RETRACTED: Cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy and dostarlimab for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Authors. The authors have independently identified an error in the formula that was utilized to calculate the Quality Adjusted Life Years which invalidates the data and the conclusion of the paper. The authors have contacted the journal requesting to retract the article. Apologies are offered to the readers of the journal for any confusion or inconvenience that may have resulted from the publication of this article.

Prevalence of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the perioperative and survivorship periods following surgical management of endometrial cancer: An opportunity for screening and intervention?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) diagnoses during the peri-operative and survivorship periods in patients following surgical management of endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: An IRB-approved, retrospective single-institution cohort study was performed in patients who underwent surgical management of EC from 2014 to 2020. The perioperative period was defined as the 30 days before and after surgery. T2DM diagnoses occurring during survivorship were recorded. T2DM diagnoses were defined by a HgbA1c ≥6.5% or a random blood glucose ≥200 mg/dL. Sequelae of peri-operative T2DM and predictors of future T2DM were examined utilizing univariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 519 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 37 (7.1%) were diagnosed with T2DM in the perioperative period. Patients diagnosed with T2DM in the perioperative period had significantly higher BMI (p = 0.006) compared to no T2DM, but there were no significant differences in age (p = 0.20), ethnicity/race (p > 0.05) or ECOG score (p = 0.19). The rates of intraoperative complications between groups did not significantly differ, except for vascular complications (p = 0.005), and the incidence of any postoperative complication was higher in the perioperative T2DM group (p = 0.01). With a median follow-up of 29 months [range 11.6-49.0 months], an additional 18.3% (n = 88) of the cohort met diagnostic criteria for T2DM. BMI (p < 0.001), perioperative glucose (p < 0.001), and HgbA1c (p = 0.002) demonstrate risk for a T2DM diagnosis during survivorship. CONCLUSION(S): In this retrospective cohort of EC patients, 25.4% were diagnosed with T2DM, with the majority diagnosed in the survivorship period. Surgical management and subsequent surveillance of EC presents an opportunity to diagnose at-risk patients with T2DM.

Assessment of the feasibility of same-day discharge following minimally invasive hysterectomy in the elderly population.

Objective: To determine the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge (SDD) following minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIH) for elderly patients and to evaluate associations between age, frailty, and postoperative outcomes. Methods: Retrospective review was conducted of patients aged ≥ 70 who underwent MIH within a single gynecologic oncology institution from 2018 to 2020. Demographics, peri-operative factors, postoperative complications, and 30-day readmission rates were collected. Frailty was determined by an 11-point modified frailty index ≥ 2. Outcomes were compared between SDD and observation groups using Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Results: Of 169 patients included in the analysis, 8.9% (n = 15) underwent SDD, and 91.1% (n = 154) were admitted for OBS following MIH. Demographics, peri-operative factors, and frailty rates (33% SDD vs 43.5% observation; p = 0.59) were similar between groups. 86.7% (n = 13) of SDD cases were completed before 12PM, and none were completed after 6PM. No SDD patients had early post-operative complications or hospital readmissions. Early postoperative complications were diagnosed in 9 (5.8%) patients admitted for OBS, and the 30-day hospital readmission rate for patients who underwent OBS was 8.4% (n = 13). While elderly patients who met objective frailty criteria (n = 72) did not have a higher likelihood of early post-operative complications (44.4% vs 55.6%; p = 0.909), they did have a higher likelihood of ED visit within 30 days of discharge (15.3 vs 3.1%; p = 0.009), and a trend was noted toward a higher rate of 30-day hospital readmission (12.5% vs 4.1%; p = 0.080). Conclusions: Elderly patients undergoing SDD following MIH did not have increased morbidity or mortality. Elderly patients who meet objective criteria for frailty, however, represent a more vulnerable population.

Implementing universal upfront multi-gene panel testing in endometrial cancer: From cost to practical considerations.

OBJECTIVES: The routine use of upfront universal germline genetic testing among patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer (EC) has been proposed to improve diagnosis of Lynch syndrome (LS) and discover pathogenic variants (PVs) in other cancer susceptibility genes. We propose an algorithm prioritizing upfront multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) for newly diagnosed EC patients. METHODS: A decision analysis compared the cost of the current algorithm of universal mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC) for all EC cases to a new MGPT algorithm that employs upfront MGPT for all EC cases and reserves MMR IHC for the recurrent setting. The increase in the number of LS diagnoses using upfront MGPT, and the number of patients with PVs in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are also estimated. RESULTS: The MGPT algorithm demonstrated a cost savings of $259 per patient. Assuming 66,950 new cases of EC per year, this would represent $17.1 M of cost savings per year. When applied to all new diagnoses of EC in one year, the MGPT algorithm identified 660 (1%) additional cases of LS that would have been missed with the current algorithm. An additional 660 (1%) EC patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 PVs would be diagnosed only through implementation of universal MGPT. CONCLUSIONS: The use of universal upfront MGPT is a practical consideration for patients with newly diagnosed EC for cost savings and improved diagnosis of highly penetrant cancer syndromes. Incorporation of germline genetic testing in the upfront setting represents an opportunity to improve access to genetic counseling and testing, and ultimately an avenue to achieve equity and improve the lives of our patients with EC and their families.

Pembrolizumab with or without bevacizumab for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of pembrolizumab in various combinations in patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. METHODS: A decision-analysis model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab and bevacizumab (CPB) relative to chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (CP) and chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (CB) in cervical cancer patients. Data from KEYNOTE-826 was used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug cost estimates were obtained using average wholesale prices. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to determine cost/QALY. The willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) was set a $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed on cost and effectiveness for pembrolizumab-containing regimens. RESULTS: Cost of treatment with CB, CP, and CPB were $416 million (M), $713 M, and $1.51 billion, respectively. Relative to CB, the ICER for CP was $92,678. CPB was dominated. Sensitivity analyses were performed varying the cost and efficacy of CP and CPB. If overall survival (OS) with CP decreased from 24.4 months to 23.4 months, the ICER would exceed the WTP. If the OS from CP is assumed to be 20.4 months, the ICER increases to $187,746. The ICER for CP improves to $63,670 when the model is restricted to PD-L1 positive cancers. With CP eliminated, CPB becomes cost-effective relative to CB if the cost of pembrolizumab per cycle decreases from $12,080 to $2913 for the baseline model and to $4644 for the PD-L1 model. CONCLUSIONS: CP is cost-effective relative to CB for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. The efficacy of CPB would need to far exceed both CB and CP to be cost-effective. Restricting the model to patients with PD-L1 positive tumors dramatically improves the ICER for CP relative to CB by $30,000/QALY.

Prehabilitation for medically frail patients undergoing surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation in medically frail patients undergoing surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS: We created a cost-effectiveness model evaluating the impact of prehabilitation on a cohort of medically frail women undergoing primary surgical intervention for EOC. Cost was assessed from the healthcare system perspective via (1) inpatient charges from 2018-2019 institutional Diagnostic Related Grouping data for surgeries with and without major complications; (2) nursing facility costs from published market surveys. Major complication and non-home discharge rates were estimated from the literature. Based on published pilot studies, prehabilitation was determined to decrease these rates. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for cost per life year saved utilized a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/life year. Modeling was performed with TreeAge software. RESULTS: In a cohort of 4,415 women, prehabilitation would cost $371.1 Million (M) versus $404.9 M for usual care, a cost saving of $33.8 M/year. Cost of care per patient with prehabilitation was $84,053; usual care was $91,713. When analyzed for cost-effectiveness, usual care was dominated by prehabilitation, indicating prehabilitation was associated with both increased effectiveness and decreased cost compared with usual care. Sensitivity analysis showed prehabilitation was more cost effective up to a cost of intervention of $9,418/patient. CONCLUSION: Prehabilitation appears to be a cost-saving method to decrease healthcare system costs via two improved outcomes: lower complication rates and decreased care facility requirements. It represents a novel strategy to optimize healthcare efficiency. Prospective studies should be performed to better characterize these interventions in medically frail patients with EOC.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) in patients with microsatellite stable (MSS), recurrent, pretreated endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: A decision analysis model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LP relative to doxorubicin, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), and bevacizumab in patients with recurrent pretreated MSS EC. Published data was used to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and drug cost estimates were obtained using average wholesale prices. A health state utility (HSU) penalty of -0.10 was applied to the LP group to account for treatment toxicity. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to determine cost/QALY. The willingness to pay threshold (WTP) was set at $100,000 per QALY saved. Sensitivity analyses were performed on cost, effectiveness, and HSU penalty for LP. RESULTS: Costs of treatment with doxorubicin, PLD, and bevacizumab are $23.7 million (M), $56.9 M, and $250.8 M respectively. Cost of treatment with LP is $1.8 billion. Relative to doxorubicin, the ICERs for PLD, bevacizumab, and LP are $56,808, $345,824, and $1.6 M respectively. A sensitivity analysis varying the cost of LP shows that if the combined drug cost decreases from over $58,000 to less than $11,000 per cycle, this strategy would be cost-effective. Eliminating the HSU penalty for LP decreased the ICER $1.0 M while increasing the penalty to -0.20 increased the ICER to $3.7 M. CONCLUSIONS: LP is not cost-effective in patients with recurrent pretreated, MSS EC. A dramatic reduction in cost of LP is required for this novel strategy to be cost-effective.

Niraparib maintenance in frontline management of ovarian cancer: a cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Niraparib maintenance after frontline chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer extends progression free survival. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. METHODS: Decision analysis models compared the cost of observation versus niraparib maintenance following chemotherapy for five groups: all newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients (overall), those with homologous recombination deficiency, those harboring BRCA mutations (BRCA), homologous recombination deficiency patients without BRCA mutations (homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA), and non-homologous recombination deficiency patients. Drug costs were estimated using average wholesale prices. Progression free survival was estimated from published data and used to estimate projected overall survival. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios per quality adjusted life year were calculated. Sensitivity analyses varying the cost of niraparib were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US$100 000 per quality adjusted life year saved. RESULTS: For the overall group, the cost of observation was US$5.8 billion versus $20.5 billion for niraparib maintenance, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $72 829. For the homologous recombination deficiency group, the observation cost was $3.0 billion versus $14.8 billion for niraparib maintenance (incremental cost effectiveness ratio $56 329). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for the BRCA, homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA, and non-homologous recombination deficiency groups were $58 348, $50 914, and $88 741, respectively. For the overall and homologous recombination deficiency groups, niraparib remained cost effective if projected overall survival was 2.2 and 1.5 times progression free survival, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, maintenance therapy with niraparib was cost effective. Cost effectiveness was improved when analyzing those patients with homologous recombination deficiency and BRCA mutations. Efforts should continue to optimize poly-ADP-ribose polymerase utilization strategies.

Where you live matters: A National Cancer Database study of Medicaid expansion and endometrial cancer outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine associations between adoption of Medicaid expansion (ME) and changes in insurance status, early stage diagnosis, and cancer survival among women with endometrial carcinoma (EC). METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients diagnosed with EC between the age 40-64 from 2004 to 2015. Difference-in-differences analysis quantified the impact of ME on the proportion of new EC diagnoses with insurance (vs. uninsured), the proportion diagnosed with stage I (vs. II-IV), and overall survival. RESULTS: 156,253 patients were included. Among 65,019 women living in ME states, ME is associated with an increase in the percent of EC cases who are insured of 1.4% (95% CI 0.9-2.0%, p < 0.0001), with strongest effects among Hispanic women, women in the lowest income quartile, and women in the second age quartile (age 53-57). There was no overall impact of ME on stage, though an increase of early stage diagnoses by 2.4% (95% CI 0.3-4.5%, p = 0.022) was observed among women age 53-57. There was a trend towards improved overall survival with ME, which was strongest in women age 53-57 (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99, p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with EC, ME positively impacted insurance coverage, an important hurdle in accessing health care. In women aged 53-57, ME was associated with earlier stage at diagnosis and improved survival, suggesting that the magnitude of the improvement in insurance coverage may correlate with important clinical outcomes. Efforts should continue to understand the complexity of barriers to health care access and to develop effective strategies to surmount them.

Prospective clinical trial of robotic sentinel lymph node assessment with isosulfane blue (ISB) and indocyanine green (ICG) in endometrial cancer and the impact of ultrastaging (NCT01818739).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy and effect of ultrastaging in clinically early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: Patients with endometrial cancer prospectively enrolled after informed consent was obtained. The cervix was injected superficially with 1 mL of ISB and 1 mL of ICG (diluted 1:25) at 3 and 9 o'clock each. SLN biopsy was followed by complete pelvic lymphadenectomy (aortic lymphadenectomy at the discretion of the surgeon). Lymph nodes (LNs) were analyzed by standard sectioning with H&E; ultrastaging of SLN was done retrospectively and blinded to treating physicians. RESULTS: 204 patients received dye injections. In 184 (90.2%) patients at least one SLN was identified. Of all patients, 138 (68%) had bilateral mapping. In the patients with successful mapping of a hemipelvis, ICG detected SLNs in 83% and ISB in 64% of cases (p < 0.0001). Median BMI (kg/m2) for patients with successful mapping was 35.7 compared to 40.1 for those who did not map (p = 0.01). Twenty-three (11.3%) patients had positive LNs. Applying the SLN algorithm, positive nodes were detected in 21/23 (91.3%). The negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.9% (95% CI: 96.01% to 99.71%). Eleven patients had positive SLN with isolated tumor cells (ITCs) or micrometastases detected on ultrastaging. Including these patients, 34 (17%) had positive LNs, increasing the NPV to 99% and sensitivity to 94%. There were no recurrences in patients with ITCs only. CONCLUSIONS: SLN assessment in endometrial cancer is feasible and safe with high NPV (99%). ICG was more effective in detecting SLN compared to ISB. Although ultrastaging detected additional positive LNs, treatment based on standard sectioning appears reasonable but further research is needed.

The prognostic significance of aortic lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: Potential implications for selective aortic lymph node assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic impact of aortic vs. pelvic lymph node (LN) metastasis among women with endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: Using data from the SEER 18 Registries we identified 3650 women with LN positive (stage IIIC) EC. We used Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests to compare mortality between women with stage IIIC1 and IIIC2 disease. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between stage III sub-stage (IIIC1 vs. IIIC2) and survival. RESULTS: Endometrioid tumors were more common among women with stage IIIC1 than IIIC2 tumors (62.5% vs. 54.3%) while, non-endometrioid histologies were more common among stage IIIC2. In the multivariable model, stage IIIC2 was associated with higher all-cause (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.22-1.69) and EC-specific mortality (HR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.25-1.77) compared with IIIC1. Women with non-endometrioid EC had poor survival, in particular, women with carcinosarcomas had higher EC-specific mortality compared to women with endometrioid EC (HR = 3.32, 95% CI = 2.71-4.07). When stratifying women according to substage, older age and non-endometrioid histology were associated with higher EC-specific mortality. Compared to women with a pelvic-only LN dissection, women with pelvic and aortic dissections had lower all-cause (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63-0.88) and EC-specific (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.66-0.95) mortality. CONCLUSION: Women with aortic LN positive EC are more likely to die from their disease. Older women and non-endometrioid histologies are more likely to have aortic LN involvement. Compared to women with a pelvic-only LN dissection, women with pelvic and aortic dissections had lower EC mortality.

Is it reasonable to administer pegfilgrastim on day 1 of a myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen? A cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is recent evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of same-day dosing of pegfilgrastim in patients undergoing chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim on day 1 (D1) versus day 2 (D2) for primary prevention of neutropenia in women receiving chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-utility model was designed comparing standard D2 versus D1 administration of pegfilgrastim to ovarian cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate risk (10-15%) of febrile neutropenia (FN). Rates of FN despite prophylaxis were modeled as 10% for D1 and 5% for D2. Societal costs associated with D2 injection ($175.71) were incorporated. Quality of life (QOL) was modeled from published data; we assumed a small decrement in QOL on treatment days. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: D1 administration was less costly ($17,195 versus $17,681) and resulted in higher QOL (0.2298 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) versus 0.2288 QALYs) than D2. Results were sensitive to the risk of FN. D1 remained dominant or cost-effective (ICER less than $50,000/QALY) compared to D2 if the FN rate with D1 was assumed less than 14.5% (baseline estimate 10%). If the FN rate with D1 was assumed greater than or equal to 15%, D1 was not cost-effective compared to D2, with an ICER greater than $100,000/QALY. Findings are insensitive to variations in the modeled cost of treating FN, the additional cost of D2 injection, and the reduced QOL associated with treatment visits. CONCLUSION: Administration of D1 pegfilgrastim is cost-effective in women with ovarian cancer who are treated with intermediate risk chemotherapy.

Society of Gynecologic Oncology Future of Physician Payment Reform Task Force report: The Endometrial Cancer Alternative Payment Model (ECAP).

Health care in the United States is in the midst of a significant transformation from a "fee for service" to a "fee for value" based model. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has only accelerated this transition. Anticipating these reforms, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology developed the Future of Physician Payment Reform Task Force (PPRTF) in 2015 to develop strategies to ensure fair value based reimbursement policies for gynecologic cancer care. The PPRTF elected as a first task to develop an Alternative Payment Model for thesurgical management of low risk endometrial cancer. The history, rationale, and conceptual framework for the development of an Endometrial Cancer Alternative Payment Model are described in this white paper, as well as directions forfuture efforts.

Estimating potential for savings for low risk endometrial cancer using the Endometrial Cancer Alternative Payment Model (ECAP): A companion paper to the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Report on the Endometrial Cancer Alternative Payment Model.

OBJECTIVE: To design an endometrial cancer (EC) alternative payment (ECAP) model focused on surgical management of EC, as well as identify drivers of cost in order to develop opportunities for cost-savings while maintaining quality of care. METHODS: National practice patterns and reimbursements were compared between private payers (MarketScan data, years 2009-13) and public payers (Medicare, year 2014) of EC patients who underwent hysterectomy. An episode of care for EC included the hysterectomy, stratified by surgical approach (laparotomy versus robotic versus laparoscopy), and in- and outpatient reimbursements from 30days preoperatively to 60days postoperatively. Reimbursements were categorized into cost centers. A decision model informed modifiable components influencing overall reimbursements for EC surgical care. Variations in length of stay (LOS), emergency department (ED visits), and readmissions were analyzed to create an optimal care model. RESULTS: A total of MarketScan (n=29,558) and Medicare (n=377) patients were included. Mean total reimbursement for an episode of care was $19,183 (SD $10,844) for Medicare and $30,839 (SD $19,911) for MarketScan. Mean reimbursements were greatest for abdominal cases in Medicare ($25,553; SD $11,870) and MarketScan ($35,357; SD $21,670), followed by robotic and laparoscopic. Among MarketScan patients, 7.6% of women were readmitted within 60days after surgery and 11.7% had an evaluation in the ED. The median reimbursement per patient for readmission was $14,474 (IQR $8584 to $26,149), and for ED visit was $6327 (IQR $1369 to $29,153). In an optimized care model, increasing the rate of minimally invasive surgery by 5% while reducing LOS by 10% and ED visits/readmissions by 10%, lowered the average case reimbursement by $903 (2.9%) for MarketScan and $1243 (5.9%) for Medicare. CONCLUSION: An ECAP model demonstrates that reimbursements vary by public versus commercial payers in the U.S. for the surgical management of endometrial cancer patients, and that opportunities for cost savings exist. Nominal increases in the rate of minimally invasive surgery and reduction in the rate of ED visits/readmissions and length of stay can result in substantial savings for endometrial cancer care.

ASCO Value Framework Highlights the Relative Value of Treatment Options in Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: The ASCO value framework allows physicians and patients to compare the relative value of novel treatments. Our aim was to assess the value of three frontline ovarian cancer therapies by using this framework. METHODS: From phase III, randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) data, the net health benefits (NHBs) for three frontline ovarian cancer treatment options-dose-dense paclitaxel (Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group study JGOG 3016), intraperitoneal (IP)/intravenous (IV) chemotherapy (Gynecologic Oncology Group [GOG] study GOG 172), and concurrent plus maintenance bevacizumab (GOG 218 and the Seventh International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm study [ICON7])-were calculated. The ASCO value framework calculates the NHB by using six criteria: clinical benefit, toxicity, tail of the curve, symptom palliation, treatment-free interval, and quality of life. Clinical benefit calculation uses ASCO-assigned importance weights for overall survival and progression-free survival. The maximum possible NHB points is 180. NHBs were presented alongside the drug-acquisition cost (DAC) of each therapy. A benefit-cost ratio of NHB points per additional cost was calculated. RESULTS: The NHB of dose-dense paclitaxel was 38, at an additional cost of $16 per cycle. IP cisplatin/IV + IP paclitaxel received 29 NHB points, at an additional cost of $1,629 per cycle. Concurrent plus maintenance bevacizumab received 24 NHB points, at an additional cost of $7,581 per cycle (GOG 218) or six NHB points ($3,790 per cycle; ICON7). The ratios of NHB points-to-dollar were as follows: dose-dense paclitaxel, 2.4 (highest); IP chemotherapy, 0.018; and bevacizumab, 0.003 (lowest). CONCLUSION: Using the ASCO value framework, we constructed value snapshots of three major frontline therapeutic options in ovarian cancer. Dose-dense paclitaxel provided the highest additional value when analysis accounted for NHB and cost. However, additional research is needed to include individual patient preferences and provide personalized value assessments.

Genetic consultation embedded in a gynecologic oncology clinic improves compliance with guideline-based care.

OBJECTIVE: Analyze the impact of embedding genetic counseling services in gynecologic oncology on clinician referral and patient uptake of cancer genetics services. METHODS: Data were reviewed for a total of 737 newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer patients seen in gynecologic oncology at a large academic medical center including 401 from 11/2011-7/2014 (a time when cancer genetics services were provided as an off-site consultation). These data were compared to data from 8/2014-9/2016 (n=336), when the model changed to the genetics embedded model (GEM), incorporating a cancer genetic counselor on-site in the gynecologic oncology clinic. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference in proportion of patients referred pre- and post-GEM was observed (21% vs. 44%, p<0.0001). Pre-GEM, only 38% of referred patients were actually scheduled for genetics consultation and post-GEM 82% were scheduled (p<0.00001). The difference in the time from referral to scheduling in genetics was also statistically significant (3.92months pre-GEM vs. 0.79months post-GEM, p<0.00001) as was the time from referral to completion of genetics consultation (2.52months pre-GEM vs. 1.67months post-GEM, p<0.01). Twenty-five percent of patients referred post GEM were seen by the genetic counselor on the same day as the referral. CONCLUSIONS: Providing cancer genetics services on-site in gynecologic oncology and modifying the process by which patients are referred and scheduled significantly increases referral to cancer genetics and timely completion of genetics consultation, improving compliance with guideline-based care. Practice changes are critical given the impact of genetic test results on treatment and familial cancer risks.