Shifting trends and sicker patients: Reassessing hysterectomy performed for benign indications by gynecologic oncologists.

OBJECTIVE: To assess trends and differences in patient characteristics, complications, and distributions of hysterectomy for benign indications by benign gynecologists (BG) and gynecologic oncologists (GO). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data from 2014 to 2021. Exclusions were made for gynecologic or disseminated cancers, ascites, non-gynecologic surgeons, and cesarean hysterectomies. Primary outcome was major (≥Grade 3) 30-day complications, categorized into any complications, wound, cardiovascular and pulmonary, renal, infectious, andthromboembolic complications. Thirty-day readmissions, reoperations, and mortality were also analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 match of GO to BG patients and was compared. Linear regressions assessed trends. RESULTS: Among 198,767 patients, 18% (n = 37,707) underwent hysterectomy for benign indications with GO. GO patients exhibited more risk factors for complications and differed significantly from BG patients in comorbidities and perioperative characteristics. Overall, GO patients had higher major complication rates (3.1% vs 2.2%, p < 0.001) and for several other composite complications. After matching, compared to BG, GO-performed hysterectomies had similar rates of major complications (3.0% vs 3.0%, p = 0.55) and no differences in other composite complications, except fewer reoperations (1.2 % vs 1.5%, p < 0.01) and wound complications (0.4% vs 0.5%, p = 0.02) in GO patients. Over the eight years, the percentage of GO-performed hysterectomy (ß = 0.41, R2 = 0.71,p < 0.01) increased significantly whereas BG-performed surgeries decreased by the same magnitude. BG had a significant decrease in frail patients (ß = -0.47, R2 = 0.90, p < 0.01), but GO did not (ß = -0.36, R2 = 0.38, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: GO are performing more hysterectomies for benign indications on higher-risk patients. However, on a matched cohort, risks of major complications were similar between GO and BG.

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.

2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines: Updates Through 2023.

ABSTRACT: This Research Letter summarizes all updates to the 2019 Guidelines through September 2023, including: endorsement of the 2021 Opportunistic Infections guidelines for HIV+ or immunosuppressed patients; clarification of use of human papillomavirus testing alone for patients undergoing observation for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2; revision of unsatisfactory cytology management; clarification that 2012 guidelines should be followed for patients aged 25 years and older screened with cytology only; management of patients for whom colposcopy was recommended but not completed; clarification that after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+, 3 negative human papillomavirus tests or cotests at 6, 18, and 30 months are recommended before the patient can return to a 3-year testing interval; and clarification of postcolposcopy management of minimally abnormal results.