Personalized survivorship care: Routine breast cancer risk assessment in the gynecologic oncology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Gynecologic and breast cancers share several risk factors. Breast cancer risk assessment tools can identify those at elevated risk and allow for enhanced breast surveillance and chemoprevention, however such tools are underutilized. We aim to evaluate the use of routine breast cancer risk assessment in a gynecologic oncology clinic. METHODS: A patient-facing web-based tool was used to collect personal and family history and run four validated breast cancer risk assessment models (Tyrer-Cuzick (TC), Gail, BRCAPRO, and Claus) in a gynecologic oncology clinic. We evaluated completion of the tools and identification of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer using the four validated models. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients were included in this analysis. The BRCAPRO model had the highest completion rate (84.8%), followed by the TC model (74.7%), Gail model (74.7%), and the Claus model (52.1%). The TC model identified 21.6% of patients completing the model as having ≥20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, compared to 6.8% by the Gail model, and 0% for both the BRCAPRO and Claus models. The Gail model identified 52.5% of patients as having ≥1.67% 5-year risk of breast cancer. Among patients identified as high-risk for breast cancer and eligible for screening, 9/9 (100%) were referred to a high-risk breast clinic. CONCLUSION: Among patients that completed the TC breast cancer risk assessment in a gynecologic oncology clinic, approximately 1 in 5 were identified to be at significantly elevated lifetime risk for breast cancer. The gynecologic oncologist's office might offer a convenient and feasible setting to incorporate this risk assessment into routine patient care, as gynecologic oncologists often have long-term patient relationships and participate in survivorship care.

Chatbot Artificial Intelligence for Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Most individuals with a hereditary cancer syndrome are unaware of their genetic status to underutilization of hereditary cancer risk assessment. Chatbots, or programs that use artificial intelligence to simulate conversation, have emerged as a promising tool in health care and, more recently, as a potential tool for genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. Here, we evaluated the existing literature on the use of chatbots in genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using key electronic databases to identify studies which use chatbots for genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. Eligible studies were further subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria, evaluating five distinct chatbots. Three studies evaluated a chatbot that could perform genetic cancer risk assessment, one study evaluated a chatbot that offered patient counseling, and three studies included both functions. The pooled estimated completion rate for the genetic cancer risk assessment was 36.7% (95% CI, 14.8 to 65.9). Two studies included comprehensive patient characteristics, and none involved a comparison group. Chatbots varied as to the involvement of a health care provider in the process of risk assessment and counseling. CONCLUSION: Chatbots have been used to streamline genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling and hold promise for reducing barriers to genetic services. Data regarding user and nonuser characteristics are lacking, as are data regarding comparative effectiveness to usual care. Future research may consider the impact of chatbots on equitable access to genetic services.

An Intervention-Based Approach to Achieve Racial Equity in Gynecologic Oncology.

Racial inequities within gynecologic oncology exist at every step of the cancer continuum. Although the disparities have been well described, there is a significant gap in the literature focused on eliminating inequities in gynecologic cancer outcomes. The goal of this narrative review is to highlight successful, evidence-based interventions from within and outside of gynecologic oncology that alleviate disparity, providing a call to action for further research and implementation efforts within the field. These solutions are organized in the socioecologic framework, where multiple levels of influence-societal, community, organizational, interpersonal, and individual-affect health outcomes.

Landmark Series on Disparities: Uterine Cancer and Strategies for Mitigation.

Longstanding racial disparities exist in uterine cancer. There is a growing body of literature documenting differences in the prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, and tumor characteristics of uterine cancer in Black women compared with White women that significantly contribute to the outcome disparity seen between the groups. This article seeks to provide an overview of racial disparities present in uterine cancer, with attention on Black women in the USA, as well as offer a review on the multifactorial etiology of the disparities described.

Achieving universal genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer: Are we there yet? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services. METHODS: We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]). CONCLUSIONS: Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.

Financial toxicity, mental health, and gynecologic cancer treatment: The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic among low-income women in New York City.

BACKGROUND: New York City (NYC) emerged as an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, and marginalized populations were affected at disproportionate rates. The authors sought to determine the impact of COVID-19 on cancer treatment, anxiety, and financial distress among low-income patients with gynecologic cancer during the peak of the NYC pandemic. METHODS: Medicaid-insured women who were receiving gynecologic oncology care at 2 affiliated centers were contacted by telephone interviews between March 15 and April 15, 2020. Demographics and clinical characteristics were obtained through self-report and retrospective chart review. Financial toxicity, anxiety, and cancer worry were assessed using modified, validated surveys. RESULTS: In total, 100 patients completed the telephone interview. The median age was 60 years (range, 19-86 years), and 71% had an annual income <$40,000. A change in employment status and early stage cancer (stage I and II) were associated with an increase in financial distress (P < .001 and P = .008, respectively). Early stage cancer and telehealth participation were significantly associated with increased worry about future finances (P = .017 and P = .04, respectively). Lower annual income (<$40,000) was associated with increased cancer worry and anxiety compared with higher annual income (>$40,000; P = .036 and P = .017, respectively). When controlling for telehealth participation, income, primary language, and residence in a high COVID-19 prevalence area, a delay in medical care resulted in a 4-fold increased rate of anxiety (P = .023, 95% CI, 1.278-14.50). Race was not significantly associated with increased financial distress, cancer worry, or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Low socioeconomic status was the most common risk factor for increased financial distress, cancer worry, and anxiety. Interventions aimed at improving access to timely oncology care should be implemented during this ongoing pandemic.

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.

Bridging the Gap: A Priorities Assessment Tool to Support Shared Decision Making, Maximize Appointment Time, and Increase Patient Satisfaction in Women With Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Women with ovarian cancer identify patient-physician communication as an essential element in determining treatment course and believe a discussion about goals and values should precede treatment decisions. We sought to develop a patient-centered priorities assessment tool for women with ovarian cancer that could streamline communication, enhance treatment discussions, and increase patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a priorities assessment tool using a validated ovarian cancer symptom index (National Comprehensive Cancer Center-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index-18) combined with an index to assess daily quality-of-life priorities. The tool was distributed to women with ovarian cancer in small focus group settings and online, followed by a postactivity feedback form. RESULTS: In this pilot study, 36 women completed the priorities assessment tool and 35 completed the postactivity feedback form between September 2015 and May 2016. All participants reported that the tool was easy to understand and comprehensive in scope. Twenty-nine participants (82.9%) completed the tool in 10 minutes or less. Most participants (n = 31, 86.1%) were able to stratify their priorities and identify 5 top treatment-related priorities. Participants who indicated that their goals and priorities had changed since diagnosis (n = 25, 69.4%) reported that the tool helped to identify current goals and priorities (22 [88%] of 25 participants) and would help them feel more comfortable participating in shared decision making with their medical team (21 [84%] of 25 participants). CONCLUSION: A patient-centered priorities assessment tool was easy to complete and viewed as comprehensive and useful in a pilot cohort of women with ovarian cancer. Use of a priorities assessment tool has the potential to enhance communication, promote shared decision making, and improve patient satisfaction.

Gynecologic cancer disparities: a report from the Health Disparities Taskforce of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

OBJECTIVES: To review the extent of health disparities in gynecologic cancer care and outcomes and to propose recommendations to help counteract the disparities. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases PubMed and the Cochrane Library. We included studies demonstrating quantifiable differences by race and ethnicity in the incidence, treatment, and survival of gynecologic cancers in the United States (US). Most studies relied on retrospective data. We focused on differences between Black and White women, because of the limited number of studies on non-Black women. RESULTS: White women have a higher incidence of ovarian cancer compared to Black women. However, the all-cause ovarian cancer mortality in Black women is 1.3 times higher than that of White women. Endometrial and cervical cancer mortality in Black women is twice that of White women. The etiology of these disparities is multifaceted. However, much of the evidence suggests that equal care leads to equal outcomes for Black women diagnosed with gynecologic cancers. Underlying molecular factors may play an additional role in aggressive tumor biology and endometrial cancer disparities. CONCLUSION: Gynecologic cancer disparities exist between Black and White women. The literature is limited by the lack of large prospective trials and adequate numbers of non-Black racial and ethnic groups. We conclude with recommendations for continued research and a multifaceted approach to eliminate gynecologic cancer disparities.