Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 1% of individuals have a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, however, the majority are not aware. Collecting a cancer family history (CFH) can triage patients to receive genetic testing. To rigorously assess different methods of CFH collection, we compared a web-based tool (WBT) to usual care (clinician collects CFH) in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: New gynecologic oncology patients (seen 9/2019-9/2021) were randomized to one of three arms in a 2:2:1 allocation ratio: 1) usual care clinician CFH collection, 2) WBT completed at home, or 3) WBT completed in office. The WBT generated a cancer-focused pedigree and scores on eight validated cancer risk models. The primary outcome was collection of an adequate CFH (based on established guidelines) with usual care versus the WBT. RESULTS: We enrolled 250 participants (usual care - 110; WBT home - 105; WBT office - 35 [closed early due to COVID-19]). Within WBT arms, 109 (78%) participants completed the tool, with higher completion for office versus home (33 [94%] vs. 76 [72%], P = 0.008). Among participants completing the WBT, 63 (58%) had an adequate CFH versus 5 (5%) for usual care (P < 0.001). Participants completing the WBT were significantly more likely to complete genetic counseling (34 [31%] vs. 15 [14%], P = 0.002) and genetic testing (20 [18%] vs. 9 [8%], P = 0.029). Participant and provider WBT experience was favorable. CONCLUSIONS: WBTs for CFH collection are a promising application of health information technology, resulting in more comprehensive CFH and a significantly greater percentage of participants completing genetic counseling and testing.

COVID-19 outcomes of patients with gynecologic cancer in New York City: An updated analysis from the initial surge of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant increase in COVID-19 publications, characterization of COVID-19 infection in patients with gynecologic cancer remains limited. Here we present an update of COVID-19 outcomes among people with gynecologic cancer in New York City (NYC) during the initial surge of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]). METHODS: Data were abstracted from gynecologic oncology patients with COVID-19 infection among 8 NYC area hospital systems between March and June 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to estimate associations between factors and COVID-19 related hospitalization and mortality. RESULTS: Of 193 patients with gynecologic cancer and COVID-19, the median age at diagnosis was 65.0 years (interquartile range (IQR), 53.0-73.0 years). One hundred six of the 193 patients (54.9%) required hospitalization; among the hospitalized patients, 13 (12.3%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, 39 (36.8%) required ICU admission. Half of the cohort (49.2%) had not received anti-cancer treatment prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. No patients requiring mechanical ventilation survived. Thirty-four of 193 (17.6%) patients died of COVID-19 complications. In multivariable analysis, hospitalization was associated with an age ≥ 65 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11, 4.07), Black race (OR 2.53, CI 1.24, 5.32), performance status ≥2 (OR 3.67, CI 1.25, 13.55) and ≥ 3 comorbidities (OR 2.00, CI 1.05, 3.84). Only former or current history of smoking (OR 2.75, CI 1.21, 6.22) was associated with death due to COVID-19 in multivariable analysis. Administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy within 90 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was not predictive of COVID-19 hospitalization (OR 0.83, CI 0.41, 1.68) or mortality (OR 1.56, CI 0.67, 3.53). CONCLUSIONS: The case fatality rate among patients with gynecologic malignancy with COVID-19 infection was 17.6%. Cancer-directed therapy was not associated with an increased risk of mortality related to COVID-19 infection.

COVID-19 and Gynecologic Oncology: What Have We Learned?

OPINION STATEMENT: COVID-19 has transformed the care we provide to gynecologic oncology patients. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with gynecologic cancer, it has affected our patient's ability to undergo recommended surveillance and has made an impact on every caregiver providing care during this time. Herein we review the current literature on the impact of COVID-19 on gynecologic oncology and highlight new approaches and innovations that have resulted in gynecologic cancer care as a result of the pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on the field of gynecologic oncology has been profound. In addition to directly impacting the diagnosis and treatment of women with cancer, it has also challenged the very ethics with which we practice medicine. The equitable distribution of resources is paramount to upholding the Hippocratic Oath which we all invoke. The COVID-19 pandemic has stripped this oath down to its very core, forcing all medical practitioners to scrutinize who gets what resources and when. As the pandemic continues to unfold, the question remains - in the setting of a strained and overburdened healthcare system, how do we maximize beneficence to one group of patients, while maintaining non-maleficence to others? As gynecologic oncologists, we are responsible for advocating for our patients to ensure that the quality of their cancer care is not compromised, while also not overutilizing resources that are sorely needed for the care of COVID-19 victims, and not making them more likely to succumb to COVID-19 by the very nature of the treatment we provide. The effects of the pandemic are far-reaching and broad, and many of these are yet to be determined. Future studies are needed to analyze how the above-utilized strategies in GYN cancer care during the pandemic will impact the long-term outcomes of our patients.

Stressors and the adaptation of telemedicine for women on poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance during the COVID-19 pandemic

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance (PARPm) therapy is now available to all women with advanced ovarian cancer following response to initial chemotherapy. As the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges for cancer patients, we aimed to evaluate the unique experience for women on maintenance PARP inhibitors. Women with a current or prior diagnosis of ovarian cancer completed an online survey focusing on treatment interruptions and quality of life (QOL). QOL was measured with the Cancer Worry Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. The survey was distributed through survivor networks and social media. The chi-square and ANOVA test were used with a Bonferroni correction to account for multiple comparison testing. Six hundred and three women, from 41 states, visited the survey website between March 30 and April 13, 2020 and 525 (87%) completed the survey and provided information on current treatment status. Sixty-four women (12%) were on PARPm, 153 (29%) on other anti-cancer therapy and 308 (59%) on no treatment. Other anticancer therapies included intravenous chemotherapy (61, 40%), anti-angiogenic (29, 19%), hormonal (25, 16%), oral chemotherapy (12, 8%), immunotherapy (10, 6.5%) and other (16, 10%). There were no differences among women on PARPm, no treatment or other treatment for disease stage, medical comorbidities, COVID-19 symptoms or treatment delays. Women on PARPm were more likely to be self-described as immunocompromised versus women not on treatment (79% vs. 34%, P<0.001) and women on hormonal therapy (79% vs. 40%, P=0.002) and similar to women on oral -anti-cancer therapy (78% vs. 58%, P=0.336). Women on PARPm were more likely to use telemedicine versus women not on treatment (44% vs. 16%, P<0.001) and had similar use of telemedicine compared to all other treatment groups. For women on PARPm, higher cancer worry scores were associated with increased use of telemedicine (used telemedicine - 14.4 vs. did not use telemedicine - 13.3, P=0.007). There were no significant differences in reported cancer worry, anxiety or depression between women on PARPm, other anti-cancer therapy and no treatment. [Display omitted] The COVID-19 crisis is impacting cancer care and it is critical that providers consider and address the unique stressors facing women with ovarian cancer during this challenging time. Women on PARPm, in particular, perceive themselves as immunocompromised, perhaps making them more open to alternative means of care delivery, as demonstrated by their willingness to adopt telemedicine. Women with ovarian cancer on PARPm report similar cancer worry, anxiety and depression to women not on treatment and those on other anti-cancer treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Gynecologic Oncology is the property of Academic Press Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Going virtual: increased uptake of gynecologic cancer support services post-COVID-19

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis on a patient's emotional health can be profound. Psychosocial support is an important component of comprehensive care. Our aim was to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the gynecologic cancer support program at a large urban medical center. Support group data, including type (in-person vs. virtual), topic (education, support, or creative), and attendance, were gathered. Data were divided into 'pre-COVID' (September 2019-March 2020) and 'post-COVID' (March 2020-October 2020). Attendance rates were analyzed. A one-tailed t-test was used to determine if the difference in attendance rates between physician and non-physician led educational lectures was significant. A total of 711 women who are currently receiving or have completed treatment were included in Woman to Woman support network communications. Invitations were sent weekly via email for each support group. An individual's attendance was recorded for each distinct group attended. Prior to COVID, support services consisted of a general support group, a young women's support group, and a Latina educational group. A total of 9,777 invitations were sent for pre-COVID content, and total recorded attendance was 240: 185 at support groups, and 55 at the Latina educational group. Transition to virtual meetings occurred in March 2020, at which time 6 new groups were added: living with recurrent cancer support group, book club, art therapy, poetry, Sharsharet Jewish breast cancer educational collaboration, and a recurring educational group. Communications greatly increased, with a total of 32,411 invitations sent out for post-COVID content. Instructions on how to use Zoom for virtual sessions were included with calendar invites. Total recorded attendance was 738, of which 321 attended support groups, 73 attended creative groups, and 344 attended educational groups. Participation in educational sessions ranged from 14-51 attendees, with a median of 20.5 participants. Topics covered ranged from sex after gynecologic cancer and hypnosis for anxiety, to more data-driven topics such as clinical trial participation, radiation oncology, and PARP inhibitors. The latter 3 sessions were led by physicians intimately involved in patient care and yielded higher participation rates when compared with non-physician led sessions. The higher rates in attendance for physician-led sessions was statistically significant (t(234)=2.61, p=0.015). The most attended educational session covered the importance of clinical trial participation. COVID-19 challenged the gynecologic oncology community in many ways, including isolating patients from support networks. The transition of support groups to virtual forums has more than doubled attendance, reaching a broader group of women with a variety of needs, allowing for diversification of topics, and increasing physician involvement in patient support systems. Based on demonstrated increased attendance, women with gynecologic cancers are accepting of a virtual platform to deliver support services. A formalized feedback system is being created to further validate our findings. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Gynecologic Oncology is the property of Academic Press Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Outcomes of gynecologic oncology patients at an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic

To describe the clinical course and associated mortality and morbidity of gynecologic cancer patients with COVID-19 infection with respect to cancer status, demographics, and comorbidities. An IRB approved prospective registry was initiated of all gynecologic oncology patients with COVID-19 infections at a health care system in New York City from March 1 to June 1 2020. Clinical and demographic data was abstracted from the electronic medical record. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with development of an adverse event defined as the composite of death, intubation, or ICU admission. In total, 57 gynecologic cancer patients with documented COVID-19 positivity were identified. The median age of identified patients was 68 years (range 32 - 91years). 29 patients (50.9%) required hospital admission and 28 (49.1%) patients required supplemental oxygen. 17 patients (30%) experienced an adverse event, defined as the composite of death, intubation, or ICU admission. Specifically 7 (12%) were intubated, 13 (23%) were admitted to the ICU, and 16 (27%) patients died from acute complications of COVID-19. All patients who were intubated and/or admitted to the ICU died from COVID-19 complications. Patients with elevated white blood cell count (WBC), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and/or elevated prothrombin time (PT) were significantly more likely to experience an adverse event (WBC: 47 vs 12%, p=0.01;ANC: 37 vs 8%, p=0.04;PT: 61 vs 17%, p=0.04). On multivariable analysis, ECOG status of 1 or greater was associated with a 26-fold increase in the odds of an adverse event (OR=26, 95% CI: 2 - 415, p=0.02), and seven or more abnormal lab values was associated with a 305-fold increase in the odds of an adverse event (p=0.007). The presence of active cancer (n=33. 57.9%) or receipt of systemic therapy (n=18, 31.6%) was not associated with the development of an adverse event (p=0.205, p=0.81 respectively). Type of systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation) was not associated with adverse event development. [Display omitted] In this study, we analyzed the outcomes of gynceocologic oncology patients with COVID-19 infections at an urban New York City hospital. Over 50% of patients required hospital admission for COVID-19 related symptoms, with a case fatality rate of 27%. Age, active cancer status, or recent systemic therapy was not associated with subsequent intubation, ICU admission, or mortality, while performance status and multiple abnormal lab values were significant risk factors. Further characterization of associated poor prognostic factors is needed in order to formulate best oncologic practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Gynecologic Oncology is the property of Academic Press Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

COVID-19 outcomes of patients with gynecologic cancer in New York City: an updated analysis

Despite a growing body of literature, characterization of COVID-19 infection in patients with gynecologic cancer remains limited. Here we present an update of COVID-19 outcomes in New York City (NYC) from the initial surge of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]). We sought to determine the hospitalization and mortality rates and their associated factors, specifically recent chemotherapy and immunotherapy use. Data were abstracted from gynecologic oncology patients with COVID-19 infection among 8 New York City (NYC) area hospital systems. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to analyze COVID-19 related hospitalization and mortality. Of 193 patients with gynecologic cancer and COVID-19, the median age at diagnosis was 65.0 years (interquartile range, 53.0-73.0 years). A total of 106 of the 193 patients (54.9%) required hospitalization;among the hospitalized patients 13 (12.3%) required invasive mechanical ventilation and 39 (36.8%) required ICU admission. No patients requiring mechanical ventilation survived. A total of 34 of 193 (17.6%) patients died of COVID-19 complications. On multivariable analysis, hospitalization was associated with an age greater than or equal to 65 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11, 4.07), Black race (OR 2.53, CI 1.24, 5.32), performance status greater than or equal to 2 (OR 3.67, CI 1.25, 13.55) and greater than or equal to 3 comorbidities (OR 2.00, CI 1.05, 3.84). Only former or current history of smoking (OR 2.75, CI 1.21, 6.22) was associated with death due to COVID-19 on multivariable analysis. A total of 13 of 34 (38.23%) patients who died of COVID-19 complications received cytotoxic chemotherapy, while 4 of 34 (11.76%) patients received immunotherapy. However, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy use was not predictive of COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality on multivariable analysis. [Display omitted] The case fatality rate among gynecologic oncology patients with COVID-19 infection is 17.6%. Cancer-directed therapy, including immunotherapy use, is not associated with an increased risk of mortality related to COVID-19 infection in this larger cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Gynecologic Oncology is the property of Academic Press Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Does COVID-19 compromise SGO member well-being?

To assess the well-being of members of the gynecologic oncology healthcare team during the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic using validated survey assessments of professional fulfillment, burnout, anxiety, and depression among Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) members. From June 15th-July 1st 2020, SGO members received a web-based survey consisting of the following validated measures: Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI);Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-2 screener and PHQ-7);Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2 screener and PHQ-9) and Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-6). Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with professional fulfillment, burnout, anxiety, and depression. Among the 254 SGO member respondents (approximately 12%), 58% (147) were ≤45 years, 73% (183) identified as female, and 76% (192) were gynecologic, medical, or radiation oncologists. COVID-19 institutional burden was reported as high/very high (23%, 59), moderate (44%, 110), or low (31%79). Most respondents provided direct patient care (96%, 242), including 22% (52) reported caring for COVID-19 patients. Personal history of COVID-19 infection was reported in 16% (41) of repondents. Among 232 PFI respondents, 58% (134) and 41% (95), respectively, met cutoff values for decreased professional fulfillment and burnout. Of those who completed the GAD (246) and PHQ (251) ultrascreeners, 25% (62) and 17% (42) screened positive for anxiety and depression, respectively. Among these, 41% (21/51) and 27% (10/37) reported potentially clinically significant anxiety and depression, while 18% (9/51) and 32% (12/37) of participant scores correlated with potentially severe depression. A total of 37% (97) reported significant trauma-related stress based on IES-6 scores predictive for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). After multivariate adjustment, decreased professional fulfillment and burnout were significantly associated with screening positive for depression (p=0.005, p=<0.001) and anxiety (p=<0.0001, p=<0.001). Positive depression screening was significantly associated with male gender (p=.027), while positive anxiety screening was associated with female gender (p=0.007). Nurses, physician assistants and other non-physician health care professionals were more likely to screen positive for depression in comparison to physician oncologists (p=.022). When adjusted by demographic variables such as age, race, gender, burden of COVID infection, caring for COVID-19 patients, profession, history of anxiety or depression), no association was found with respect to levels of professional fulfillment or burnout. Our preliminary findings suggest that the majority of SGO members are not professionally fulfilled during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, which represents data that differs from pre-COVID era findings, and indicates a significant impact on professional well-being. Though we observed no association between burden of COVID-19 infection or caring for COVID-19 patients with anxiety, depression, professional fulfillment, or burnout, respondents scores indicated moderate to severe anxiety and depression, and over one-third met IES-6 criteria shown to be correlative to the diagnosis of PTSD. The longevity of these effects is of particular concern. The next phase of our study will re-survey SGO members during the second wave of the pandemic. Findings from this work can target interventions to improve SGO member well-being during current and future threats to psychological resilience. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Gynecologic Oncology is the property of Academic Press Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Inflammatory markers in gynecologic oncology patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection.

OBJECTIVE: Elevated inflammatory markers are predictive of COVID-19 infection severity and mortality. It is unclear if these markers are associated with severe infection in patients with cancer due to underlying tumor related inflammation. We sought to further understand the inflammatory response related to COVID-19 infection in patients with gynecologic cancer. METHODS: Patients with a history of gynecologic cancer hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with available laboratory data were identified. Admission laboratory values and clinical outcomes were abstracted from electronic medical records. Severe infection was defined as infection requiring ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or resulting in death. RESULTS: 86 patients with gynecologic cancer were hospitalized with COVID-19 infection with a median age of 68.5 years (interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-74.8). Of the 86 patients, 29 (33.7%) patients required ICU admission and 25 (29.1%) patients died of COVID-19 complications. Fifty (58.1%) patients had active cancer and 36 (41.9%) were in remission. Patients with severe infection had significantly higher ferritin (median 1163.0 vs 624.0 ng/mL, p < 0.01), procalcitonin (median 0.8 vs 0.2 ng/mL, p < 0.01), and C-reactive protein (median 142.0 vs 62.3 mg/L, p = 0.02) levels compared to those with moderate infection. White blood cell count, lactate, and creatinine were also associated with severe infection. D-dimer levels were not significantly associated with severe infection (p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: The inflammatory markers ferritin, procalcitonin, and CRP were associated with COVID-19 severity in gynecologic cancer patients and may be used as prognostic markers at the time of admission.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the quality of life for women with ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges for the oncology community. For people living with cancer, treatments are interrupted, surgeries cancelled, and regular oncology evaluations rescheduled. People with cancer and their physicians must balance plausible fears of coronavirus disease 2019 and cancer treatment with the consequences of delaying cancer care. OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the experience of women with ovarian cancer during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Women with a current or previous diagnosis of ovarian cancer completed an online survey focusing on treatment interruptions and quality of life. The quality of life was measured with the Cancer Worry Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. The survey was distributed through survivor networks and social media. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analysis were used to evaluate the effect of participant characteristics on quality of life survey scores. RESULTS: A total of 603 women, from 41 states, visited the survey website between March 30, 2020, and April 13, 2020, and 555 (92.0%) completed the survey. The median age was 58 years (range, 20-85). At the time of survey completion, 217 participants (43.3%) were in active treatment. A total of 175 participants (33%) experienced a delay in some component of their cancer care. Ten (26.3%) of the 38 participants scheduled for surgery experienced a delay, as did 18 (8.3%) of the 217 participants scheduled for nonsurgical cancer treatment. A total of 133 participants (24.0%) had a delayed physician appointment, 84 (15.1%) laboratory tests, and 53 (9.6%) cancer-related imaging. Among the cohort, 88.6% (489) reported significant cancer worry, 51.4% (285) borderline or abnormal anxiety, and 26.5% (147) borderline or abnormal depression. On univariate analysis, age less than 65 years, being scheduled for cancer treatment or cancer surgery, delay in oncology care, being self-described as immunocompromised, and use of telemedicine were all associated with higher levels of cancer worry. Higher anxiety scores were associated with age less than 65 years and being self-described as immunocompromised. Higher depression scores were associated with age less than 65 years, being scheduled for cancer surgery, delay in oncology care, being self-described as immunocompromised, and use of telemedicine. On multivariable linear regression analysis, age less than 65 and being self-described as immunocompromised were independently predictive of greater cancer worry, anxiety, and depression, and delay in cancer care was predictive of anxiety and depression. CONCLUSION: The coronavirus disease 2019 crisis is affecting care of patients with ovarian cancer; surgeries, treatments, scheduled physician appointments, laboratory tests, and imaging are cancelled or delayed. Younger age, presumed immunocompromise, and delay in cancer care were associated with significantly higher levels of cancer worry, anxiety, and depression. Providers must work with patients to balance competing risks of coronavirus disease 2019 and cancer, recognizing that communication is a critical clinical tool to improve quality of life in these times.

Racial disparities in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection and gynecologic malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Mounting evidence suggests disproportionate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations and deaths because of racial disparities. The association of race in a cohort of gynecologic oncology patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection is unknown. METHODS: Data were abstracted from gynecologic oncology patients with COVID-19 infection among 8 New York City area hospital systems. A multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for county clustering was used to analyze COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality. RESULTS: Of 193 patients who had gynecologic cancer and COVID-19, 67 (34.7%) were Black, and 126 (65.3%) were non-Black. Black patients were more likely to require hospitalization compared with non-Black patients (71.6% [48 of 67] vs 46.0% [58 of 126]; P = .001). Of 34 (17.6%) patients who died from COVID-19, 14 (41.2%) were Black. Among those who were hospitalized, compared with non-Black patients, Black patients were more likely to: have ≥3 comorbidities (81.1% [30 of 37] vs 59.2% [29 of 49]; P = .05), to reside in Brooklyn (81.0% [17 of 21] vs 44.4% [12 of 27]; P = .02), to live with family (69.4% [25 of 36] vs 41.6% [37 of 89]; P = .009), and to have public insurance (79.6% [39 of 49] vs 53.4% [39 of 73]; P = .006). In multivariable analysis, among patients aged <65 years, Black patients were more likely to require hospitalization compared with non-Black patients (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.82-12.99; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Although Black patients represented only one-third of patients with gynecologic cancer, they accounted for disproportionate rates of hospitalization (>45%) and death (>40%) because of COVID-19 infection; younger Black patients had a nearly 5-fold greater risk of hospitalization. Efforts to understand and improve these disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among Black patients are critical.

Adapting and avoiding coping strategies for women with ovarian cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges for people living with cancer, impacting not only physical health but psychological well-being. The psychological response affects the individual as well as the community and can persist long after the outbreak. We aim to assess coping strategies employed by women with ovarian cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Women with a current or prior diagnosis of ovarian cancer completed an online survey which included a query about coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was distributed from March 30th through April 13, 2020 through survivor networks and social media. RESULTS: Six hundred and three women visited the survey website during the study period and 555 (92.0%) completed the survey. Four hundred and eight (73.5%) provided information on coping strategies utilized during COVID-19. Among those who responded, the median age was 58 years (range 20-85) and 150 participants (40.8%) were undergoing active cancer treatment. Commonly utilized adaptive coping strategies included emotional support (159, 39.0%), self care (148, 36.3%), hobbies (139, 34.1%), planning (87, 21.3%), positive reframing (54, 13.2%), religion (50, 12.3%) and instrumental support (38, 9.3%). Many participants also relied on avoidance coping strategies including self distraction (111, 27.2%) and substance use (19, 4.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Most ovarian cancer survivors are using adaptive, problem-focused coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic, however many are practicing avoidance strategies as well. As coping mechanisms profoundly impact quality of life, oncology providers must assist patients in identifying coping strategies that optimize physical and psychological well-being.

When to Operate, Hesitate and Reintegrate: Society of Gynecologic Oncology Surgical Considerations during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged our ability to provide timely surgical care for our patients. In response, the U.S. Surgeon General, the American College of Srugeons, and other surgical professional societies recommended postponing elective surgical procedures and proceeding cautiously with cancer procedures that may require significant hospital resources and expose vulnerable patients to the virus. These challenges have particularly distressing for women with a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and their providers. Currently, circumstances vary greatly by region and by hospital, depending on COVID-19 prevalence, case mix, hospital type, and available resources. Therefore, COVID-19-related modifications to surgical practice guidelines must be individualized. Special consideration is necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of procedural interventions, recognizing the significant resources and personnel they require. Additionally, the pandemic may occur in waves, with patient demand for surgery ebbing and flowing accordingly. Hospitals, cancer centers and providers must prepare themselves to meet this demand. The purpose of this white paper is to highlight all phases of gynecologic cancer surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic and to illustrate when it is best to operate, to hestitate, and reintegrate surgery. Triage and prioritization of surgical cases, preoperative COVID-19 testing, peri-operative safety principles, and preparations for the post-COVID-19 peak and surgical reintegration are reviewed.