Endometrial cancer surveillance adherence reduces utilization and subsequent costs.

OBJECTIVES: In June 2011, the SGO recommended that physical exam and symptoms be the primary surveillance methods in patients with endometrial cancer. We sought to evaluate adherence to these guidelines by comparing the use of CT scans, paps and serum CA125 ordered for endometrial cancer surveillance before and after publication of these guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for all patients undergoing surveillance for endometrial cancer at a single institution between June 2009 and June 2013. We assessed the number of patients without symptoms or abnormal physical exam findings who underwent surveillance CT scans, paps and/or CA125 during the 2years pre- and 2years post-SGO guidelines. RESULTS: 92 patients (n=48 pre-6/2011, n=44 post-6/2011) were identified. Mean patient age was 58years. No significant difference in age, ethnicity, body mass index, or disease grade or stage was noted. There was a significant decline in surveillance CT scans (n=13, 27% vs. n=4, 9%, p=0.03), CA125 (n=14, 29% vs. 5, 11%, p=0.035) and paps (n=34, 71% vs. n=8 vs. 18%, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in disease status at the last follow-up. Institutional cost of surveillance also declined ($14,102.46 2years pre-guidelines, $3,054.99 2years post-guidelines). CONCLUSIONS: In a single urban academic public hospital, after only 2years, clinical adherence to the 2011 SGO endometrial cancer surveillance guidelines resulted in a significant decline in the use of CT scans, CA125 and paps. This reduction does not appear to affect patient outcomes and led to an appreciable decrease in surveillance costs.

Preoperative experience for public hospital patients with gynecologic cancer: Do structural barriers widen the gap?

BACKGROUND: Widespread disparities in care have been documented in women with gynecologic cancer in the United States. This study was designed to determine whether structural barriers to optimal care were present during the preoperative period for patients with gynecologic cancer. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted for patients undergoing surgery for a gynecologic malignancy at a public hospital or a private hospital staffed by the same team of gynecologic oncologists between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-seven cases were included for analysis (public hospital, 69; private hospital, 188). Patients treated at the private hospital were older (58 vs 52 years; P = .004) and had similar medical comorbidities (median Charlson comorbidity index at both hospitals, 6) but required fewer hospital visits in preparation for surgery (2 vs 4; P < .001). Public hospital patients had a longer wait time from the diagnosis of disease to surgery (63 vs 34 days; P < .001). According to a multiple linear regression model, the public hospital setting was associated with a longer interval from diagnosis to surgery with adjustments for the insurance status, age at diagnosis, cancer stage, and number of preoperative hospital visits (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients at the public hospital were subject to a greater number of preoperative visits and had to wait longer for surgery than patients at the private hospital. Attempts to reduce health care disparities should focus on improving efficiency in health care delivery systems once contact has been established.

Ovarian cancer care for the underserved: are surgical patterns of care different in a public hospital setting?

BACKGROUND: The New York City (NYC) public hospital system includes subspecialty care for gynecologic cancers, providing care to patients regardless of insurance status. The authors sought to determine the surgical patterns of care for ovarian cancer patients in the NYC public hospital system. METHODS: Ovarian cancer cases were identified in the New York State Department of Health Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database for years 2001 to 2006. Cases from NYC hospitals were separated into 2 cohorts: public and other NYC hospitals. Surgeons associated with each case were identified using the database and were stratified by volume of cases and presence of subspecialty training. RESULTS: A total of 12,202 admissions for ovarian cancer were identified. Of these, 3639 involved major surgery, and 187 were performed at public hospitals. There were more African American and Asian patients in the public cohort (P < .001). The primary insurer was more likely to be Medicaid or a self-payer in the public cohort (P < 0.001). Urgent or emergent admissions comprised 55% of all admissions in public hospitals, compared with 29% of admissions in other NYC hospitals (P < .001). Patients in public hospitals were less likely to have their surgery performed by a gynecologic oncologist (57% vs 74%, P < .001) and less likely to have their surgery performed by a high-volume surgeon (21% vs 47%; P < .001) compared with patients in other NYC hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian cancer patients treated in public hospitals are less likely to have gynecologic oncologists and high-volume surgeons involved in their care. This is a preliminary finding that warrants further investigation.

An assessment of age and other factors influencing protocol versus alternative treatments for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer referred to member institutions: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency with which patients with epithelial ovarian cancer are enrolled in prospective Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) treatment studies and to assess whether enrollment is influenced by patient age or other factors. METHODS: The study was open to patients with primary, previously untreated epithelial ovarian cancer referred to member institutions. Eligible patients provided written informed consent to have demographic and medical records data submitted to the protocol database for analysis. Pathologic diagnosis was confirmed by central review. Demographic and clinical data, including coexisting medical conditions, tumor stage, grade, and histology, surgical procedures, planned postoperative therapy, and reason/s (if applicable) a patient was not treated per GOG protocol, were collected. RESULTS: Nine hundred and forty-eight patients were initially eligible. Subsequently, 137 (15%) patients were excluded based on pathology (low malignant potential tumors), as were 10 whose invasive disease was unstaged. Among 801 eligible patients, 36% were > or =65 years of age, 52% had papillary serous tumors, and 73% had stage III/IV disease. In patients aged <65 years, 67% were stage III/IV compared to 82% of patients > or =65 years of age. The mean age was 5.5 years greater for patients with stage III/IV versus stage I/II disease. Compared to their younger counterparts, older patients with stage III/IV disease were less likely to enter into a GOG treatment protocol. Most common reasons were patient ineligibility (33%), refusal (29%), and investigator decision (20%). CONCLUSION: Age appears to be an important factor influencing treatment selection among patients with stage III/IV ovarian cancer. In addition to reviewing eligibility criteria, practitioners' attitudes should be monitored to assure that elderly patients are not inappropriately denied participation in GOG clinical trials.