Practice variation in bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at benign abdominal hysterectomy: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at benign hysterectomy is not recommended in premenopausal women who are in the premenopausal stage because of its potential associations with increased all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease; however, contemporary practice patterns are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to quantify between-surgeon variation in bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and identify surgeon and patient characteristics associated with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy to evaluate current quality of care and identify targets for knowledge translation and future research. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a population-based retrospective cross-sectional study of adult women (≥20 years) undergoing benign abdominal hysterectomy from 2014 to 2018 in Ontario, Canada. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models, stratified by age group (<45, 45-54, ≥55 years), were used to model between-surgeon variation after multivariable adjustment for patient and surgeon characteristics. Cases of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were classified as potentially appropriate or potentially avoidable based on the presence or absence of diagnostic indications. RESULTS: Of 44,549 eligible women, 17,797 (39.9%) underwent concurrent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and 26,752 (60.1%) did not. In all three age strata, the individual surgeon providing care was one of the strongest factors influencing whether patients received bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (median odds ratio, 2.00-2.53). Surgeons accounted for more than 22% of the residual observed variation in bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in women aged 45-54 years compared with 16% and 14% of the residual observed variation in bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in women aged <45 and ≥55 years, respectively. Non-gynecologic patient factors, such as obesity (odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.52; P<.001) and residing in low-income regions (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.55; P<.001), were also associated with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Approximately 40% of patients who underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy had no indication for the procedure in their discharge records. CONCLUSION: Marked between-surgeon variation in bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy rates, even after adjusting for patient case mix, suggests ongoing uncertainty in practice. Stronger evidence-based guidelines on the risks and benefits of salpingo-oophorectomy as women age are needed, particularly focusing on perimenopausal women.

Assessment of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy vs Lymphadenectomy for Intermediate- and High-Grade Endometrial Cancer Staging.

Importance: Whether sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) can replace lymphadenectomy for surgical staging in patients with high-grade endometrial cancer (EC) is unclear. Objective: To examine the diagnostic accuracy of, performance characteristics of, and morbidity associated with SLNB using indocyanine green in patients with intermediate- and high-grade EC. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective, multicenter cohort study (Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy vs Lymphadenectomy for Intermediate- and High-Grade Endometrial Cancer Staging [SENTOR] study), accrual occurred from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2019, with early stoppage because of prespecified accuracy criteria. The study included patients with clinical stage I grade 2 endometrioid or high-grade EC scheduled to undergo laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy with an intent to complete staging at 3 designated cancer centers in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Exposures: All patients underwent SLNB followed by lymphadenectomy as the reference standard. Patients with grade 2 endometrioid EC underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) alone, and patients with high-grade EC underwent PLND and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PALND). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was sensitivity of the SLNB algorithm. Secondary outcomes were additional measures of diagnostic accuracy, sentinel lymph node detection rates, and adverse events. Results: The study enrolled 156 patients (median age, 65.5 years; range, 40-86 years; median body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared], 27.5; range, 17.6-49.3), including 126 with high-grade EC. All patients underwent SLNB and PLND, and 101 patients (80%) with high-grade EC also underwent PALND. Sentinel lymph node detection rates were 97.4% per patient (95% CI, 93.6%-99.3%), 87.5% per hemipelvis (95% CI, 83.3%-91.0%), and 77.6% bilaterally (95% CI, 70.2%-83.8%). Of 27 patients (17%) with nodal metastases, 26 patients were correctly identified by the SLNB algorithm, yielding a sensitivity of 96% (95% CI, 81%-100%), a false-negative rate of 4% (95% CI, 0%-19%), and a negative predictive value of 99% (95% CI, 96%-100%). Only 1 patient (0.6%) was misclassified by the SLNB algorithm. Seven of 27 patients with node-positive cancer (26%) were identified outside traditional PLND boundaries or required immunohistochemistry for diagnosis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective cohort study, SLNB had acceptable diagnostic accuracy for patients with high-grade EC at increased risk of nodal metastases and improved the detection of node-positive cases compared with lymphadenectomy. The findings suggest that SLNB is a viable option for the surgical staging of EC.