Guideline-Discordant Care in Early-Stage Vulvar Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant inguinofemoral lymph node (LN) evaluation in individuals with early-stage vulvar cancer. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients with T1b and T2 vulvar squamous cell carcinoma diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 using the National Cancer Database. Factors associated with LN evaluation were examined using logistic regression analyses, adjusting for patient, disease, and facility-level characteristics. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis using log rank test and Cox regression was performed for the entire cohort and a subgroup of older patients , defined as individuals aged 80 years or older. RESULTS: Of the 5,685 patients with vulvar cancer, 3,756 (66.1%) underwent guideline-concordant LN evaluation. In our adjusted model, age 80 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% CI 0.22-0.42) and Black race (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.54-0.95) were associated with lower odds of LN evaluation. High-volume hospitals were associated with increased odds of LN evaluation compared with low-volume hospitals (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.28-2.05). Older individuals who did not undergo LN evaluation had significantly worse overall survival than those with pathologically negative LNs (hazard ratio [HR] 0.45; 95% CI 0.37-0.55) and similar overall survival as those with pathologically positive LNs (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.77-1.43). CONCLUSION: Guideline-concordant LN evaluation for early-stage vulvar squamous cell carcinoma is low. Lower utilization is associated with older age, Black race, and care at a low-volume hospital.

Adoption of minimally invasive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with metastatic uterine cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for advanced stage uterine cancer is increasing. We analyzed the use and outcomes of open versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for women with stage IV uterine cancer who received NACT and underwent IDS. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify women with stage IV uterine cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017 and treated with NACT. Among women who underwent IDS, overall survival (OS) was compared between those who underwent laparotomy vs a minimally invasive approach. To account for imbalances in confounders, a propensity score analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1618 women were identified. Minimally invasive IDS was performed in 31.1% and increased from 16.2% in 2010 to 40.4% in 2017 (P < 0.001). More recent year of diagnosis and performance of surgery at a comprehensive cancer center were associated with increased use of MIS (P < 0.05). Women with serous and clear cell tumors, and carcinosarcomas (compared to endometrioid tumors), as well as Medicaid coverage (compared to commercial insurance) were less likely to undergo an MIS approach (P < 0.05). The median OS was 28 months (95% CI 23.7-30.7) and 24.3 months (95% CI 22.3-26.1) for MIS and laparotomy, respectively. After propensity score balancing, there was no association between the use of MIS and survival (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.71-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with stage IV uterine cancer treated with NACT performance of minimally invasive debulking surgery is increasing. Compared to laparotomy, MIS does not appear to negatively impact survival.

Outcomes of secondary cytoreductive surgery for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer develop recurrent disease, despite maximal surgical cytoreduction and adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In observational studies, secondary cytoreductive surgery has been associated with improved survival; however its use is controversial, because there are concerns that the improved outcomes may reflect selection bias rather than the superiority of secondary surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare the overall survival of women with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer treated at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers who receive secondary surgery vs chemotherapy. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study included women from 6 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers diagnosed with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2011. The primary outcome was overall survival. Propensity score matching was used to compare similar women who received secondary surgery vs chemotherapy. Additional analyses examined how these findings may be influenced by the prevalence of unobserved confounders at the time of recurrence. RESULTS: Among 626 women, 146 (23%) received secondary surgery and 480 (77%) received chemotherapy. In adjusted analyses, patients who received secondary surgery were younger (P = 0.001), had earlier-stage disease at diagnosis (P = 0.002), and had longer disease-free intervals (P < 0.001) compared with those receiving chemotherapy. In the propensity score-matched groups (n = 244 patients), the median overall survival was 54 months in patients who received secondary surgery and 33 months in those treated with chemotherapy (P < 0.001). Among patients who received secondary surgery, 102 (70%) achieved optimal secondary cytoreduction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the 2 groups. In sensitivity analyses, the survival advantage associated with secondary surgery could be explained by the presence of more multifocal recurrences (if 4.3 times more common), ascites (if 2.7 times more common), or carcinomatosis (if 2.1 times more common) among patients who received chemotherapy instead of secondary surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer who received secondary surgery had favorable surgical characteristics and were likely to have minimal residual disease following secondary surgery. These patients had a superior median overall survival compared with patients who received chemotherapy, although unmeasured confounders may explain this observed difference.