pocket spending is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the out-of-pocket spending that patients experience during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment and to characterize which healthcare services account for that spending. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed with a sample of patients with ovarian cancer treated between 2014 and 2017 with olaparib, niraparib, or rucaparib. Patients were identified using MarketScan, a health insurance claims database. All insurance claims during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment were collected. The primary outcome variable was the patients' out-of-pocket spending (copayment, coinsurance, and deductibles) during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment for the medication itself. Other outcomes of interest included out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services, the types and frequency of other healthcare services used, health plan spending, the estimated proportion of patients' household income used each month for healthcare, and patients' out-of-pocket spending immediately before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. RESULTS: We identified 503 patients with ovarian cancer with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, 50-62 years); 83% of those had out-of-pocket spendings during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. The median treatment duration was 124 days (interquartile range, 66-240 days). The mean out-of-pocket spending for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors was $305 (standard deviation, $2275) per month. On average, this accounted for 44.8% (standard deviation, 34.8%) of the patients' overall monthly out-of-pocket spending. The mean out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services was $165 (standard deviation, $769) per month. Health plans spent, on average, $12,661 (standard deviation, $15,668) per month for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and $7108 (standard deviation, $15,254) per month for all other healthcare services. The cost sharing for office visits, laboratory tests, and imaging studies represented the majority of non-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment out-of-pocket spending. The average amount patients paid for all healthcare services per month during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $470 (standard deviation, $2407), which was estimated to be 8.7% of the patients' monthly household income. The mean out-of-pocket spending in the 12 months before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $3110 (standard deviation, $6987). CONCLUSION: Patients can face high out-of-pocket costs for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, although the sum of cost sharing for other healthcare services used during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment is often higher. The spending on healthcare costs consumes a large proportion of these patients' household income. Patients with ovarian cancer experience high out-of-pocket costs for healthcare, both before and during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment.