RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on referral to and delivery of gynecologic oncology care at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients referred for evaluation by a gynecologic oncologist at Washington University in St. Louis from October 2019 - February 2020 (pre-COVID-19), and April - August 2020 (COVID-19). The primary outcome, time from referral to evaluation by a gynecologic oncologist, was compared between the two time periods. Secondary outcomes included time from initial evaluation to treatment and delays/interruptions in care due to the pandemic. Sub-group analyses were performed on patients with a cancer diagnosis to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on treatment decision making. RESULTS: 884 patients were referred during the study period. Total referrals fell by 32% (526 to 358 patients, p < 0.001) and referrals for cancer fell by 18% (228 to 188 patients, p = 0.049). The pandemic did not impact time from referral to initial gynecologic oncology appointment overall (pre-COVID-19: 19.1 vs. COVID-19: 17.4 days, p = 0.315) or among patients with cancer (14.4 vs. 13.9 days, p = 0.662). Time from initial appointment to cancer treatment decreased by 9 days (34 days to 25 days, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Referrals to gynecologic oncology decreased significantly during the early months of COVID-19. Though time from referral to evaluation was not impacted by the pandemic, time to treatment initiation decreased despite institutional changes related to COVID-19.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To study associations among employment, insurance status, and distress in gynecologic oncology patients; and to evaluate the impact of being unemployed or having no/Medicaid insurance on different distress problem areas. METHODS: In this single institution, cross-sectional analysis of gynecologic oncology patients, we screened for distress and problem areas using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer and problem list at outpatient appointments between 6/2017-9/2017. Primary outcome was self-reported high distress (score ≥ 5). The distress problem list included 5 categories-practical, family, emotional, physical, and other. Employment status included employed, unemployed, homemaker, and retired. Logistic regression was used to predict high distress from employment and insurance statuses, adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Of 885 women, 101 (11.4%) were unemployed, and 53 (6.0%) uninsured or had Medicaid coverage. One in five patients (n = 191, 21.6%) indicated high distress. Unemployed patients were more likely than employed to endorse high distress [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-5.7, p < 0.001]. Compared to employed patients, a greater proportion of unemployed patients endorsed distress related to practical (p < 0.05), emotional (p < 0.001), physical (p < 0.01), and other (p < 0.05) problems. Uninsured/Medicaid patients were more likely to endorse high distress (aOR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.5-5.1, p < 0.001) and report family (p < 0.001), emotional (p < 0.001), and other (p < 0.01) problems than patients who had Medicare/commercial insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologic oncology patients who are unemployed or have no/Medicaid insurance face high distress that appears to arise from issues beyond practical problems, including financial and/or insurance insecurities.