Dedicated financial hardship screening adds value to routine distress screening among gynecologic cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate existing distress screening to identify patients with financial hardship (FH) compared to dedicated FH screening and assess patient attitudes toward FH screening. METHODS: We screened gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy. Existing screening included: (1) Moderate/severe distress defined as Distress Thermometer score ≥ 4, (2) practical concerns identified from Problem Checklist, and (3) a single question assessing trouble paying for medications. FH screening included: (1) Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and (2) 10-item Financial Needs Checklist to guide referrals. FH was defined as COST score < 26. We calculated sensitivity (patients with moderate/severe distress + FH over total patients with FH) and specificity (patients with no/mild distress + no FH over total patients with no FH) to assess the extent distress screening could capture FH. Surveys and exit interviews assessed patient perspectives toward screening. RESULTS: Of 364 patients screened for distress, average age was 62 years, 25% were Black, 45% were Medicare beneficiaries, 32% had moderate/severe distress, 15% reported ≥1 practical concern, and 0 reported trouble paying for medications. Most (n = 357, 98%) patients also completed FH screening: of them, 24% screened positive for FH, 32% reported ≥1 financial need. Distress screening had 57% sensitivity and 77% specificity for FH. Based on 79 surveys and 43 exit interviews, FH screening was acceptable with feedback to improve the timing and setting of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated FH screening was feasible and acceptable, but sensitivity was low. Importantly, 40% of women with FH would not have been identified with distress screening alone.

Genetic risk assessment in breast and gynecologic malignancies- what's to know in 2024?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hereditary cancer risk assessment and counseling have become integral in oncology care, especially in breast and gynecologic malignancies where genetic test results impact management. However, a large number of patients who could benefit from genetic testing are not getting tested. As such, genetic risk assessment and counseling methods have had to evolve to meet the needs of this expanding patient population. RECENT FINDINGS: "Mainstreaming" genetic testing is an initiative to incorporate genetic testing into routine cancer care in lieu of the traditional genetic counseling model to improve uptake of testing while minimizing expansion of genetic counselor and clinic resources. These models have performed well in various institutions demonstrating an improvement in clinical efficacy. However, missed opportunities from the preventive care standpoint, a core value of cancer genetics risk assessment, have become apparent. The focus of these models is on the patient's cancer diagnosis and comprehensive/familial genetic risk assessment is not often completed. SUMMARY: Identifying patients at an increased risk of cancer, even in the absence of a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, is important in tailoring screening and preventive measures. As we look to the future, we need to critically approach mainstreaming and determine how to reincorporate comprehensive genetic risk assessment into our models.

Long-term impact of the Affordable Care Act's dependent coverage mandate on young women with gynecologic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The dependent coverage mandate in the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) allows young adults to stay on a parent's private insurance through age 26. While this mandate is associated with gains in insurance and early-stage cancer diagnosis, its long-term impact on survival is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare insurance coverage, stage at diagnosis, and overall survival in patients with gynecologic cancer before and after the ACA's dependent coverage mandate. METHODS: Using difference-in-differences (DiD) analysis, we conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing outcomes before and after the implementation of the ACA's dependent coverage mandate in young patients with gynecologic cancer, ages 18-26 years (exposure group) to patients ages 27-35 (control group). We analyzed insurance coverage, stage at diagnosis, and 1, 2, and 3-year overall survival, adjusted for age and comorbidities, utilizing the 2004-2017 National Cancer Database. IRB exemption was obtained. RESULTS: A total of 3553 cases pre-reform and 4535 cases post-reform were identified for patients 18-26 years compared to 14,420 pre-reform and 19,821 post-reform for patients age 27-35. The ACA's dependent coverage mandate was associated with significant gains in insurance (DiD 2%, 95% CI 0.6-3.5) and early-stage diagnosis (3.1%, 95% CI 0.6-5.7). The ACA's dependent coverage mandate was associated with significant gains in 3-year survival (2.4%, 95% CI 0.4-4.3) and non-significant gains in 1 and 2-year survival. CONCLUSION: The ACA's dependent coverage mandate is associated with improvements in early-stage diagnosis and survival for young patients with gynecologic cancer. Maintaining insurance gains-and expanding to the remaining uninsured-are critical for the health of young patients with gynecologic cancer.

What's in it for me?: A value assessment of gynecologic cancer clinical trials for Black women.

OBJECTIVE: Underrepresented groups may be dissuaded from clinical trial participation without perceived value. We therefore comprehensively assessed gynecologic cancer clinical trial protocols for the inclusion of items of value most important to Black individuals. METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials in the US between Jan.1994 and Nov.2021. Pre-specified return of value (ROV) items were abstracted from each protocol. Inclusion proportions were calculated for each ROV item and temporal changes assessed with chi-square tests. Temporality of proportional trends was further assessed by slope and departure from linearity calculations. RESULTS: 279 gynecologic cancer clinical trials were included. Most commonly trials had first accrual in 2001-2007 (37%) and involved ovarian cancer (48%), phase II studies (53%), and chemotherapy (60%) or targeted therapy (34%). Trials often included ROV items in basic information (99%), medical record information (99%), and imaging (82%). 41% of trials included ROV items in biomarker testing, 20% genetic testing, and 20% in patient-reported outcome questionnaires. Over time, there were significant increases in the proportion of trials that included genetic (3% to 51%; p < 0.001) and biomarker testing (14 to 78%, p < 0.001). Information on lifestyle risk factors was rare (1%). No trials included ROV items in ancestry, how to connect with other participants, or remuneration. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologic cancer clinical trials include few design elements that provide high value to Black individuals like lifestyle risk factors, ancestry, and remuneration. In any multi-pronged effort to improve diversity in clinical trial enrollment, inclusion of items valued by Black individuals should be considered.

Assessment of the fat mass index in women recently diagnosed with gynecological tumors.

Introduction: Objectives: to evaluate the nutritional status and body composition of women with gynecological tumors and evaluate the fat mass index (FMI) as a complementary indicator for addressing the nutrition status. Methods: a cross-sectional study with women recently diagnosed with gynecological tumors. Nutritional status was assessed using conventional anthropometry and the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment. For body composition, bioelectrical impedance was used. Results: a total of 158 women participated, most of them with excess weight and high body fat. The FMI showed a positive and significant correlation with body mass index, arm circumference, tricipital skinfold, and arm muscle circumference. Conclusion: women recently diagnosed with gynecological tumors had excess weight and high body fat. The FMI may be a potentially useful indicator to complement the assessment of nutritional status and help the multidisciplinary team to perform early clinical and nutritional interventions.

Introducción: Objetivos: evaluar el estado nutricional y la composición corporal de mujeres con tumores ginecológicos, y evaluar el índice de masa grasa (IMG) como indicador nutricional complementario. Métodos: estudio transversal con mujeres diagnosticadas recientemente de tumores ginecológicos. El estado nutricional se evaluó mediante la antropometría convencional y la Evaluación Global Subjetiva Generada por el Paciente. Para la composición corporal se utilizó la impedancia bioeléctrica. Resultados: participaron 158 mujeres, la mayoría con exceso de peso y grasa corporal alta. El IMG mostró una correlación positiva y significativa con el índice de masa corporal, la circunferencia del brazo, el pliegue cutáneo tricipital y la circunferencia de los músculos del brazo. Conclusión: las mujeres diagnosticadas recientemente con tumores ginecológicos presentaron exceso de peso y grasa corporal alta. El IMG puede ser un indicador potencialmente útil para complementar la evaluación del estado nutricional y ayudar al equipo multidisciplinario a realizar intervenciones clínicas y nutricionales tempranas.

Universal social needs assessment in gynecologic oncology: An important step toward more informed and targeted care in the public safety net.

BACKGROUND: Social needs are actionable mediators of social determinants of health. Along with distress, they affect quality of life and survival in patients with cancer. The objectives of this study were to identify the most common social needs and distress in a largely immigrant gynecologic oncology patient population at a public safety-net hospital and to evaluate for specific needs associated with distress and poor outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective, survey-based cohort study of patients who participated in a performance-improvement initiative offering social needs assessment and distress screening. Patients provided sociodemographic information and completed validated surveys adapted from the Health Leads Social Needs Screening Toolkit, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer, and the Emotion Thermometers Tool. Associations between social needs, distress, and treatment outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 135 women were included. Of these, 65.2% had at least 1 unmet social need, and 36.3% screened positive for distress. Help reading hospital materials (30.4%) was the most frequently reported need. Social isolation (odds ratio [OR], 3.65; 95% CI, 1.35-9.9; P = .01) and lack of safety at home (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.23-10.62; P = .0001) were associated with distress. Perceived lack of finances for medical care (OR, 5.69; 95% CI, 1.12-28.9; P = .036) and lack of transportation (OR, 20.5; 95% CI, 2.69-156.7; P = .004) were associated with nonadherence-related treatment interruption, whereas positive distress scores were associated with interruption because of comorbidities or treatment-related toxicities (OR, 20.5; 95% CI, 1.5-268.6; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Systematically identifying social needs and developing interventions aimed at mitigating them may lead to more actionable health care disparities research and affect treatment outcomes. LAY SUMMARY: Social needs are individual-level social conditions that drive health disparities. In this survey-based study, the objective was to identify common social needs and how these relate to distress and poor health outcomes in a largely immigrant and underserved gynecologic oncology patient population. The authors found that greater than one-third of patients screened positive for distress, nearly two-thirds had at least 1 unmet social need, and these factors were associated with emergency room visits, hospital admissions, and treatment interruptions. These findings suggest that screening for universal social needs allows providers to identify unrecognized needs and implement interventions to mitigate distress and improve health outcomes.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Racial and ethnic disparities in palliative care utilization among gynecological cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) is recommended for gynecological cancer patients to improve survival and quality-of-life. Our objective was to evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in PC utilization among patients with metastatic gynecologic cancer. METHODS: We used data from the 2016 National Cancer Database (NCDB) and included patients between ages 18-90 years with metastatic (stage III-IV) gynecologic cancers including, ovarian, cervical and uterine cancer who were deceased at last contact or follow-up (n = 124,729). PC was defined by NCDB as non-curative treatment, and could include surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and pain management or any combination. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate racial disparities in PC use. RESULTS: The study population was primarily NH-White (74%), ovarian cancer patients (74%), insured by Medicare (47%) or privately insured (36%), and had a Charlson-Deyo score of zero (77%). Over one-third of patients were treated at a comprehensive community cancer program. Overall, 7% of metastatic gynecologic deceased cancer patients based on last follow-up utilized palliative care: more specifically, 5% of ovarian, 11% of cervical, and 12% of uterine metastatic cancer patients. Palliative care utilization increased over time starting at 4% in 2004 to as high as 13% in 2015, although palliative care use decreased to 7% in 2016. Among metastatic ovarian cancer patients, NH-Black (aOR:0.87, 95% CI:0.78-0.97) and Hispanic patients (aOR:0.77, 95% CI:0.66-0.91) were less likely to utilize PC when compared to NH-White patients. Similarly, Hispanic cervical cancer patients were less likely (aOR:0.75, 95% CI:0.63-0.88) to utilize PC when compared to NH-White patients. CONCLUSIONS: PC is highly underutilized among metastatic gynecological cancer patients. Racial disparities exist in palliative care utilization among patients with metastatic gynecological cancer.

Impact of Medicaid expansion on women with gynecologic cancer: a difference-in-difference analysis.

BACKGROUND: Women with gynecologic cancer face socioeconomic disparities in care that affect survival outcomes. The Affordable Care Act offered states the option to expand Medicaid enrollment eligibility criteria as a means of improving timely and affordable access to care for the most vulnerable. The variable uptake of expansion by states created a natural experiment, allowing for quasi-experimental methods that offer more unbiased estimates of treatment effects from retrospective data than the traditional regression adjustment. OBJECTIVE: To use a quasi-experimental, difference-in-difference framework to create unbiased estimates of impact of Medicaid expansion on women with gynecologic cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a quasi-experimental retrospective cohort study from the National Cancer Database files for women with invasive cancers of the uterus, ovary and fallopian tube, cervix, vagina, and vulva diagnosed from 2008 to 2016. Using a marker for state Medicaid expansion status, we created difference-in-difference models to assess the impact of Medicaid expansion on the outcomes of access to and timeliness of care. We excluded women aged <40 years owing to the suppression of the state Medicaid expansions status in the data and women aged ≥65 years owing to the universal Medicare coverage availability. Our primary outcome was the rate of uninsurance at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included Medicaid coverage, early-stage diagnosis, treatment at an academic facility, and any treatment or surgery within 30 days of diagnosis. Models were run within multiple subgroups and on a propensity-matched cohort to assess the robustness of the treatment estimates. The assumption of parallel trends was assessed with event study time plots. RESULTS: Our sample included 335,063 women. Among this cohort, 121,449 were from nonexpansion states and 213,614 were from expansion states, with 79,886 posttreatment cases diagnosed after the expansion took full effect in expansion states. The groups had minor differences in demographics, and we found occasional preperiod event study coefficients diverging from the mean, but the outcome trends were generally similar between the expansion and nonexpansion states in the preperiod, satisfying the necessary assumption for the difference-in-difference analysis. In a basic difference-in-difference model, the Medicaid expansion in January 2014 was associated with significant increases in insurance at diagnosis, treatment at an academic facility, and treatment within 30 days of diagnosis (P<.001 for all). In an adjusted model including all states and accounting for variable expansion implementation time, there was a significant treatment effect of Medicaid expansion on the reduction in uninsurance at diagnosis (-2.00%; 95% confidence interval, -2.3 to -1.7; P<.001), increases in early-stage diagnosis (0.80%; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.4; P=.02), treatment at an academic facility (0.83%; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-1.5; P=.02), treatment within 30 days (1.62%; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.3; P<.001), and surgery within 30 days (1.54%; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.3; P<.001). In particular, large gains were estimated for women living in low-income zip codes, Hispanic women, and women with cervical cancer. Estimates from the subgroup and propensity-matched cohorts were generally consistent for all outcomes besides early-stage diagnosis and treatment within 30 days. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was significantly associated with gains in the access and timeliness of treatment for nonelderly women with gynecologic cancer. The implementation of Medicaid expansion could greatly benefit women in nonexpansion states. Gynecologists and gynecologic oncologists should advocate for Medicaid expansion as a means of improving outcomes and reducing socioeconomic and racial disparities.

Perceptions of care after end-of-treatment among younger women with different gynecologic cancer diagnoses - a qualitative analysis of written responses submitted via a survey.

BACKGROUND: Less attention has been given to younger adults' psycho-oncology care needs than to children and older adults with cancer. The aim was to explore how care following end-of-treatment was perceived by women treated for different gynecologic cancer diagnoses during younger adulthood. METHODS: A sample of 207 women diagnosed with gynecologic cancer 2008 to 2016, aged 19-39 at time of diagnosis answered one open-ended question regarding important aspects of care after end-of-treatment. The written responses were analyzed with manifest content analysis and presented in relation to the women's diagnoses, i.e., cervical (n = 130), ovarian (n = 57), and other gynecologic cancer diagnoses (n = 20). RESULTS: The analysis resulted in three categories: Unmet long-term supportive care needs, Satisfying long-term supportive care, and Health care organizational difficulties. Over half of the women (66.7%) described unmet care needs. The corresponding figures were 80.7, 63.1 and 50% for women diagnosed with ovarian, cervical and other gynecologic cancer diagnoses, respectively. Satisfying supportive care were described by approximately one quarter of the women (26.1%). Among women diagnosed with ovarian cancer 14% described satisfying supportive care. The corresponding figures were 26.9 and 30% for women diagnosed with cervical cancer and other gynecological diagnoses, respectively. Approximately one quarter of the women, irrespectively of diagnosis, described aspects related to health care organizational difficulties (28%). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the importance of good quality care linked to the diagnosis and based on an understanding of the woman's need, desire and expectation of support after end-of-treatment.

Clinical needs for transgender men in the gynecologic oncology setting.

Transgender men remain at risk for gynecologic malignancies, but are an underserved population. Members of the transgender community experience discrimination and have experiences that contribute to health disparities, including in gynecology and oncology. While efforts have been made within the United States to reduce inequalities experienced by members of this community, many needs in the clinical setting remain. Increased education and training among providers and healthcare professionals, and general improvements towards understanding barriers to health screening and health resource uptake may reduce some disparities. Additional research towards screening and cancer surveillance among this community will be necessary to understand any potential additional risks and survival disparities experienced by transgender men. This review focuses on barriers and clinical needs for transgender men in the gynecologic oncology setting, and suggestions for moving forward to improve care for this patient population.

Teleoncology or telemedicine for oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: the new normal for breast cancer survivors?

Background: Telemedicine is seen as a savior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials & methods: This study is a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted with cancer patients who were interviewed via telemedicine from a tertiary care comprehensive oncology center. Results: A total of 421 patients were included in the study and 118 of them (28.0%) were >65 years old. Communication was provided most frequently by voice call (n = 213; 50.5%). The majority of the patients contacted by telemedicine had breast cancer (n = 270; 64.1%). For 135 patients (32.1%) no further examination or intervention was required and the previously planned follow-up visit was postponed by the clinician. Conclusion: This study showed that telemedicine could open a new era for medical oncology specialists.

ESMO management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: gynaecological malignancies.

The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and its related disease (COVID-19) has required an immediate and coordinate healthcare response to face the worldwide emergency and define strategies to maintain the continuum of care for the non-COVID-19 diseases while protecting patients and healthcare providers. The dimension of the COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented risk especially for the more vulnerable populations. To manage patients with cancer adequately, maintaining the highest quality of care, a definition of value-based priorities is necessary to define which interventions can be safely postponed without affecting patients' outcome. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has endorsed a tiered approach across three different levels of priority (high, medium, low) incorporating information on the value-based prioritisation and clinical cogency of the interventions that can be applied for different disease sites. Patients with gynaecological cancer are at particular risk of COVID-19 complications because of their age and prevalence of comorbidities. The definition of priority level should be based on tumour stage and histology, cancer-related symptoms or complications, aim (curative vs palliative) and magnitude of benefit of the oncological intervention, patients' general condition and preferences. The decision-making process always needs to consider the disease-specific national and international guidelines and the local healthcare system and social resources, and a changing situation in relation to COVID-19 infection. These recommendations aim to provide guidance for the definition of deferrable and undeferrable interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic for ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancers within the context of the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines.

COVID-19: Revue des lignes directrices et recommandations pour la prise en charge des cancers gynécologiques en contexte de pandémie / COVID-19: Review of guidelines and recommendations for the management of gynecological cancers in the context of a pandemic

CONTEXTE: Le présent document a été rédigé en réponse à une interpellation du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (MSSS) dans le contexte de l'urgence sanitaire liée à la maladie à coronavirus (COVID-19) au Québec. L'objectif est de réaliser une recension sommaire des recommandations publiées afin d'appuyer les travaux du MSSS visant à se doter de directives provinciales en matière de prise en charge des patientes atteintes d'un cancer gynécologique, destinées aux décideurs publics et aux professionnels de la santé et des services sociaux. Vu la nature rapide de cette réponse, les présents travaux ne reposent pas sur un repérage exhaustif des données publiées et une évaluation de la qualité méthodologique des publications avec une méthode systématique ou sur un processus de consultation élaboré. Dans les circonstances d'une telle urgence de santé publique, l'INESSS reste à l'affût de toutes nouvelles publications susceptibles de lui faire modifier cette réponse rapide. PRÉSENTATION DE LA DEMANDE: Dans le présent contexte d'urgence sanitaire, une réorganisation significative des soins destinés aux patients atteints de cancer a été entreprise afin de protéger les patients des risques de contracter la COVID-19 et aussi de permettre une réallocation de certaines ressources à la prise en charge de la COVID-19. Le MSSS a entrepris des travaux dans le but d'orienter les équipes de soins sur ce qui devra être maintenu, délesté ou adapté dans un contexte où le système ne permettrait qu'un accès limité à certains services. Une recension sommaire des principales lignes directrices et prises de position par des associations, des sociétés savantes et des consensus d'experts en lien avec la priorisation des soins en contexte d'urgence sanitaire liée à la COVID-19, a été effectuée. Un comité d'experts québécois spécialisés en cancers gynécologiques a par la suite été formé par le MSSS pour discuter des informations extraites de la littérature et formuler, par consensus, des recommandations en lien avec la priorisation des soins propres au contexte québécois. Le document présente la revue de la littérature réalisée dans le but d'appuyer les travaux du groupe d'experts. Les recommandations finales sont disponibles sur le site du MSSS au lien suivant : Priorisation des patients. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Question d'évaluation Quels sont les principales lignes directrices et prises de position des associations, des sociétés savantes et des consensus d'experts en lien avec la priorisation des soins pour le traitement de cancers gynécologiques en contexte d'urgence sanitaire? Revue de littérature Repérage des publications : Littérature scientifique: La revue de la littérature a (langue anglaise et française) été effectuée entre le 27 mars et le 1er avril 2020 dans PubMed avec différentes combinaisons des mots clés suivants (en anglais et en français): COVID-19, coronavirus, gynecologic cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, cervical cancer, vaginal cancer, vulvar cancer, priority, delay, guidelines. Les listes de références des documents retenus ont été consultées afin de repérer d'autres publications admissibles. Les liens similar articles et cited by de l'interface PubMed ont été consultés pour chacune des publications scientifiques retenues ainsi que des revues narratives pertinentes. Littérature grise : Une recherche dans google a été faite avec les mots-clés mentionnés (langue française et anglaise). Sélection des publications : Les publications pertinentes (lignes directrices, orientations cliniques, éditoriaux, lettres d'opinion, communications scientifiques ou documents de travail) et spécifiques à la priorisation et à la prise en charge des cancers gynécologiques en contexte de pandémie de COVID-19 ont été retenues. Les recommandations en lien avec les mesures de protection contre le coronavirus ainsi que les mesures générales non spécifiques aux cancers gynécologiques n'ont pas été retenues. La sélection des publications a été effectuée par une professionnelle scientifique en cancérologie selon les critères d'inclusion suivants : Population : patientes atteintes d'un cancer gynécologique; o Intervention : diagnostic, imagerie, chirurgie, radiothérapie, chimiothérapie, hormonothérapie et suivi clinique; Contexte : priorisation des soins (maintien, délestage ou adaptation thérapeutique) en contexte d'urgence sanitaire liée à la pandémie de COVID19. Extraction des données et synthèse : L'extraction des données a été effectuée une professionnelle scientifique en cancérologie. Les données extraites comprennent, s'il y a lieu (si applicable et selon la disponibilité de l'information) : Caractéristiques de la publication: auteur, date de publication ou de diffusion, source des recommandations, type de publication; Recommandations: siège tumoral, situation clinique (stade, grade, cas particuliers, etc.), modalité de traitement, risque de récidive ou de progression de la maladie, alternative de prise en charge proposée (maintien, délestage ou adaptation), technique, source des données probantes en appui à la décision (p. ex. une étude clinique) et autres particularités. Les recommandations ont été extraites telles que publiées, et celles rédigées en anglais ont été traduites en français (traduction libre). Les recommandations ont été classées selon le siège tumoral et la modalité de traitement. SOMMAIRE DES RÉSULTATS Positions des sociétés savantes, associations médicales, consensus ou opinions d'experts: Sept publications rapportant les prises de position et les lignes directrices relatives à la priorisation des soins selon le contexte d'urgence sanitaire ainsi que les alternatives thérapeutiques proposées concernant la prise en charge des cancers gynécologiques ont été retenues.

Change in practice in gynecologic oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic: a social media survey.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has affected gynecologic cancer management. The goal of this survey was to evaluate changes that occurred in gynecologic oncology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A anonymous survey consisting of 33 questions (https://sites.google.com/view/gyncacovidfmartinelli) regarding interaction between gynecologic cancers and COVID-19 was distributed online via social media from April 9 to April 30, 2020. Basic descriptive statistics were applied. Analytics of survey-diffusion and generated-interest (visualizations, engagement rates, response rate) were analyzed. RESULTS: The survey received 20 836 visualizations, generating an average engagement rates by reach of 4.7%. The response rate was 30%. A total of 86% of respondents completed the survey, for a total of 187 physicians surveyed across 49 countries. The majority (143/187; 76%) were gynecologic oncologists, and most were ≤50 years old (146/187; 78%). A total of 49.7% (93/187) were facing the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, while 26.7% (50/187) and 23.5% (44/187) were in the peak and plateau phases, respectively. For 97.3% (182/187) of respondents COVID-19 affected or changed their respective clinical practice. Between 16% (27/165) (before surgery) and 25% (26/102) (before medical treatment) did not perform any tests to rule out COVID-19 infection among patients. The majority of respondents did not alter indications of treatment if patients were COVID-19-negative, while treatments were generally postponed in COVID-19-positive patients. Treatments were considered priority for: early stage high-risk uterine cancers (85/187; 45%), newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer (76/187; 41%), and locally advanced cervical cancer (76/187; 41%). Treatment of early stage low-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer was deferred according to 49% (91/187) of respondents, with hormonal treatment as the option of therapy (31%; 56/178). A total of 77% (136/177) of respondents reported no changes in (surgical) treatment for early stage cervical cancer in COVID-19-negative patients, while treatment was postponed by 54% (96/177) of respondent, if the patient tested COVID-19-positive. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancers was considered by over one-third of respondents as well as hypofractionation of radiation treatment for locally advanced cervical cancers. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 affected the treatment of gynecologic cancers patients, both in terms of prioritization and identification of strategies to reduce hospital access and length of stay. Social media is a reliable tool to perform fast-tracking, worldwide surveys.

Basic social resource needs screening in the gynecologic oncology clinic: a quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health are known to contribute to disparities in health outcomes. Routine screening for basic social needs is not a part of standard care; however, the association of those needs with increased healthcare utilization and poor compliance with guideline-directed care is well established. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to assess the prevalence of basic social resource needs identified through a quality improvement initiative in a gynecologic oncology outpatient clinic. In addition, we aimed to identify clinical and demographic factors associated with having basic social resource needs. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective cohort study of women presenting to a gynecologic oncology clinic at an urban academic institution who were screened for basic social resource needs as part of a quality improvement initiative from July 2017 to May 2018. The following 8 domains of resource needs were assessed: food insecurity, housing insecurity, utility needs, financial strain, transportation, childcare, household items, and difficulty reading hospital materials. Women with needs were referred to resources to address those needs. Demographic and clinical information were collected for each patient. The prevalence of needs and successful follow-up interventions were calculated. Patient factors independently associated with having at least 1 basic social resource need were identified using multivariable Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 752 women were screened in the study period, of whom 274 (36%) reported 1 or more basic social resource need, with a median of 1 (range, 1-7) need. Financial strain was the most commonly reported need (171 of 752, 23%), followed by transportation (119 of 752, 16%), difficulty reading hospital materials (54 of 752, 7%), housing insecurity (31 of 752, 4%), food insecurity (28 of 752, 4%), household items (22 of 752, 3%), childcare (15 of 752, 2%), and utility needs (13 of 752, 2%). On multivariable analysis, independent factors associated with having at least 1 basic social resource need were being single, divorced or widowed, nonwhite race, current smoker, nonprivate insurance, and a history of anxiety or depression. A total of 36 of 274 (13%) women who screened positive requested assistance and were referred to resources to address those needs. Of the 36 women, 25 (69%) successfully accessed a resource or felt equipped to address their needs, 9 (25%) could not be reached despite repeated attempts, and 2 (6%) declined assistance. CONCLUSION: Basic social resource needs are prevalent in women presenting to an urban academic gynecologic oncology clinic and can be identified and addressed through routine screening. To help mitigate ongoing disparities in this population, screening for and addressing basic social resource needs should be incorporated into routine comprehensive care in gynecologic oncology clinics.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea in a sample of gynaecological cancer patients: assessment issues and personal risk factors evaluation.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) is a relevant problem for gynaecological cancer patients. The evaluation of CIN is a key aspect in its management, along with the identification of associated risk factors. The objective of the study was to compare different measurements of nausea and to investigate personal risk factors in CIN development. METHOD: Eighty-one women treated for gynaecological cancers took part. The presence of CIN was evaluated using the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT) and a patient's report to clinicians at the subsequent chemotherapy cycle. Personal risk factors were assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and a self-report questionnaire. RESULTS: The study shows that the agreement between patients' assessment of CIN with MAT and what they referred to clinicians was only moderate for acute nausea (Cohen's Kappa = 0.55; p < 0.001), while good for delayed nausea (Cohen's Kappa = 0.68; p < 0.001). At multiple logistic regression analysis, younger age, anticipatory nausea, patient medium-high expectations of CIN, and parity emerged as risk factors for the development of acute nausea (p = 0.0087, 0.0080, 0.0122 and 0.0021, respectively). Patient medium-high expectations of CIN and being single resulted to be risk factors for delayed nausea (p = 0.0397 and 0.0024, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm that personal factors contribute to individual differences in the development of CIN; moreover, we highlight the importance of CIN evaluation by clinicians, underlining the need to use reliable instruments.

[Utilization of Gynaecological Cancer Screening by Women 20 to 35 Years of Age Receiving Unemployment Benefits Under Social Security Code II]. / Die Inanspruchnahme gynäkologischer Krebsfrüherkennungsuntersuchungen bei 20- bis 35-jährigen Frauen mit Bezug sozialer Transferleistungen nach Sozialgesetzbuch II.

The aim of the study was to analyze associations between utilization of gynaecological cancer screening (GCS) and the number of months during which state unemployment benefits (Social Security Code II) were drawn by women aged 20 to 35 years. The sample included 223 women with complete interview data (participation rate: 69%). The findings show that more women drawing unemployment benefits for a short-term (<12 months) utilized GCS compared to those receiving long-term benefits (>36 months).

Gynecologic cancer screening in the transgender male population and its current challenges.

As the transgender community gains visibility and recognition, healthcare disparities have become more apparent. Reports estimate that 1-1.5 million people belong to this community in the United States. Despite efforts to become more inclusive, access to healthcare is challenging in a system built on a binary model that exacerbates gender dysphoria and on healthcare insurance schemes that do not cover gender affirmation therapy. Another large challenge is the paucity of scientific and medical knowledge when it comes to caring for the transgender community. More research to build knowledge is necessary to provide evidence-based quality care. In an attempt to bring guidance for gynecologic and breast cancer screening for the transgender male population, we conducted a review of the literature published in PubMed. Here, we present a review of the challenges, as well as guidelines for breast, uterus, and cervix screening for the transgender male population.

Preoperative Risk Stratification of Adnexal Masses in the Pediatric and Adolescent Population: Evaluating the Decision Tree System.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Decision Tree System (DTS) rules 2 and 3 for surgically managed adnexal masses in the North American population and to compare it with the risk stratification criteria used at The Hospital for Sick Children (≥8 cm and complex/solid). DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of patients who presented with adnexal masses and were surgically treated between April 2011 and March 2016. SETTING: The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, Ontario, Canada). PARTICIPANTS: Patients 1-18 years of age with adnexal masses who underwent surgical treatment. INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures included diagnostic performance (preoperative sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV] for malignancy) of the DTS rules 2 and 3 and ≥8 cm and complex/solid criteria. RESULTS: The malignancy rate was 10.4%. The DTS rules 2 and 3 had a sensitivity of 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79-90), specificity of 77% (95% CI, 71-83), PPV of 30% (95% CI, 17-42), and NPV of 98% (95% CI, 94-100). The 8 cm or larger and complex/solid criteria had a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI, 85-94), specificity of 71% (95% CI, 64-77), PPV of 27% (95% CI, 16-38), and NPV of 98% (95% CI, 96-100). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that DTS rules 2 and 3 had similar diagnostic performance as the 8 cm or larger and complex/solid criteria in the same population, with a very high NPV and a low PPV. Future prospective investigations should be conducted to further assess how DTS components can be incorporated into future algorithms for the management of adnexal masses in the pediatric population.