Yes, it's true: Benign hysterectomy trends for gynecologic oncologists in the United States from 2015 to 2021.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine the trends in benign surgery in GO practice across the United States. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database from 2015 to 2021. Subjects were selected by filtering for cases of hysterectomy using current procedural terminology (CPT codes). Trends over time were assessed using linear regression for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for categorical outcomes. RESULTS: From the 2015 to 2021, the dataset contained 246,743 hysterectomies that were performed across the United States. For all gynecologic specialties, 188,534 (76%) were performed for benign indications and 59,209 (24%) were gynecologic cancer cases. The proportion of hysterectomies done by all specialists for benign indications increased with increasing year. When looking at hysterectomy cases by surgeon's subspecialty, GOs performed 35,680 (23%) of all benign cases over the entire time period. Over our study time period, the proportion of benign hysterectomies performed by GOs increased with increasing year with the proportion of benign hysterectomies done by GO in 2016 was 37.8% and reached 45.2% in 202. The proportion of hysterectomies done by all sub-specialists for cancer indications decreased with increasing year including the proportion of cancer cases performed by GOs for cancer indications. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of benign hysterectomies performed by GO consistently increased every year. This study corroborates existing survey data and hypothesizes that the practice of GO is increasingly being consumed by general gynecology.

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.

An SGO commentary: U.S. News and World Report gynecologic oncology procedural ratings-Do they reflect high-quality care?

▪ ▪ ▪.

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.

Enduring Consensus Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management: Introduction to the Scope and Process.

OBJECTIVES: The Enduring Consensus Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Guidelines (Enduring Guidelines) effort is a standing committee to continuously evaluate new technologies and approaches to cervical cancer screening, management, and surveillance. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Enduring Guidelines process will selectively incorporate new technologies and approaches with adequate supportive data to more effectively improve cancer prevention for high-risk individuals and decrease unnecessary procedures in low-risk individuals. This manuscript describes the structure, process, and methods of the Enduring Guidelines effort. Using systematic literature reviews and primary data sources, risk of precancer will be estimated and recommendations will be made based on risk estimates in the context of established risk-based clinical action thresholds. The Enduring Guidelines process will consider health equity and health disparities by assuring inclusion of diverse populations in the evidence review and risk assessment and by developing recommendations that provide a choice of well-validated strategies that can be adapted to different settings. CONCLUSIONS: The Enduring Guidelines process will allow updating existing cervical cancer screening and management guidelines rapidly when new technologies are approved or new scientific evidence becomes available.

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.

Recommendations for Use of p16/Ki67 Dual Stain for Management of Individuals Testing Positive for Human Papillomavirus.

OBJECTIVES: The Enduring Consensus Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Guidelines Committee developed recommendations for dual stain (DS) testing with CINtec PLUS Cytology for use of DS to triage high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive results. METHODS: Risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse were calculated according to DS results among individuals testing HPV-positive using data from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California cohort and the STudying Risk to Improve DisparitiES study in Mississippi. Management recommendations were based on clinical action thresholds developed for the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines. Resource usage metrics were calculated to support decision-making. Risk estimates in relation to clinical action thresholds were reviewed and used as the basis for draft recommendations. After an open comment period, recommendations were finalized and ratified through a vote by the Consensus Stakeholder Group. RESULTS: For triage of positive HPV results from screening with primary HPV testing (with or without genotyping) or with cytology cotesting, colposcopy is recommended for individuals testing DS-positive. One-year follow-up with HPV-based testing is recommended for individuals testing DS-negative, except for HPV16- and HPV18-positive results, or high-grade cytology in cotesting, where immediate colposcopy referral is recommended. Risk estimates were similar between the Kaiser Permanente Northern California and STudying Risk to Improve DisparitiES populations. In general, resource usage metrics suggest that compared with cytology, DS requires fewer colposcopies and detects cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse earlier. CONCLUSIONS: Dual stain testing with CINtec PLUS Cytology is acceptable for triage of HPV-positive test results. Risk estimates are portable across different populations.

Adjuvant chemotherapy following chemoradiotherapy as primary treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer versus chemoradiotherapy alone (OUTBACK): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer is chemoradiotherapy, but many patients relapse and die of metastatic disease. We aimed to determine the effects on survival of adjuvant chemotherapy after chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: The OUTBACK trial was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 157 hospitals in Australia, China, Canada, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and the USA. Eligible participants were aged 18 year or older with histologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous cell carcinoma, or adenocarcinoma of the cervix (FIGO 2008 stage IB1 disease with nodal involvement, or stage IB2, II, IIIB, or IVA disease), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate bone marrow and organ function. Participants were randomly assigned centrally (1:1) using a minimisation approach and stratified by pelvic or common iliac nodal involvement, requirement for extended-field radiotherapy, FIGO 2008 stage, age, and site to receive standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (40 mg/m2 cisplatin intravenously once-a-week for 5 weeks, during radiotherapy with 45·0-50·4 Gy external beam radiotherapy delivered in fractions of 1·8 Gy to the whole pelvis plus brachytherapy; chemoradiotherapy only group) or standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with four cycles of carboplatin (area under the receiver operator curve 5) and paclitaxel (155 mg/m2) given intravenously on day 1 of a 21 day cycle (adjuvant chemotherapy group). The primary endpoint was overall survival at 5 years, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all eligible patients who were randomly assigned). Safety was assessed in all patients in the chemoradiotherapy only group who started chemoradiotherapy and all patients in the adjuvant chemotherapy group who received at least one dose of adjuvant chemotherapy. The OUTBACK trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01414608, and the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12610000732088. FINDINGS: Between April 15, 2011, and June 26, 2017, 926 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the chemoradiotherapy only group (n=461) or the adjuvant chemotherapy group (n=465), of whom 919 were eligible (456 in the chemoradiotherapy only group and 463 in the adjuvant chemotherapy group; median age 46 years [IQR 37 to 55]; 663 [72%] were White, 121 [13%] were Black or African American, 53 [6%] were Asian, 24 [3%] were Aboriginal or Pacific islander, and 57 [6%] were other races) and included in the analysis. As of data cutoff (April 12, 2021), median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 45 to 65). 5-year overall survival was 72% (95% CI 67 to 76) in the adjuvant chemotherapy group (105 deaths) and 71% (66 to 75) in the chemoradiotherapy only group (116 deaths; difference 1% [95% CI -6 to 7]; hazard ratio 0·90 [95% CI 0·70 to 1·17]; p=0·81). In the safety population, the most common clinically significant grade 3-4 adverse events were decreased neutrophils (71 [20%] in the adjuvant chemotherapy group vs 34 [8%] in the chemoradiotherapy only group), and anaemia (66 [18%] vs 34 [8%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 107 (30%) in the adjuvant chemotherapy group versus 98 (22%) in the chemoradiotherapy only group, most commonly due to infectious complications. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy given after standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy for unselected locally advanced cervical cancer increased short-term toxicity and did not improve overall survival; therefore, it should not be given in this setting. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council and National Cancer Institute.

Doubling down on the future of gynecologic oncology: The SGO future of the profession summit report.

The original vision of the field of gynecologic oncology was to establish a multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with gynecologic cancers. Fifty years later, scientific advances have markedly changed the overall practice of gynecologic oncology, but the profession continues to struggle to define its value-financial and otherwise. These issues were examined in full at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Future of the Profession Summit and the purpose of this document is to summarize the discussion, share the group's perceived strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) for gynecologic oncologists, further educate members and others within the patient care team about the unique role of gynecologic oncologists, and plan future steps in the short- and long- term to preserve the subspecialty's critical mission of providing comprehensive, longitudinal care for people with gynecologic cancers.

Lifestyle intervention in ovarian cancer enhanced survival (LIVES) study (NRG/GOG0225): Recruitment, retention and baseline characteristics of a randomized trial of diet and physical activity in ovarian cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: The Lifestyle Intervention for oVarian cancer Enhanced Survival (LIVES) is a national study of a combined diet and physical activity intervention for stage II-IV ovarian cancer survival, an under-represented cancer in lifestyle behavioral intervention research. Here, we present the data on recruitment, retention, and baseline demographic, clinical and lifestyle behavior characteristics of the LIVES study participants. METHODS: The LIVES study (NRG Oncology/GOG 0225) is a Phase III diet plus physical activity intervention trial testing the hypothesis that ovarian cancer survivors in the lifestyle intervention will demonstrate better progression-free survival than those in the control condition. Study interventions were delivered via centralized telephone-based health coaching. Baseline descriptive statistics were computed for demographic, clinical, and lifestyle behavior characteristics. RESULTS: The LIVES study exceeded its recruitment goals, enrolling 1205 ovarian cancer survivors from 195 NRG/NCORP-affiliated oncology practices across 49 states from 2012 to 2018. The mean age of enrollees was 59.6 years; the majority (69.4%) with stage III disease; 89% White, 5.5% Hispanic; 64% overweight/obese. Baseline self-reported diet showed a mean daily intake of 6.6 servings of fruit and vegetables, 62.7 fat grams, and 21.7 g of fiber. Physical activity averaged 13.0 MET-hours/week of moderate to vigorous physical activity; 50.9 h/week of sedentary time. Retention rates exceeded 88%. CONCLUSION: The LIVES study demonstrates efficiency in recruiting and retaining ovarian cancer survivors in a 24-month study of diet and physical activity intervention with a primary endpoint of progression free survival that will be reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT00719303.

Moderate to severe distress in half of ovarian cancer patients undergoing treatment highlights a need for more proactive symptom and psychosocial management.

OBJECTIVE: Distress screening and management is a recommended component of oncology care. Our objective was to evaluate distress rate, sources, and compliance with psychosocial follow-up among ovarian cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: We reviewed patient distress surveys completed by ovarian cancer patients receiving chemotherapy from 10/2017-6/2019. Lay or nurse navigators conducted screening with the NCCN Distress Thermometer from 0 (none) to 10 (highest distress). A distress score ≥ 4 (moderate/severe) was considered a positive screen. A recommendation for psychosocial follow-up was automatically generated in the treatment care plan based upon a yes response to any depression-related concern, independent of distress score. Documentation of referral to a mental health professional or social worker for counseling was considered compliant with psychosocial follow-up. We performed descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses. RESULTS: 97/211 (46%) ovarian cancer patients screened positive for distress. Average score was 6.1 for those who screened positive and 3.3 for the entire cohort (range 0-10). Unmarried status (p < 0.01) was associated with positive screen, whereas non-white race (p = 0.26) and recurrent disease (p = 0.21) were not. Median age was older for patients with a positive distress screen (p < 0.01). Among screened patients, the most frequent sources of distress were: cognitive/physical (87%), psychosocial (62%), practical (84%), and family concerns (40%). Of 50 patients recommended to have psychosocial referral, 4 (8%) patients had documented psychiatric follow-up and 19 (38%) patients had documented psychosocial counseling by a social worker. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of ovarian cancer patients screened positive for moderate/severe distress. Cancer/treatment-related cognitive/physical symptoms were the most frequent sources. Improved methods of symptom monitoring and management during treatment and resources to address psychosocial concerns are needed to improve distress management of ovarian cancer patients.

Navigating job and cancer demands during treatment: A qualitative study of ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to obtain perspectives from ovarian cancer patients on job demands, cancer demands, and workplace or cancer resources and strategies to manage the cancer-work interface using the cancer-work management conceptual framework. METHODS: We recruited ovarian cancer patients receiving systemic therapy who screened positive for financial distress using Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity <26. Interviews were conducted with participants about their costs of care, including employment concerns. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by three researchers using an inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 22 participants, the average age was 57 years old, 36% were Black, 68% had income <$40,000, 41% had public insurance, and 68% were being treated for recurrent disease. Job demands included decreased productivity, inability to return to work, and worry about losing a job or employer-based health insurance coverage. Cancer demands included physical and cognitive limitations due to cancer treatment and reliance on caregivers, especially for transportation. Workplace resources/strategies including having a supportive employer, modifying job responsibilities, and utilizing family medical leave. Cancer care resources/strategies included planning appointments ahead of time and utilizing resources, such as disability. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer care teams should consider screening patients for employment concerns; streamline care to minimize the side effects, time, and transportation demands of treatment on patients and caregivers; maximize utilization of available resources; and proactively communicate with employers to accommodate patients and caregivers who want or need to work.

Clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and gynecologic cancer: A society of gynecologic oncology COVID-19 and gynecologic cancer registry study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with gynecologic malignancies may have varied responses to COVID-19 infection. We aimed to describe clinical courses, treatment changes, and short-term clinical outcomes for gynecologic oncology patients with concurrent COVID-19 in the United States. METHODS: The Society of Gynecologic Oncology COVID-19 and Gynecologic Cancer Registry was created to capture clinical courses of gynecologic oncology patients with COVID-19. Logistic regression models were employed to evaluate factors for an association with hospitalization and death, respectively, within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: Data were available for 348 patients across 7 institutions. At COVID-19 diagnosis, 125 patients (36%) had active malignancy. Delay (n = 88) or discontinuation (n = 10) of treatment due to COVID-19 infection occurred in 28% with those on chemotherapy (53/88) or recently receiving surgery (32/88) most frequently delayed. In addition to age, performance status, diabetes, and specific COVID symptoms, both non-White race (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.93, 95% CI 2.06-7.50) and active malignancy (aOR = 2.34, 95% CI 1.30-4.20) were associated with an increased odds of hospitalization. Eight percent of hospitalized patients (8/101) died of COVID-19 complications and 5% (17/348) of the entire cohort died within 30 days after diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologic oncology patients diagnosed with COVID-19 are at risk for hospitalization, delay of anti-cancer treatments, and death. One in 20 gynecologic oncology patients with COVID-19 died within 30 days after diagnosis. Racial disparities exist in patient hospitalizations for COVID-19, a surrogate of disease severity. Additional studies are needed to determine long-term outcomes and the impact of race.

Feasibility, Safety, and Provider Perspectives of Bipolar Electrosurgical Cautery Device for (Opportunistic or Complete) Salpingectomy at the Time of Cesarean Delivery.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to evaluate the use of a bipolar electrocautery device for complete salpingectomy at cesarean to improve procedure completion rates, operative time, and surgeon reported satisfaction as compared with standard bilateral tubal ligation (BTL) and suture-cut-tie salpingectomy. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study of women undergoing planned, non-emergent cesarean with desired sterilization with complete salpingectomy utilizing a bipolar electrocautery device. Study patients were compared with historic controls from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of complete salpingectomy via suture-cut-tie method versus BTL conducted at our institution (SCORE trial, NCT02374827). Outcomes were compared with groups from the original RCT. RESULTS: Thirty-nine women were consecutively enrolled (12/2018-11/2019) into the device arm of the study and compared with the original SCORE cohort (n = 40 BTL, n = 40 salpingectomy without a device). Salpingectomy performance with the bipolar electrocautery device was successfully completed in 100% (39/39) of enrolled women, with one device failure requiring the use of a second device, as compared with 95% (38/40) in the BTL (p = 0.49) and 67.5% (27/40) in salpingectomies without a device (p < 0.001). Mean operative time of sterilization procedure alone demonstrated device use as having the shortest operative time of all (device salpingectomy 5.0 ± 3.6 vs. no device 18.5 ± 8.3 minutes, p < 0.001; and vs. BTL 6.9 ± 5.0, p = 0.032). Mean sterilization procedure endoscopic band ligation (EBL) was demonstrated to be significantly different between each group, least amongst BTL followed by device (6.3 ± 4.8 vs. 8.4 ± 24.8, p < 0.001), and most by suture-cut-tie method (17.7 ± 14.3, p < 0.001 compared with device). Surgeon reported attitudes of complete salpingectomy performance in general practice outside an academic setting was greater with a device than without (79.5 vs. 35.3%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Use of a bipolar electrocautery device improved operative times and surgeon satisfaction for salpingectomy at cesarean over standard suture ligation. Device use improved surgeon reported outcomes and may improve incorporation of complete salpingectomy at cesarean. KEY POINTS: · Electrocautery bipolar device use was safe at the time of salpingectomy during cesarean.. · Greater surgeon satisfaction occurs using a device than without.. · Decreased surgical time with device use is seen making the procedure equal to BTL..

Risk-Based Cervical Consensus Guidelines: Methods to Determine Management if Less Than 5 Years of Data Are Available.

OBJECTIVES: In the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines, clinical management decisions are based on immediate and 5-year cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3+ risk estimates. However, data for technologies other than human papillomavirus testing and cytology may be limited to clinical trials and observational studies of shorter duration than 5 years. To enable decisions about 1- or 3-year intervals, 3-year CIN 3+ risk equivalents to 5-year CIN 3+ risk thresholds were generated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined screening test result scenarios around the 5-year risk thresholds of 0.15% and 0.55% and calculated the average percent increase in CIN 3+ risk from 3 to 5 years. Using this average increase, we obtained estimates of corresponding risk thresholds at 3 years. We then validated whether use of the 3-year risk threshold would have resulted in equivalent management per the 2019 recommendations. RESULTS: Around the 5-year CIN 3+ risk threshold of 0.55%, the average increase in risk from 3 to 5 years was 0.16%. Therefore, the equivalent threshold for 3-year risk was estimated as 0.39%. We found no difference in recommendations to return in 1 or 3 years using the 3-year or 5-year risk thresholds in 66 of the 67 scenarios (98.5%) in follow-up in 2019 guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: In this methodological addendum, the Enduring Guidelines Committee adopted the use of the 0.39% 3-year CIN 3+ risk threshold as equivalent of the 0.55% 5-year CIN 3+ risk threshold for technologies with fewer than 5 years of follow-up data. This allows evidence-based guidance for surveillance intervals of 1 or 3 years for new technologies with limited longitudinal data.

It's time to re-evaluate cervical Cancer screening after age 65.

Cervical cancer screening guidelines currently recommend cessation of cervical cancer screening after age 65, despite 20% of new cervical cancer cases occurring in this age group. The US population is aging, research methodology that examines cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates has changed, and sexual behaviors and the rates at which women have hysterectomies have changed over time. Current guidelines do not adequately address these changes, and may be missing significant opportunities to prevent cervical cancer cases and deaths in older women. Furthermore, racial disparities in cervical cancer outcomes may be exacerbated by not addressing the preventive health needs of older women through cervical cancer screening.

Total and out-of-pocket costs for PARP inhibitors among insured ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate total and out-of-pocket costs for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and differences based on insurance characteristics. METHODS: We identified ovarian cancer patients who were prescribed niraparib, olaparib, or rucaparib from the MarketScan (2014-2017) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare (2014-2016) databases. Drug costs were estimated for a 30-day supply. Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed. RESULTS: 590 commercially insured beneficiaries from MarketScan and 213 SEER-Medicare beneficiaries were prescribed PARP inhibitors for a median 112 days. For commercially insured beneficiaries, median total cost was $13,342 (IQR $12,022-$14,256). Median out-of-pocket cost was $44 (IQR $0-$120) and PARP inhibitors accounted for a median 90.8% of patients' total out-of-pocket drug spending. High-deductible health plan was not associated with higher out-of-pocket costs (N = 570; median $0 vs. $45, P = 0.87). For SEER-Medicare beneficiaries, median total cost was $12,798 (IQR $11,704-$13,180). Median out-of-pocket cost was $370 (IQR $2-$1234) and PARP inhibitors accounted for a median 99.0% of patients' total out-of-pocket drug spending. Out-of-pocket costs were lower for dual-eligible patients with supplemental Medicaid prescription coverage (N = 209; median $1 vs. $911, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although insurers are responsible for a large proportion of PARP inhibitor costs, out-of-pocket costs for PARP inhibitors account for a majority of patients' drug spending. SEER-Medicare beneficiaries had higher out-of-pocket costs than patients with commercial insurance, which was offset for those with supplemental Medicaid prescription coverage.

The financial burden of PARP inhibitors on patients, payors, and financial assistance programs: Who bears the cost?

OBJECTIVES: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are expensive and their use is expanding. We aimed to evaluate cost sharing patterns between patients, payors, and financial assistance programs. METHODS: We identified ovarian cancer patients prescribed a PARP inhibitor from 5/2015-9/2019 using our pharmacy database. Cost information was collected for patients who filled their prescription at our specialty pharmacy. We calculated descriptive statistics for monthly PARP inhibitor costs for patients, payors, and financial assistance programs. We used Wilcoxon rank sum tests to evaluate monthly costs based on insurance characteristics. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients filled 94 different PARP inhibitor prescriptions with 42 (45%) prescriptions obtained using any type of financial assistance program. We analyzed 232 prescription months for the 41 prescriptions with available cost data. This included 18 (44%) prescriptions for rucaparib, 18 (44%) for niraparib, and 5 (12%) for olaparib. The total monthly drug cost was average $12,422 and median $13,700. The monthly out-of-pocket (OOP) cost for patients was average $46 and median $0 (IQR $0-4). Payors had the highest monthly costs with average $12,019 and median $13,662 (IQR $9914-14,709). Financial assistance programs contributed average $358 and median $0 per month (IQR $0-150). Patients with public (p<0.01) or Medicare insurance (p<0.01) had higher OOP costs than without. CONCLUSIONS: OOP costs were generally low with 75% of patients paying <$5 per month. While limited by small sample size at a single institution, financial assistance programs appear to play a critical role to ensure access to PARP inhibitors as nearly 50% of patients utilized these programs.

Systematic Next Generation Sequencing is feasible in clinical practice and identifies opportunities for targeted therapy in women with uterine cancer: Results from a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Both incidence and mortality of uterine cancer are on the rise and mortality is higher for African American women. The aim of our study was to evaluate how Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) may facilitate identification of and intervention for treatment disparities when integrated into clinical workflows. RESULTS: Our cohort included 159 uterine cancer patients with recurrent/progressive and newly diagnosed advanced stage and/or high-risk histology. The most common tumor histological subtypes included EEC (n = 67), SEC (n = 34), UCS (n = 20), and mixed (n = 14). Black patients were most likely to present with aggressive histology: (SEC, 34.0%) and carcinosarcoma (UCS, 14.0%). The four most common mutations across all subtypes were TP53, PIK3CA, PTEN, and ARID1A. There was racial disparity between Black versus non-Black patients who were initiated on targeted therapy (28.2% vs. 38.2%, respectively) and clinical trial (15% vs. 22.6%, respectively). Compared to non-Black patients, Black patients had a significantly higher percentage TP53 mutations (p < 0.05) and a significantly lower percentage ARID1A mutations (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: NGS for uterine malignancies provides actionable information for targetable mutations and/or clinical trial enrollment in most patients; further investigation is necessary to identify potentially modifiable factors contributing to current disparities that may improve targeted therapy uptake and clinical trial participation.

Beyond Sedlis-A novel histology-specific nomogram for predicting cervical cancer recurrence risk: An NRG/GOG ancillary analysis.

PURPOSE: The Sedlis criteria define risk factors for recurrence warranting post-hysterectomy radiation for early-stage cervical cancer; however, these factors were defined for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) at an estimated recurrence risk of ≥30%. Our study evaluates and compares risk factors for recurrence for cervical SCC compared with adenocarcinoma (AC) and develops histology-specific nomograms to estimate risk of recurrence and guide adjuvant treatment. METHODS: We performed an ancillary analysis of GOG 49, 92, and 141, and included stage I patients who were surgically managed and received no neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate independent risk factors for recurrence by histology and to generate prognostic histology-specific nomograms for 3-year recurrence risk. RESULTS: We identified 715 patients with SCC and 105 with AC; 20% with SCC and 17% with AC recurred. For SCC, lymphvascular space invasion (LVSI: HR 1.58, CI 1.12-2.22), tumor size (TS ≥4 cm: HR 2.67, CI 1.67-4.29), and depth of invasion (DOI; middle 1/3, HR 4.31, CI 1.81-10.26; deep 1/3, HR 7.05, CI 2.99-16.64) were associated with recurrence. For AC, only TS ≥4 cm, was associated with recurrence (HR 4.69, CI 1.25-17.63). For both histologies, there was an interaction effect between TS and LVSI. For those with SCC, DOI was most associated with recurrence (16% risk); for AC, TS conferred a 15% risk with negative LVSI versus a 25% risk with positive LVSI. CONCLUSIONS: Current treatment standards are based on the Sedlis criteria, specifically derived from data on SCC. However, risk factors for recurrence differ for squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Histology-specific nomograms accurately and linearly represent risk of recurrence for both SCC and AC tumors and may provide a more contemporary and tailored tool for clinicians to base adjuvant treatment recommendations to their patients with cervical cancer.