Radical hysterectomy case volume and cervical cancer treatment in the era of COVID-19: A multi-site analysis of National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare radical hysterectomy case volume, cancer stage, and biopsy-to-treatment time of invasive cervical cancer diagnosed before and after onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In a multi-institution retrospective cohort study conducted at 6 large, geographically diverse National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers, patients treated for newly diagnosed invasive cervical cancer were classified into 2 temporal cohorts based on date of first gynecologic oncology encounter: (1) Pre-Pandemic: 3/1/2018-2/28/2020; (2) Pandemic & Recovery: 4/1/2020-12/31/2021. The primary outcome was total monthly radical hysterectomy case volume. Secondary outcomes were stage at diagnosis and diagnosis-to-treatment time. Statistical analyses used chi-squared and two sample t-tests. RESULTS: Between 3/1/2018-12/31/2021, 561 patients were diagnosed with cervical cancer. The Pre-Pandemic and Pandemic & Recovery cohorts had similar age, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and Body Mass Index (BMI). During Pandemic & Recovery, the mean monthly radical hysterectomy case volume decreased from 7[SD 2.8] to 5[SD 2.0] (p = 0.001), the proportion of patients diagnosed with Stage I disease dropped from 278/561 (49.5%) to 155/381 (40.7%), and diagnosis of stage II-IV disease increased from 281/561 (50.1%) to 224/381 (58.8%). Primary surgical management was less frequent (38.3% Pandemic & Recovery versus 46.7% Pre-Pandemic, p = 0.013) and fewer surgically-treated patients received surgery within 6 weeks of diagnosis (27.4% versus 38.9%; p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Lower radical hysterectomy case volume, a shift to higher cervical cancer stage, and delay in surgical therapy were observed across the United States following the COVID-19 outbreak. Decreased surgical volume may result from lower detection of early-stage disease or other factors.

"You start feeling comfortable, you just start sharing:" A qualitative study of patient distress screening in Black and White patients with endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Black patients with endometrial cancer are less likely to express distress and receive referrals for support services compared to White patients. We aim to characterize patient perceptions of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer and Problem List (NCCN DT & PL), a common distress screening tool, among Black and White patients with endometrial cancer and determine strategies to improve equity in referral to appropriate support services. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 Black and 15 White patients with endometrial cancer who reported varying levels of distress on the NCCN DT & PL. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, evaluated through staged content analysis, and salient themes were compared by patient race. RESULTS: The NCCN DT & PL was generally considered understandable, however the word "distress" could be alienating to participants who considered their stress to be less "drastic." Black participants mentioned fewer negative emotions such as worry and sadness in describing distress and spoke more often of a positive outlook. Additionally, Black participants emphasized the importance of relationship-building with clinicians for open communication on the NCCN DT & PL and clinical encounter. Finally, participants were divided on whether they would alter the way they completed the NCCN DT & PL given more information on cut off scores for referrals, but generally expressed a desire for more direct offers of support services. CONCLUSIONS: Relationship-building, open communication around emotion, and longitudinal direct offers of support emerged as avenues to reduce inequities in referral to supportive services for patients with endometrial cancer.

Distress screening in endometrial cancer leads to disparity in referral to support services.

OBJECTIVES: Racial disparities in survival from endometrial cancer (EC) are well known. Cancer distress has also been associated with worse clinical outcomes. We characterized the association between race/ethnicity, patient distress reported on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer and Problem List (NCCN DT & PL), referral to support services, time to surgery, and acceptance of adjuvant therapy in patients with EC. METHODS: We included patients presenting at an academic gynecologic oncology practice from 1/2013-6/2020 who had not received prior EC-directed treatment. Demographics, NCCN DT scores, and treatment details were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Difference in initial DT scores by race/ethnicity and treatment type was tested using general linear modeling. The significance of interaction effects was tested using linear mixed models and logistic regression. RESULTS: 393 non-Hispanic White (NHW) and 134 non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients were included. Median distress scores were higher in NHW patients compared to NHB patients (4 vs. 2, p < 0.001); 51% of NHW patients qualified for referral to support services compared to 40% of NHB patients (p = 0.03). Distress scores were highest at initial appointment and declined over time in NHW patients regardless of treatment, but were initially low and remained low over time in NHB patients. There was no association of initial distress score with time to surgery or acceptance of adjuvant treatment (p-values >0.25). CONCLUSIONS: An observed difference in NCCN DT leads to racial disparities in referral to support services. The NCCN DT may not adequately measure distress in NHB women with EC.