Secondary validation of an ovarian cancer-specific comorbidity index in a US population.

OBJECTIVES: The Ovarian Cancer Comorbidity Index (OCCI) is an age-specific index developed and previously found to be more predictive of overall and cancer-specific survival than the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The objective was to perform secondary validation of the OCCI in a US population. METHODS: A cohort of ovarian cancer patients undergoing primary or interval cytoreductive surgery from January 2005 to January 2012 was identified in SEER-Medicare. OCCI scores were calculated with the regression coefficients determined from the original developmental cohort for five comorbidities. Cox regression analyses were used to calculate associations between the OCCI risk groups and 5-year overall survival and 5-year cancer-specific survival in comparison to the CCI. RESULTS: A total of 5052 patients were included. Median age was 74 (range 66-82) years. 47% (n=2375) had stage III and 24% (n=1197) had stage IV disease at diagnosis. 67% had a serous histology subtype (n=3403). All patients were categorized as moderate (48.4%) or high risk (51.6%). The prevalence of the five predictive comorbidities were: coronary artery disease 3.7%, hypertension 67.5%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 16.7%, diabetes 21.8%, and dementia 1.2%. Controlling for histology, grade, and age-stratification, worse overall survival was associated with both a higher OCCI (hazard ratio (HR) 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46 to 1.69) and CCI (HR 1.96; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.32). Cancer-specific survival was associated with the OCCI (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.44) but was not associated with the CCI (HR 1.15; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: This internationally developed comorbidity score for ovarian cancer patients is predictive for both overall and cancer-specific survival in a US population. CCI was not predictive for cancer-specific survival. This score may have research applications when utilizing large administrative datasets.

Medicaid Expansion and Postoperative Mortality in Women with Gynecologic Cancer: A Difference-in-Difference Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The association between Medicaid expansion and postoperative mortality after surgery for gynecologic cancer is unknown. Our objective was to compare 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality after gynecologic cancer surgery before and after 2014 in states that did and did not expand Medicaid. METHODS: We searched the National Cancer Database for women aged 40-64 years old between 2010 and 2016 who underwent surgery for a primary gynecologic malignancy. We used pre/post and quasi-experimental difference-in-difference (DID) multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate mortality pre-2014 (2010-2013) and post-2014 (2014-2016) for states that did and did not expand Medicaid in January 2014. We completed univariable logistic regressions for covariates of interest. RESULTS: Among 169,731 women, 30-day postoperative mortality in expansion states after 2014 significantly decreased for endometrial cancer (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-0.67) and ovarian cancer (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.99) and increased for cervical cancer (OR 3.82, 95% CI 1.12-13.01). Compared with non-expansion states, expansion states had improved 30-day postoperative mortality for endometrial cancer after 2014 (DID OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96). Univariable analysis demonstrated improved 30-day postoperative mortality for Black women with endometrial cancer in expansion states (DID OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.95). There was improved 90-day postoperative mortality for endometrial cancer in expansion states (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.85), and improved 90-day postoperative mortality for Midwestern women with ovarian cancer in expansion states on univariable analysis (DID OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: State Medicaid legislation was associated with improved postoperative survival in women with endometrial cancer and subgroups of women with endometrial and ovarian cancer.

Association between time to diagnosis, time to treatment, and ovarian cancer survival in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the association between time to diagnosis and treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with overall and ovarian cancer specific mortality using a retrospective cross sectional study of a population based cancer registry database. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was searched from 1992 to 2015 for women aged ≥66 years with epithelial ovarian cancer and abdominal/pelvic pain, bloating, difficulty eating, or urinary symptoms within 1 year of cancer diagnosis. Time from presentation to diagnosis and treatment were evaluated as outcomes and covariables. Cox regression models and adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves evaluated 5 year overall and cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Among 13 872 women, better survival was associated with longer time from presentation to diagnosis (overall survival hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.95; cancer specific survival HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.96) and diagnosis to treatment (overall survival HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.96; cancer specific survival HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.96). There was longer time from presentation to diagnosis in Hispanic women (relative risk (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32) and from diagnosis to treatment in non-Hispanic black women (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.54), with lower likelihood of survival at 5 years after adjustment for time to diagnosis and treatment among non-Hispanic black women (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.26) compared with non-Hispanic white women. Gynecologic oncology visit was associated with improved overall (p<0.001) and cancer specific (p<0.001) survival despite a longer time from presentation to treatment (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Longer time to diagnosis and treatment were associated with improved survival, suggesting that tumor specific features are more important prognostic factors than the time interval of workup and treatment. Significant sociodemographic disparities indicate social determinants of health influencing workup and care. Gynecologic oncologist visits were associated with improved survival, highlighting the importance of appropriate referral for suspected ovarian cancer.

Impacts of Medicaid Expansion on Stage at Cancer Diagnosis by Patient Insurance Type.

INTRODUCTION: The expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act increased access to health care for millions of low-income Americans. However, the longer-term impacts of the policy on cancer outcomes remain unknown. This study examined the impact of Medicaid expansion on early- and late-stage diagnosis for 4 common cancers (breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung) using 4 full years of postpolicy data. METHODS: Patients aged 40-64 years diagnosed with breast, cervical, colorectal, or lung cancer from 2010 to 2017 were identified using the National Cancer Database. Difference-in-difference analyses compared changes in early-stage and late-stage diagnoses among expansion states with those among nonexpansion states. Subgroup analyses explored potential effect modification by insurance type. Data analysis was performed from June to October 2021. RESULTS: The proportion of early stage diagnosis of breast (difference in difference=1.58, 95% CI=0.89, 2.27), cervical (difference in difference=3.20; 95% CI=0.44, 5.95), colorectal (difference in difference=1.98; 95% CI=1.18, 2.78), and lung (difference in difference=1.74; 95% CI=0.98, 2.50) cancers increased more in expansion states than in nonexpansion states, whereas late-stage diagnosis of colorectal (difference in difference= -2.12; 95% CI= -2.98, -1.27) and lung (difference in difference= -1.87; 95% CI= -2.89, -0.84) cancers decreased more in expansion states following implementation of the Affordable Care Act. In subgroup analyses, difference-in-difference estimates for all sites and stages (except late-stage cervical cancer) were significant and larger in magnitude among Medicaid-insured than among privately insured patients. CONCLUSIONS: Study results highlight the positive impacts of Medicaid expansion on earlier diagnosis of several cancers for which screening and early detection exist, and subgroup analyses revealed greater positive effects among Medicaid-insured patients most targeted by the policy.

Medicaid expansion and 2-year survival in women with gynecologic cancer: a difference-in-difference analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act implemented optional Medicaid expansion starting in 2014, but the association between Medicaid expansion and gynecologic cancer survival is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of Medicaid expansion by comparing 2-year survival among gynecologic cancers before and after 2014 in states that did and did not expand Medicaid using a difference-in-difference analysis. STUDY DESIGN: We searched the National Cancer Database for women aged 40 to 64 years, diagnosed with a primary gynecologic malignancy (endometrial, ovarian, cervical, vulvar, and vaginal) between 2010 and 2016. We used a quasiexperimental difference-in-difference multivariable Cox regression analysis to compare 2-year survival between states that expanded Medicaid in January 2014 and states that did not expand Medicaid as of 2016. We performed univariable subgroup difference-in-difference Cox regression analyses on the basis of stage, income, race, ethnicity, and geographic location. Adjusted linear difference-in-difference regressions evaluated the proportion of uninsured patients on the basis of expansion status after 2014. We evaluated adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves to examine differences on the basis of study period and expansion status. RESULTS: Our sample included 169,731 women, including 78,669 (46.3%) in expansion states and 91,062 (53.7%) in nonexpansion states. There was improved 2-year survival on adjusted difference-in-difference Cox regressions for women with ovarian cancer in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014 (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.94; P<.001) with no differences in endometrial, cervical, vaginal, vulvar, or combined gynecologic cancer sites on the basis of expansion status. On univariable subgroup difference-in-difference Cox analyses, women with ovarian cancer with stage III-IV disease (P=.008), non-Hispanic ethnicity (P=.042), those in the South (P=.016), and women with vulvar cancer in the Northeast (P=.022), had improved 2-year survival in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014. In contrast, women with cervical cancer in the South (P=.018) had worse 2-year survival in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014. All cancer sites had lower proportions of uninsured patients in expansion than in nonexpansion states after 2014. CONCLUSION: There was a significant association between Medicaid expansion and improved 2-year survival for women with ovarian cancer in states that expanded Medicaid after 2014. Despite improved insurance coverage, racial, ethnic, and regional survival differences exist between expansion and nonexpansion states.

Temporal trends of healthcare system use between symptomatic presentation and ovarian cancer diagnosis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in healthcare system use over time between onset of classic ovarian cancer symptoms and ovarian cancer diagnosis in the United States. METHODS: A population-based study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was conducted on patients aged ≥66 years with stage II-IV epithelial ovarian cancer between 1992 and 2015 with at least one of the following diagnosis codes: abdominal pain, bloating, difficulty eating, and/or urinary symptoms. The outcomes were frequency of visit type, frequency of diagnostic modality, and Medicare reimbursement between first symptomatic claim and cancer diagnosis. Jonckheere-Terpstra and Cochran-Armitage tests were used to evaluate trends over time. RESULTS: Among 13 872 women, 13 541 (97.6%) had outpatient, 6466 (46.6%) had inpatient, and 4906 (35.4%) had emergency room visits. The frequency of outpatient (p<0.001) and emergency room visits (p<0.001) increased while the frequency of inpatient visits (p<0.001) decreased between 1992 and 2015. The median number of outpatient visits (p<0.001) and physician specialties seen (p<0.001) increased over time. The median hospital length of stay decreased from 10 days in 1992 to 5 days in 2015 (p<0.001). Between 1992 and 2015, the frequency of ultrasound decreased (p<0.001) while the frequency of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography imaging, and cancer antigen 125 tumor immunoassay increased (p<0.001). Median monthly total (p<0.001), inpatient (p<0.001), and outpatient (p=0.006) reimbursements decreased while emergency room reimbursements increased (p<0.001) over time. CONCLUSION: Healthcare reimbursement between symptomatic presentation and ovarian cancer diagnosis has decreased over time and may reflect the trends in fewer and shorter hospitalizations and increased use of emergency and outpatient management during the evaluation of symptoms of women with ovarian cancer.

Algorithm to Identify Incident Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Cases Using Claims Data.

PURPOSE: To create an algorithm to identify incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases in claims-based data sets and evaluate performance of the algorithm using SEER-Medicare claims data. METHODS: We created a five-step algorithm on the basis of clinical expertise to identify incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases using claims data for (1) ovarian cancer diagnosis, (2) receipt of platinum-based chemotherapy, (3) no claim for platinum-based chemotherapy but claim for tumor debulking surgery, (4) removed cases with nonplatinum chemotherapy, and (5) removed patients with prior claims with personal history of ovarian cancer code to exclude prevalent cases. We evaluated algorithm performance using SEER-Medicare claims data by creating four cohorts: incident epithelial ovarian cancer, a 5% random sample of cancer-free Medicare beneficiaries, a 5% random sample of incident nonovarian cancer, and prevalent ovarian cancer cases. RESULTS: Using SEER tumor registry data as the gold standard, our algorithm correctly classified 89.9% of incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases (cohort n = 572) and almost 100% of cancer-free controls (n = 97,127), nonovarian cancer (n = 714), and prevalent ovarian cancer cases (n = 3,712). The overall algorithm sensitivity was 89.9%, the positive predictive value was 93.8%, and the specificity and negative predictive value were > 99.9%. Patients were more likely to be correctly classified as incident ovarian cancer if they had stage III or IV disease compared with early stage I or II disease (93.5% v 83.7%, P < .01), and grade 1-4 compared with unknown grade tumors (93.8% v 81.4%, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Our algorithm correctly identified most incident epithelial ovarian cancer cases, especially those with advanced disease. This algorithm will facilitate research in other claims-based data sets where cancer registry data are unavailable.

Factors impacting the time to ovarian cancer diagnosis based on classic symptom presentation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ovarian cancer often present with late-stage disease and nonspecific symptoms, but little is known about factors affecting the time to diagnosis (TTD) in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective, population-based study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was conducted. It included women 66 years old or older with stage II to IV epithelial ovarian cancer with at least 1 code for abdominal/pelvic pain, bloating, difficulty eating, or urinary symptoms within 1 year of the cancer diagnosis. TTD was defined from the first claim with a prespecified symptom to the ovarian cancer diagnosis. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess for differences in TTD by group medians. Univariate and generalized linear models with a log-link function evaluated TTD by covariables. RESULTS: For the 13,872 women analyzed, the mean and median times to diagnosis were 2.9 and 1.1 months, respectively. The median TTD differed significantly by first symptom (P < .001), number of symptoms (P < .001), and first physician specialty seen (P < .001). In a multivariable analysis, TTD differed significantly according to race/ethnicity (P < .001), geographic region (P = .001), urban-rural location (P = .031), emergency room presentation (P < .001), and number of specialties seen (P < .001). A shorter TTD was associated with a diagnosis in 2006-2010 (relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.98) or 2011-2015 (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93) in comparison with 1992-1999. CONCLUSIONS: The time from a symptomatic presentation to care to a diagnosis of ovarian cancer is influenced by clinical and demographic variables. This study's findings reinforce the importance of educating all physicians on ovarian cancer symptoms to aid in diagnosis. LAY SUMMARY: Ovarian cancer is often diagnosed once disease has spread because the classic symptoms of ovarian cancer-abdominal or pelvic pain, bloating, difficulty eating, and urinary issues-can be mistaken for other problems. This study examined the time between when women with classic ovarian cancer symptoms went to a physician and when they received a cancer diagnosis in a large database population. The authors found that the time to diagnosis differed according to the type and number of symptoms and what type of physician a woman saw as well as factors such as race, geographic location, and year of diagnosis.

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic disease assessment in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if laparoscopy is a cost-effective way to assess disease resectability in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis from a health care payer perspective was performed comparing two strategies: (1) a standard evaluation strategy, where a conventional approach to treatment planning was used to assign patients to either primary cytoreduction (PCS) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with interval cytoreduction (NACT), and (2) a laparoscopy strategy, where patients considered candidates for PCS would undergo laparoscopy to triage between PCS or NACT based on the laparoscopy-predicted likelihood of complete gross resection. A microsimulation model was developed that included diagnostic work-up, surgical and adjuvant treatment, perioperative complications, and progression-free survival (PFS). Model parameters were derived from the literature and our published data. Effectiveness was defined in quality-adjusted PFS years. Results were tested with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $50,000 per year of quality-adjusted PFS. RESULTS: The laparoscopy strategy led to additional costs (average additional cost $7034) but was also more effective (average 4.1 months of additional quality-adjusted PFS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of laparoscopy was $20,376 per additional year of quality-adjusted PFS. The laparoscopy strategy remained cost-effective even as the cost added by laparoscopy increased. The benefit of laparoscopy was influenced by mitigation of serious complications and their associated costs. The laparoscopy strategy was cost-effective across a range of WTP thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Performing laparoscopy is a cost-effective way to improve primary treatment planning for patients with untreated advanced ovarian cancer.

Patient cost sharing during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: More patients with ovarian cancer are being treated with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors because regulatory agencies have granted these drugs new approvals for a variety of treatment indications. However, poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are expensive. When administered as a maintenance therapy, these drugs may be administered for months or years. How much of this cost patients experience as out-of-pocket spending is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the out-of-pocket spending that patients experience during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment and to characterize which healthcare services account for that spending. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed with a sample of patients with ovarian cancer treated between 2014 and 2017 with olaparib, niraparib, or rucaparib. Patients were identified using MarketScan, a health insurance claims database. All insurance claims during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment were collected. The primary outcome variable was the patients' out-of-pocket spending (copayment, coinsurance, and deductibles) during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment for the medication itself. Other outcomes of interest included out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services, the types and frequency of other healthcare services used, health plan spending, the estimated proportion of patients' household income used each month for healthcare, and patients' out-of-pocket spending immediately before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. RESULTS: We identified 503 patients with ovarian cancer with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, 50-62 years); 83% of those had out-of-pocket spendings during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. The median treatment duration was 124 days (interquartile range, 66-240 days). The mean out-of-pocket spending for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors was $305 (standard deviation, $2275) per month. On average, this accounted for 44.8% (standard deviation, 34.8%) of the patients' overall monthly out-of-pocket spending. The mean out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services was $165 (standard deviation, $769) per month. Health plans spent, on average, $12,661 (standard deviation, $15,668) per month for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and $7108 (standard deviation, $15,254) per month for all other healthcare services. The cost sharing for office visits, laboratory tests, and imaging studies represented the majority of non-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment out-of-pocket spending. The average amount patients paid for all healthcare services per month during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $470 (standard deviation, $2407), which was estimated to be 8.7% of the patients' monthly household income. The mean out-of-pocket spending in the 12 months before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $3110 (standard deviation, $6987). CONCLUSION: Patients can face high out-of-pocket costs for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, although the sum of cost sharing for other healthcare services used during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment is often higher. The spending on healthcare costs consumes a large proportion of these patients' household income. Patients with ovarian cancer experience high out-of-pocket costs for healthcare, both before and during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores and gynecologic oncology surgical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) is a national survey of inpatient experience. This study evaluated the association between HCAHPS survey results and outcomes in gynecologic cancer surgery. METHODS: This observational study used HCAHPS survey data from 2009 to 2011 to assign hospitals into score terciles. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was used to identify admissions during the same time period for gynecologic cancer-specific surgeries. Data sources were linked at the hospital level. Postoperative complications, mortality, and prolonged length of stay were compared between higher and lower scoring hospitals. Complications were grouped as 'surgical', 'medical', or 'care team'. Mixed effects models were used to evaluate the associations between hospitals' HCAHPS scores and outcomes after adjustment for patient and hospital-level variables. RESULTS: 17,509 linked encounters in 651 hospitals across the U.S. were identified, with 51% uterine, 40% ovarian, and 9% cervical cancer surgical admissions. In-hospital mortality was lower in hospitals in the top HCAHPS score terciles compared to bottom HCAHPS score tercile (odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.94). Surgery in higher scoring HCAHPS hospitals was associated with less 'surgical' complications (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.98). No association was found between 'medical', 'care team', overall complications, or prolonged hospitalization (p > 0.05) and HCAHPS scores. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologic oncology surgeries performed in top HCAHPS tercile hospitals were associated with lower in-hospital mortality and surgical complications compared to surgeries performed in bottom tercile hospitals. Associations between HCAHPS scores and other adverse events were not seen.

Total and out-of-pocket costs of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Communicating healthcare costs to patients is an important component of delivering high-quality value-based care, yet cost data are lacking. This is especially relevant for ovarian cancer, where no clinical consensus on optimal first-line treatment exists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to generate cost estimates of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN: All women who underwent treatment for ovarian cancer from 2006-2015 were identified from the MarketScan database (n=12,761) in this observational cohort study. Total and out-of-pocket costs were calculated with the use of all claims within 8 months from initial treatment and normalized to 2017 US dollars. The generalized linear model method was used to assess cost by strategy. RESULTS: Among patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those who underwent primary debulking, mean adjusted total costs were $113,660 and $107,153 (P<.001) and mean out-of-pocket costs were $2519 and $2977 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for patients who had intravenous standard, intravenous dose-dense, and intraperitoneal/intravenous chemotherapy were $105,047, $115,099, and $121,761 (P<.001); and out-of-pocket costs were $2838, $3405, and $2888 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for regimens that included bevacizumab were higher than those without it ($171,468 vs $104,482; P<.001); out-of-pocket costs were $3127 vs $2898 (P<.001). Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$3875, and 10% paid ≥$6265. For patients who received bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$4480, and 10% paid ≥$6635. Among patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans, median out-of-pocket costs were $4196, with 25% paying ≥$6680 and 10% paying ≥$9751. CONCLUSION: Costs vary across different treatment strategies, and patients bear a significant out-of-pocket burden, especially those enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

Women's preferences for cancer risk management strategies in Lynch syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed preferences for cancer risk management strategies for Lynch syndrome (LS) in LS-affected women. METHODS: Women with LS aged ≥25 years evaluated 9 cancer risk management strategies using a visual analog scale (VAS) and modified standard gamble (SG). For the VAS, women ranked each strategy ranging from 0 (least preferred) to 100 (most preferred). VAS scores were calculated by dividing the corresponding number by 100. Scores closer to 1.0 reflected more favorable strategies. For the SG, participants were asked to specify their expected threshold of lifetime risk of endometrial or colorectal cancer, ranging from 0 to 100%, at which they would consider undertaking each strategy. Strategies included chemoprevention, cancer screening, and preventive surgery. Cancer worry and perceived cancer risk measures were collected on a subset of participants. RESULTS: Sixty-one women completed preference assessments. By VAS, annual combined screening was the most preferred, followed by annual screenings and chemoprevention with oral contraceptives. By SG, women were the most willing to endorse oral contraceptives and biannual screening strategies at the lowest threshold of lifetime risk followed by annual screening strategies. Surgical interventions were the least preferred strategies using both VAS and SG. Women with a family history of gynecologic or colorectal cancer were less likely to consider prevention or screening options compared to women without a family history. Cancer worry was higher among women with a positive family history of LS cancer. CONCLUSION: Understanding women's preferences may facilitate optimal use and adherence to cancer risk management strategies.

National trends, outcomes, and costs of radiation therapy in the management of low- and high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess treatment patterns, outcomes, and costs for women with low-(LIR) and high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer (HIR) who are treated with and without adjuvant radiotherapy. METHODS: All patients with stage I endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent surgery from 2000 to 2011 were identified from the SEER-Medicare database. LIR was defined as G1-2 tumors with <50% myometrial invasion or G3 with no invasion. HIR was defined as G1-2 tumors with ≥50% or G3 with <50% invasion. Patients were categorized according to whether they received adjuvant radiotherapy (vaginal brachytherapy [VBT], external beam radiotherapy [EBRT], or both) or no radiotherapy. Outcomes were analyzed and compared (primary outcome was overall survival). RESULTS: 10,842 patients met inclusion criteria. In the LIR group (n = 7609), there was no difference in 10-year overall survival between patients who received radiotherapy and those who did not (67% vs 65%, adjusted HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81-1.11). In the HIR group (n = 3233), patients who underwent radiotherapy had a significant increase in survival (60% vs 47%, aHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.85). Radiotherapy was associated with increased costs compared to surgery alone ($26,585 vs $16,712, p < .001). Costs for patients receiving VBT, EBRT, and concurrent VBT/EBRT were $24,044, $27,512, and $31,564, respectively (p < .001). Radiotherapy was associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal (7 vs 4%), genitourinary (2 vs 1%), and hematologic (16 vs 12%) complications (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy was associated with improved survival in women with HIR, but not in LIR. It also had increased costs and a higher morbidity risk. Consideration of observation without radiotherapy in LIR may be reasonable.

Disseminating universal genetic testing to a diverse, indigent patient population at a county hospital gynecologic oncology clinic.

OBJECTIVE: The universal genetic testing initiative (UGTI) is a quality improvement effort to increase rates of guideline-based genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) of patients with potentially hereditary cancers. The UGTI was disseminated to a county hospital gynecologic oncology clinic that serves a diverse, indigent patient population. METHODS: Using the Model for Improvement quality improvement framework, interventions including integrated GC, clinic tracking, assisted GC referrals, and provider education were tested over 26 months. A retrospective data review included patients with high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers (HGOC) and endometrial cancers (EC) diagnosed between 9/1/12-8/31/16. Statistical analyses were performed to describe the population and to evaluate rates of recommendation and use of immunohistochemistry tumor testing (IHC), GC, and GT. RESULTS: A cohort of 241 patients (57 HGOC, 184 EC) were included. At the conclusion of the study 84.2% of HGOC patients were referred for GC, 89.6% (43/48) completed GC, and 90.7% (39/43) completed GT. Of EC patients, 81.0% were recommended to have IHC and 62.4% (93/149) completed IHC. Patients with HGOC diagnosed during dissemination of UGTI were significantly more likely to receive a recommendation for GC (p = 0.02) and to complete GT (p = 0.03) than those diagnosed before UGTI. Patients with EC were significantly more likely to complete IHC if diagnosed after UGTI than those diagnosed prior to dissemination (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The UGTI can be adapted to increase use of guideline-based cancer genetics services in a diverse, indigent, gynecologic cancer patient population.

Three Lymphadenectomy Strategies in Low-Risk Endometrial Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of three lymphadenectomy strategies in the management of low-risk endometrial carcinoma. METHODS: A decision analysis model compared three lymphadenectomy strategies in women undergoing minimally invasive surgery for low-risk endometrial carcinoma: 1) routine lymphadenectomy in all patients, 2) selective lymphadenectomy based on intraoperative frozen section criteria, and 3) sentinel lymph node mapping. Costs and outcomes were obtained from published literature and Medicare reimbursement rates. Costs categories consisted of hospital, physician, operating room, pathology, and lymphedema treatment. Effectiveness was defined as 3-year disease-specific survival adjusted for the effect of lymphedema (utility=0.8) on quality of life. A cost-utility analysis was performed comparing the different strategies. Multiple deterministic sensitivity analyses were done. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, routine lymphadenectomy had a cost of $18,041 and an effectiveness of 2.79 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Selective lymphadenectomy had a cost of $17,036 and an effectiveness of 2.81 QALYs, whereas sentinel lymph node mapping had a cost of $16,401 and an effectiveness of 2.87 QALYs. With a difference of $1,005 and 0.02 QALYs, selective lymphadenectomy was both less costly and more effective than routine lymphadenectomy, dominating it. However, with the lowest cost and highest effectiveness, sentinel lymph node mapping dominated the other modalities and was the most cost-effective strategy. These findings were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses varying the rates of lymphedema and lymphadenectomy, surgical approach (open or minimally invasive surgery), lymphedema utility, and costs. For the estimated 40,000 women undergoing surgery for low-risk endometrial carcinoma each year in the United States, the annual cost of routine lymphadenectomy, selective lymphadenectomy, and sentinel lymph node mapping would be $722 million, $681 million, and $656 million, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with routine and selective lymphadenectomy, sentinel lymph node mapping had the lowest costs and highest quality-adjusted survival, making it the most cost-effective strategy in the management of low-risk endometrial carcinoma.

Prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes in gynecologic cancer patients before and after pelvic exenteration.

OBJECTIVE: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a surgical procedure associated with significant morbidity offered to select women with locally advanced or recurrent gynecologic cancers. This ongoing study examines an array of patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction with PE. METHODS: Since February 2009, prospectively enrolled participants completed questionnaires evaluating body image (BIS), depression (CESD), social support (DUFSS), symptoms (MDASI), sexual function (SAQ), functional status (SF-12), quality of life (The Stoma-QOL), satisfaction with decision (SWD) and an investigator-designed survey at baseline, 6, and 12months after PE. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to evaluate the data. RESULTS: Fifty-four women enrolled. Median age was 56years (31, 85). Median BMI was 30.7kg/m2 (16.8, 54.4). The majority of patients (78%) were white. Cancer diagnoses included 41% cervix, 22% uterus, 19% vagina, 17% vulva and 2% ovary. Most surgeries were total PEs (76%). Patients were satisfied with their decision to undergo PE at 6 and 12months. One year after exenteration, 79% of women stated they would have a PE again. Sexual pleasure decreased from baseline to 12months after PE (p=0.02), while sexual discomfort remained unchanged (p=0.42). Body image worsened over time (p=0.003). Physical functioning (SF-12) declined (p=0.001), while mental functioning remained stable (p=0.46). There were no significant changes in stoma-related QOL, social support, or depression scores. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a decrease in physical functioning, persistent low body image and sexual pleasure, most women were satisfied with their decision and would undergo pelvic exenteration again. This study identifies survivorship issues that should be addressed after PE.

Factors influencing fertility-sparing treatment for gynecologic malignancies: A survey of Society of Gynecologic Oncology members.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine practice patterns of gynecologic oncologists (GO) regarding fertility-sparing treatments (FST) for gynecology malignancies and explores attitudes toward collaboration with reproductive endocrinologists (RE). METHODS: An anonymous 23-question survey was sent to 1087 GO with a 14.0% completion rate. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test, and Chi-square tests were used for data analysis. RESULTS: The majority of GOs offer FST for gynecologic malignancies. Providers seeing larger numbers of reproductive age women were more likely to consider cancer prognosis (p<0.03) and cancer stage (p<0.01) as key factors. Providers in the Midwestern US considered socioeconomic status more often when offering FST than those in the South (p<0.04). Those practicing in urban settings were more likely to feel that collaborating with a RE prior to treatment could improve treatment planning for women considering FST (p<0.02). Finally, providers in urban or suburban areas more often felt collaboration with a RE improves pregnancy outcomes in women who pursue FST (p<0.01, p<0.02) compared to rural practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: While FST offers women the chance to pursue pregnancy after cancer, there are minimal data on factors that influence whether FST is offered and if collaboration with a RE is sought in the management of these patients. The number of reproductive age women seen, geographic location, and practice setting are important variables that may influence current practice. Understanding these factors can help identify opportunities to improve oncologic and reproductive outcomes of this patient population.

Treatment Patterns, Outcomes, and Costs for Bowel Obstruction in Ovarian Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess treatment patterns, outcomes, and costs for bowel obstruction in ovarian cancer. METHODS/MATERIALS: All patients with stage II to IV ovarian cancer who were admitted for bowel obstruction greater than or equal to 6 months after cancer diagnosis from 2000 to 2011 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry-Medicare database. Management strategies and outcomes of bowel obstruction were compared. RESULTS: Among 1397 women with bowel obstruction, 562 (40%) underwent surgery, and 154 (11%) had a gastrostomy or jejunostomy (G/J) tube placed. Thirty-four percent of patients who underwent surgery subsequently received chemotherapy, compared with 8% of those managed with a G/J tube (odds ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-8.8). Thirty-day complications were higher for patients in the surgery group compared with those in the tube group (69% vs 46%; odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.7), as were mean adjusted 30-day total costs ($28,872 vs $18,528, P < 0.001). Median survival was greater for women who underwent surgery compared with those who had a G/J tube (5.3 vs 1.2 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.25-0.38). The median survival of patients in whom surgical correction failed and required G/J tube placement during the same inpatient admission was 2.6 months. Women who received postintervention chemotherapy had improved survival compared with those who did not in both the surgery (17.0 vs 2.8 months, P < 0.001) and G/J tube (5.7 vs 1.0 months, P < 0.001) groups. CONCLUSIONS: In women with ovarian cancer who develop bowel obstruction, surgery may benefit a subset of patients, likely related to the ability to receive subsequent chemotherapy. Efforts to identify those who derive no benefit may reduce unnecessary laparotomy, along with its associated complications and costs. Given this population's limited survival, patient preferences should be evaluated in future studies assessing the management of bowel obstruction.

Impact of body mass index and operative approach on surgical morbidity and costs in women with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) and operative approach on surgical morbidity and costs in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) and hyperplasia (EH). METHODS: All women with BMI data who underwent surgery for EC or EH from 2008 to 2014 were identified from MarketScan, a healthcare claims database. Differences in 30-day complications and costs were compared between BMI groups and stratified by surgical modality. RESULTS: Of 1112 patients, 35%, 36%, and 29% had a BMI of ≤29, 30-39, and ≥40kg/m2, respectively. Compared to patients with a BMI of 30-39 and ≤29, women with a BMI ≥40 had higher rates of venous thromboembolism (3% vs 0.2% vs 0.3%, p<0.01) and wound infection (7% vs 3% vs 3%, p=0.02). This increase was driven by the subset of patients who had laparotomy and was not seen in those undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Median total costs for women with a BMI ≥40, 30-39, and ≤29 were U.S. $17.3k, $16.8k, and $16.6k respectively (p=0.53). Costs were higher for patients who had laparotomy than those who had MIS across all BMI groups, with the cost difference being highest in morbidly obese women (≥40: $21.6k vs $14.9k, p<0.01; 30-39: $18.9k vs $16.1k, p=0.01; ≤29: $19.3k vs $15k, p<0.01). Patients who had complications had higher costs compared to those who did not, with a higher cost difference in the laparotomy group ($27.7k vs $16.4k, p<0.01) compared to the MIS group ($19.9k vs $15k, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MIS may increase the value of care by minimizing complications and decreasing costs. This may be most pronounced in morbidly obese women.