Disparities in refusal of surgery for gynecologic cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with refusal of gynecologic cancer surgery and to estimate its effect on overall survival. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was surveyed for patients with uterine, cervical or ovarian/fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer treated between 2004 and 2017. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to assess associations between clinico-demographic variables and refusal of surgery. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Trends in refusal over time were evaluated using joinpoint regression. RESULTS: Of 788,164 women included in our analysis, 5875 (0.75%) patients refused surgery recommended by their treating oncologist. Patients who refused surgery were older at diagnosis (72.4 vs 60.3 years, p < 0.001) and more likely Black (OR 1.77 95% CI 1.62-1.92). Refusal of surgery was associated with uninsured status (OR 2.94 95% CI 2.49-3.46), Medicaid coverage (OR 2.79 95% CI 2.46-3.18), low regional high school graduation (OR 1.18 95% CI 1.05-1.33) and treatment at a community hospital (OR 1.59 95% CI 1.42-1.78). Patients who refused surgery had lower median overall survival (1.0 vs 14.0 years, p < 0.01) and this difference persisted across disease sites. Between 2008 and 2017, there was a significant increase in refusal of surgery annually (annual percent change +1.41%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple social determinants of health are independently associated with refusal of surgery for gynecologic cancer. Given that patients who refuse surgery are more likely from vulnerable, underserved populations and have inferior survival, refusal of surgery should be considered a surgical healthcare disparity and tackled as such.

Factors contributing to delays in initiation of front-line cervical cancer therapy: disparities in a diverse south Florida population.

OBJECTIVE: Delay in initiating cervical cancer treatment may impact outcomes. In a cohort of patients initially treated by surgery, chemoradiation, chemotherapy, or in a clinical trial, we aim to define factors contributing to prolonged time to treatment initiation. METHODS: Data from patients initiating treatment for cervical cancer at a single institution was abstracted. Time to treatment initiation was defined as the interval from the date of cancer diagnosis to the date of treatment initiation. Poisson regression model was used for analysis. RESULTS: Of 274 patients studied, the median time to treatment initiation was 60 days (range 0-551). The median times to initiate surgery (54 days, range 3-96) and chemoradiation (58 days, range 4-187) were not significantly different (relative risk (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04, p=0.54). The shortest median initiation time was for chemotherapy (47 days; RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.19, p<0.0001) and the longest was for clinical trial (62 days; RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.24, p<0.0001). Charity care (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.14, p<0.0001), Medicare or Medicaid (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.14, p<0.0001), and self-pay (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.45, p<0.0001) delayed treatment initiation more than private insurance. Hispanic White women (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.73, p<0.0001) had a shorter treatment initiation time compared with non-Hispanic White patients, while Afro-Caribbean/Afro-Latina women (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90, p<0.0001) and African-American patients (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.19, p<0.0001) had longer initiation times. Spanish speaking patients did not have a prolonged treatment initiation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.71, p<0.0001), though Haitian-Creole speaking patients did (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13, p<0.002). Diagnosis at an outside institution delayed treatment initiation time (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.30, p<0.0001) compared with diagnosis at the cancer center. CONCLUSION: Factors associated with prolonged time to treatment initiation include treatment modality, insurance status, language spoken, and institution of diagnosis. By closely examining each of these factors, barriers to treatment can be identified and modified to shorten treatment initiation time.

Assessment of Cancer Survivorship Training and Knowledge Among Resident Physicians in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The number of gynecologic cancer survivors in the USA is expected to grow to nearly 2 million by 2029. Gynecologic oncologists alone will not be able to care for all of these women. Thus, preparation of general obstetrician/gynecologists (OBGYNs) to deliver this care is crucial. Our objective was to assess cancer survivorship training (CST) among OB/GYN residents and to evaluate knowledge in basic gynecologic cancer survivorship. OB/GYN residents were recruited nationally to complete a de novo questionnaire, querying demographics, hours of CST received, teaching methods used, and efficacy of those methods. Survivorship knowledge was assessed by ten questions based on the 2017 Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations on post-treatment surveillance, which includes topics appropriate for generalists. Analyses were done using t tests and ANOVA, with significance set at p = 0.05. In total, 128 residents responded to the survey. Observation was the most common method of CST (53%), with patient contact reported as the most effective method (42.6%). The mean score of correct responses (MSCRs) among all respondents was 61.5%. MSCR significantly improved with increasing post-graduate year (PGY) (p = 0.003). Survivorship training method was not associated with improved MSCR. Improvements in MSCR were observed with an increasing number of CST hours (p = 0.011). A total of 13.9% of residents reported feeling "very comfortable" with survivorship care, yet 88.5% of respondents indicated they did not want additional CST. More hours of CST are associated with improved resident in knowledge in cancer survivorship care, though deficits still remain. Further investigation into optimizing CST is warranted.

Identifying disparities in germline and somatic testing for ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Germline mutations occur in approximately 25% of patients with epithelial ovarian cancers while somatic BRCA mutations are estimated at 5-7%. The objectives of this study were to determine the rate of germline and somatic testing in women with ovarian cancer and to identify disparities in testing at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC) and a safety net hospital (SNH). METHODS: Patients treated for ovarian cancer from 2011 to 2016 were included. Clinicopathologic data were abstracted from the electronic medical records. Logistic regression modeling were performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: Out of 367 women, 55.3% completed germline testing; 27.0% received somatic testing. Women at the CCC were more likely to be tested for germline (60.4% vs 38.1%, p ≤ 0.001) and somatic (34.3% vs 2.4%, p ≤ 0.001) mutations than those at the SNH. Patients with Medicare (aOR = 0.51, 95%CI 0.28-0.94, p = 0.032) or Medicaid (aOR = 0.42, 95%CI 0.18-0.99, p = 0.048) were less likely to receive germline testing than those privately insured. Patients with Medicaid were less likely to receive somatic testing (aOR = 0.15, 95%CI 0.04-0.62, p = 0.009) than those privately insured. Women with disease recurrence had a higher likelihood of being tested for germline (OR = 3.64, 95%CI 1.94-6.83, P < 0.001) and somatic (OR = 7.89, 95%CI 3.41-18.23, p < 0.001) mutations. There was no difference in germline or somatic testing by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in both germline and somatic testing exist. Understanding and overcoming barriers to testing may improve cancer-related mortality by allowing for more tailored treatments as well as for improved cascade testing.

Gynecologic cancer survivor preferences for long-term surveillance.

BACKGROUND: With ongoing healthcare reform and shrinking numbers of oncologists, appropriate triaging of gynecologic cancer survivor care is crucial. Input from patients is a necessary part of this task. The objective of this study was to assess the preferences of gynecologic cancer survivors for surveillance after the completion of treatment. METHODS: A 38-item questionnaire was developed and launched in conjunction with the Foundation for Women's Cancer (FWC). All women who registered as gynecologic cancer survivors with the FWC were invited to participate. Patients were asked about physician preferences for multiple symptoms and diagnoses, and when they felt comfortable transferring care out of their oncologists' offices. Analyses were performed with chi-square and logistic regression. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty four patients completed the questionnaire. Sixty six percent had ovarian cancer, and 86% were primarily treated by a gynecologic oncologist. Fifty seven percent of the respondents reported being unwilling to see a physician other than their oncologist for survivorship care at any time. Women age > 60 years were less willing to leave their oncologists for survivorship care at any time compared to younger women (OR 1.53 [95% CI 1.03-2.27], p = 0.03). Ovarian cancer survivors were also more likely to report a desire to stay with their oncologists compared with uterine cancer survivors (p < 0.001). With few exceptions, respondents preferred management of non-oncologic medical problems by their oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologic cancer survivors prefer that their oncologists remain heavily involved in survivorship care. Reconciling patient needs with physician and financial constraints will be a challenge as the survivor population continues to grow.