The Landscape of Care for Women Veterans with Cancer: An Evidence Map.

BACKGROUND: Women are the fastest growing veteran group in the US and the number of women veterans (WVs) with cancer is rising; however, little is known about this population. Cancer care for WVs is complex and it is essential to understand their unique needs and care coordination challenges to provide evidence-based care. The purpose of this review is to map the quantity, distribution, and characteristics of literature describing cancer and its treatment among WVs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), and Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) from inception through January, 2024. Publications were eligible that reported gender-specific data on any aspect of cancer care among WVs. Data was abstracted by a single investigator with over-reading. RESULTS: Forty-six reports were included; 44 were observational and 19 had a women-only sample. There were no interventional reports and no qualitative reports had a patient sample. Breast cancer was the most commonly addressed (n = 19). There were six additional reports on sex-specific cancers. Many reports used large VA databases or previous trial data, creating the potential for patient overlap between reports. Among VA-specific areas of interest, only three reports evaluated the potential implications of racial differences and only two included a transgender population. No reports examined the effects of toxic exposures on cancer. Within the NCI Cancer Control Continuum, crosscutting areas were more commonly represented; over half (25) of the reports addressed epidemiology. There were few reports on focus areas and little overlap between focus and crosscutting areas. DISCUSSION: Existing literature provides an inadequate understanding of the population of WVs with cancer. There is scant information regarding the population of WVs with cancer, their care preferences or experiences, or how to best identify and address unmet healthcare needs. It is imperative to expand research to provide evidence-based care for this population.

ACO leakage among gynecologic cancer patients: Incidence, predictors, and impact on annual Medicare expenditure.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patterns of Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) leakage, the receipt of healthcare by ACO-assigned patients from institutions outside assigned ACO network, among patients with gynecologic cancer. ACO leakage was estimated as rates of patients seeking care external to their ACO assignment. Factors associated with ACO leakage were identified and cost differences within the first year of cancer diagnosis described. METHODS: Medicare 5% data (2013-2017) was used to quantify rates of leakage among gynecologic cancer patients with stable ACO assignment. Crude and multivariable adjusted risk ratios of ACO leakage risk factors were estimated using log-binomial regression models. Overall and cancer-specific spending differences by ACO leakage status were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Overall incidence of ACO leakage was 28.1% with highest leakage for outpatient care and uterine cancer patients. ACO leakage risk was 56% higher among Black relative to White patients, and 77% more for those in higher relative to lowest quintiles of median household income. Leakage decreased by 3% and 8% with each unit increase in ACO size and number of subspecialists, respectively. Healthcare costs were 19.5% higher for leakage patients. CONCLUSIONS: ACO leakage rates among gynecologic cancer patients was overall modest, with some regional and temporal variation, higher leakage for certain subgroups and substantially higher Medicare spending in inpatient and outpatient settings for patients with ACO leakage. These findings identify targets for further investigations and strategies to encourage oncologists to participate in ACOs and prevent increased health care costs associated with use of non-ACO providers.

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.

Geographic variation in the rate and route of hysterectomy for benign disease in the USA: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe population rate of hysterectomy for benign disease in the USA, including geographic variation across states and Hospital Service Areas (HSAs; areas defined by common patient flows to healthcare facilities). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Four US states including 322 HSAs. POPULATION: A total of 316 052 cases of hysterectomy from 2012 to 2016. METHODS: We compiled annual hysterectomy cases, merged female populations, and adjusted for reported rates of previous hysterectomy. We assessed small-area variation and created multi-level Poisson regression models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prior-hysterectomy-adjusted population rates of hysterectomy for benign disease. RESULTS: The annual population rate of hysterectomy for benign disease was 49 per 10 000 hysterectomy-eligible residents, declining slightly over time, mostly among reproductive-age populations. Rates peaked among residents ages 40-49 years, and declined with increasing age, apart from an increase with universal coverage at age 65 years. We found large differences in age-standardised population rates of hysterectomy across states (range 42.2-69.0), and HSAs (range: overall 12.9-106.3; 25th-75th percentile 44.0-64.9). Among the non-elderly population, those with government-sponsored insurance had greater variation than those with private insurance (coefficient of variation 0.61 versus 0.32). Proportions of minimally invasive procedures were similar across states (71.0-74.8%) but varied greatly across HSAs (27-96%). In regression models, HSA population characteristics explained 31.8% of observed variation in annual rates. Higher local proportions of government-sponsored insurance and non-White race were associated with lower population rates. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial variation in rate and route of hysterectomy for benign disease in the USA. Local population characteristics explained less than one-third of observed variation.

Treatments and outcomes in high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: High-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) is rare and treated with diverse approaches. Limited published institutional data has yet to be systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVES: To compile global high-risk GTN (prognostic score ≥7) cohorts to summarise treatments and outcomes by disease characteristics and primary chemotherapy. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane were searched through March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Full-text manuscripts reporting mortality among ≥10 high-risk GTN patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Binomial proportions were summed, and random-effects meta-analyses performed. MAIN RESULTS: From 1137 records, we included 35 studies, representing 20 countries. Among 2276 unique high-risk GTN patients, 99.7% received chemotherapy, 35.8% surgery and 4.9% radiation. Mortality was 10.9% (243/2236; meta-analysis: 10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7-12%) and likelihood of complete response to primary chemotherapy was 79.7% (1506/1890; meta-analysis: 78%, 95% CI: 74-83%). Across 24 reporting studies, modern preferred chemotherapy (EMA/CO or EMA/EP) was associated with lower mortality (overall: 8.8 versus 9.5%; comparative meta-analysis: 8.1 versus 12.4%, OR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.90%, 14 studies) and higher likelihood of complete response (overall: 76.6 versus 72.8%; comparative meta-analysis: 75.9 versus 60.7%, OR 2.98, 95% CI: 1.06-8.35%, 14 studies), though studies focused on non-preferred regimens reported comparable outcomes. Mortality was increased for ultra-high-risk disease (30 versus 7.5% high-risk; meta-analysis OR 7.44, 95% CI: 4.29-12.9%) and disease following term delivery (20.8 versus 7.3% following molar pregnancy; meta-analysis OR 2.64, 95% CI: 1.10-6.31%). Relapse rate estimates ranged from 3 to 6%. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk GTN is responsive to several chemotherapy regimens, with EMA/CO or EMA/EP associated with improved outcomes. Mortality is increased in patients with ultra-high-risk, relapsed and post-term pregnancy disease.

A Pilot Study of a Screening Program for Human Papillomavirus-Related Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion and Malignancy in Gynecologic Oncology Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-related squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) or malignancy is associated with a significantly increased risk of second-site SIL or malignancy. The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of concurrent anal, cervical, and vulvovaginal screening in patients with a history of HPV-related gynecologic high-grade SIL or malignancy. The secondary objective was to assess subjects' knowledge regarding HPV screening and risks. METHODS: Women with high-grade cervical, vulvar, or vaginal SIL or malignancy were enrolled during a 1-year pilot period. Subjects with cervical SIL or malignancy underwent vulvar examination and anoscopy. Subjects with vulvovaginal SIL or malignancy underwent Pap test if indicated and anoscopy. Appropriate referrals were made for abnormal findings. Feasibility was assessed by compliance using study acceptance rate, screening procedure adherence, and referral adherence. Acceptability was assessed using a Likert-scaled question after completion of screening procedures. RESULTS: One hundred three women with a diagnosis of high-grade vulvovaginal or cervical SIL or carcinoma were approached regarding study enrollment; of these, 74 (71.8%) enrolled. The median score on the HPV knowledge assessment was 8.1 ± 1.6 (max score 10). Seventy-three (98.6%) of 74 patients rated the screening procedures as acceptable (score of 5/5). On examination, 14 (18.9%) subjects had abnormalities noted; 7 (9.5%) were referred for colorectal surgical evaluation, and 6/7 (85.7%) were compliant with their referral appointments. CONCLUSIONS: Screening examinations for other HPV-related SILs and malignancies, including Pap tests, vulvovaginal inspection, and anoscopy, are acceptable to patients, with abnormal findings in almost 1 in 5 women.

What happens in the long term: Uptake of cancer surveillance and prevention strategies among at-risk relatives with pathogenic variants detected via cascade testing.

BACKGROUND: Cascade genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes offers affected relatives the opportunity to pursue cancer screening and risk-reducing surgery and thus reduces morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to measure the long-term utilization of targeted cancer prevention and quality of life among at-risk relatives offered clinician-facilitated cascade genetic testing. METHODS: In a pilot study, at-risk relatives of patients with a hereditary cancer syndrome were contacted directly by the clinical team and offered telephone genetic counseling and genetic testing via an at-home, mailed saliva kit. Two-year follow-up results evaluating the use of targeted cancer prevention strategies and the quality of life for enrolled relatives were reported. Quality-of-life was measured with validated surveys, and scores were compared to the time of initial contact by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Ninety-five at-risk relatives were enrolled in the initial pilot study, and 72 (76%) participated in the 2-year follow-up; 57 of these (79%) had completed genetic testing. Twenty-five of those 57 relatives (44%) were found to harbor an inherited pathogenic variant. Guideline-based cancer surveillance was recommended to 18 relatives; 13 (72%) completed at least one recommended screening, and six (33%) completed all recommended screenings. Risk-reducing surgery was recommended to 10 relatives; four (40%) completed a total of eight procedures. Quality-of-life surveys demonstrated low levels of anxiety, depression, distress, and uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year follow-up of the original pilot study revealed that clinician-facilitated cascade testing resulted in genetically targeted cancer screening and prevention with preserved quality of life. These results, to be confirmed by larger randomized controlled trials, suggest that medical systems should consider supporting clinician-facilitated cascade testing programs.

Malnutrition as a risk factor for post-operative morbidity in gynecologic cancer: Analysis using a national surgical outcomes database.

OBJECTIVE: To assess, using a national surgical outcomes database, the association of various malnutrition definitions with post-operative morbidity in three gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection of ovarian, uterine, or cervical cancer between 2005 and 2019 were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Patients were classified based on specific, pre-defined malnutrition criteria: severe malnutrition (Body Mass Index (BMI) <18.5 + 10% weight loss), European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism ((ESPEN1); BMI 18.5-22 + 10% weight loss), ESPEN2 (BMI < 18.5), American Cancer Society ((ACS); normal/overweight BMI + 10% weight loss), mild malnutrition (BMI 18.5-22), or albumin (<3.5 g/dL). Outcomes included 30-day major complications, readmission, reoperation. Modified Poisson regression estimated associations between definitions and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 76,290 total patients undergoing surgery, those meeting malnutrition definitions were: severe-98 (0.1%), ESPEN1-148 (0.2%), ESPEN2-877 (1.1%), ACS-1028 (1.3%), mild-2853 (3.7%), and albumin (11.1%). Complication rates were: unplanned readmission-5.5%, reoperation-1.7%, major complications-13.5%. For ovarian cancer, ESPEN2 malnutrition was associated with higher readmissions (risk ratio 1.69; 95% confidence interval 1.29-2.20), reoperations (2.53; 1.70-3.77), and complications (1.36; 1.20-1.54). For uterine cancer, ACS malnutrition was associated with readmissions (2.74; 2.09-3.59), reoperations (3.61; 2.29-5.71) and complications (3.92; 3.40-4.53). For cervical cancer, albumin<3.5 g/dL was associated with readmissions (1.48; 1.01-2.19), reoperations (2.25; 1.17-4.34), and complications (2.59; 2.11-3.17). Albumin<3.5 was associated with adverse outcomes in ovarian and uterine cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative risk assessments might be tailored using cancer-specific malnutrition criteria. Major complications, readmissions, and reoperations are all associated with the ESPEN2 definition for ovarian cancer, the ACS definition for uterine cancer, and with albumin<3.5 for all cancers.

Out-of-network bills among privately insured patients undergoing hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the issue of out-of-network billing for privately insured patients has been highlighted as a source of unexpected out-of-pocket charges for patients, even in the setting of an in-network primary surgeon. The Congress recently passed the No Surprises Act to curtail these practices. However, the new law contains exceptions, and its regulatory system has yet to be established. As one of the most frequently performed major surgical procedures, hysterectomy represents a significant exposure to out-of-network bills among nonelderly females in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To describe the extent and nature of out-of-network bills at the time of hysterectomy among privately insured patients in the context of the recently passed No Surprises Act. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women aged 18 to 64 years who underwent simple hysterectomy from 2008 to 2018 with an in-network primary surgeon in the IBM Watson Marketscan claims database, which includes data from over 350 different payers. We identified out-of-network claims for facility or professional services and analyzed the frequency, size, and source of the payments. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess for patient, procedure, and facility characteristics associated with the risk of out-of-network claims. RESULTS: We identified 585,223 hysterectomy cases meeting all the inclusion criteria, and they were evenly split between inpatient (49.6%) and outpatient (50.4%) procedures. Overall, 8.8% of cases included at least 1 out-of-network claim, with median out-of-network expenditures of $553 for inpatient procedures and $438 for outpatient procedures. Compared with professional out-of-network claims, facility out-of-network claims were less common (2.3% vs 7.4%) but far greater in the amount billed (median $8,307 vs $400 inpatient, $3,281 vs $407 outpatient). Among the professional claims, those from midlevel surgical assistants were most frequently out-of-network when present (13.8% inpatient; 20.0% outpatient), whereas out-of-network claims from anesthesia were most common overall and largest (median $890 inpatient, $1,021 outpatient) when present. In a multivariable model, older age, increasing comorbidity, and complications during the stay were associated with higher odds of any out-of-network claim. In contrast, the risk of facility out-of-network claims was more strongly associated with the facility region and the surgical approach, with the highest odds for cases in the North Central region and those using robotic approach. CONCLUSION: Out-of-network bills for privately insured patients at the time of hysterectomy occurred in 8.8% of cases. Approximately one-quarter of these included out-of-network facility claims tended to have higher payments than out-of-network professional claims and may not be prevented by the No Surprises Act. Gynecologic surgeons should be aware of the potential out-of-network charges for ancillary services at the time of surgery, particularly the network status of the facility, to provide maximal transparency and financial protection to our patients.

Catastrophic health expenditures, insurance churn, and nonemployment among gynecologic cancer patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the financial burden of severe illness, including associations with higher rates of nonemployment, uninsurance, and catastrophic out-of-pocket health spending. Patients with gynecologic cancer often require expensive and prolonged treatments, potentially disrupting employment and insurance coverage access, and putting patients and their families at risk for catastrophic health expenditures. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the prevalence of insurance churn, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures among nonelderly patients with gynecologic cancer in the United States, to compare within subgroups and to other populations and assess for changes associated with the Affordable Care Act. STUDY DESIGN: We identified respondents aged 18 to 64 years from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006 to 2017, who reported care related to gynecologic cancer in a given year, and a propensity-matched cohort of patients without cancer and patients with cancers of other sites, as comparison groups. We applied survey weights to extrapolate to the US population, and we described patterns of insurance churn (any uninsurance or insurance loss or change), catastrophic health expenditures (>10% annual family income), and nonemployment. Characteristics and outcomes between groups were compared with the adjusted Wald test. RESULTS: We identified 683 respondents reporting care related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis from 2006 to 2017, representing an estimated annual population of 532,400 patients (95% confidence interval, 462,000-502,700). More than 64% of patients reported at least 1 of 3 primary negative outcomes of any uninsurance, part-year nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, with 22.4% reporting at least 2 of 3 outcomes. Catastrophic health spending was uncommon without nonemployment or uninsurance reported during that year (1.2% of the population). Compared with patients with other cancers, patients with gynecologic cancer were younger and more likely with low education and low family income (≤250% federal poverty level). They reported higher annual risks of insurance loss (8.8% vs 4.8%; P=.03), any uninsurance (22.6% vs 14.0%; P=.002), and part-year nonemployment (55.3% vs 44.6%; P=.005) but similar risks of catastrophic spending (12.6% vs 12.2%; P=.84). Patients with gynecologic cancer from low-income families faced a higher risk of catastrophic expenditures than those of higher icomes (24.4% vs 2.9%; P<.001). Among the patients from low-income families, Medicaid coverage was associated with a lower risk of catastrophic spending than private insurance. After the Affordable Care Act implementation, we observed reductions in the risk of uninsurance, but there was no significant change in the risk of catastrophic spending among patients with gynecologic cancer. CONCLUSION: Patients with gynecologic cancer faced high risks of uninsurance, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among patients from low-income families. Catastrophic spending was uncommon in the absence of either nonemployment or uninsurance in a given year.

Real-world treatment patterns of maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical utility of maintenance therapy (MT) for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer has been validated in several clinical trials. We assessed "real-world" treatment patterns using an electronic health record (EHR) database. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer between January 1, 2011 and July 31, 2019 was conducted using the US nationwide Flatiron Health (EHR)-derived de-identified database. Patients were included if they received second- or third-line (2 L or 3 L) platinum-based chemotherapy (PBCT). Information regarding biomarker status was obtained. RESULTS: 2292 patients with ovarian cancer received at least two lines of therapy. 222 patients completed PBCT on or after March 1, 2017 and had ≥2 months of active surveillance or received MT with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) or bevacizumab. 46 (20%) had BRCA mutations (BRCAm), 132 (59%) had a wildtype BRCA (BRCAwt) gene, and 47 (21%) were unknown. Of patients with BRCAm, 63% received a PARPi, 17% received bevacizumab, and 20% underwent active surveillance. Of patients with BRCAwt, 40% received a PARPi, 23% received bevacizumab, and 36% underwent active surveillance. MT was more common in those with younger age and a BRCA mutation. PARPi use increased on average by 1.3% every 3 months (p = .02) with no statistically significant change in use of bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world population, MT is becoming progressively more common following 2 L or 3 L PBCT regardless of biomarker status. The results provide insight into the shifting treatment patterns for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Adherence to PARP inhibitor therapy among women with ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate medical adherence for patients with ovarian cancer who initiated treatment with a PARP inhibitor therapy, and to identify factors associated with nonadherence. METHODS: We used the MarketScan Database to identify ovarian cancer patients who initiated PARP inhibitor therapy between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2017. The primary outcome was adherence defined as ≥ 80% proportion of days covered (PDC). A secondary outcome included adherence assessed using the medication possession ratio (MPR). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess relation between PDC and explanatory variables. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate impact of dose-adjustments and toxicity-related delays on adherence. RESULTS: Among 170,976 patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer, 151 patients met inclusion criteria. The median time from diagnosis to initiating therapy was 33 months. Overall, 40 (26.5%) were non-adherent based on a PDC less than 80%. Non-adherent patients were more likely to receive niraparib and have a longer duration of therapy (p < 0.05). We found no significant impact of age, comorbidities, insurance plan, or year of PARP inhibitor initiation on non-adherence. In a sensitivity analysis to assess different definition of adherence, non-adherence ranged from 11.3% to 41.1%. When accounting for possible dose-adjustments, 21.2% of patients were non-adherent. CONCLUSION: This population based study of ovarian cancer patients found that a quarter of patients may be sub-optimally adherent to PARP inhibitor therapy. Future research should focus on identification of patients at risk for nonadherence and interventions to lower nonadherence among these patients.

Surveillance for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia following molar pregnancy: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Historically, published guidelines for care after molar pregnancy recommended monitoring human chorionic gonadotropin levels for the development of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia until normal and then for 6 months after the first normal human chorionic gonadotropin. However, there are little data underlying such recommendations, and recent evidence has demonstrated that gestational trophoblastic neoplasia diagnosis after human chorionic gonadotropin normalization is rare. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for surveillance for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia after human chorionic gonadotropin normalization after complete and partial molar pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: A Markov-based cost-effectiveness model, using monthly cycles and terminating after 36 months/cycles, was constructed to compare alternative strategies for asymptomatic human chorionic gonadotropin surveillance after the first normal (none; monthly testing for 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; or every 3-month testing for 3, 6, and 12 months) for both complete and partial molar pregnancy. The risk of reduced surveillance was modeled by increasing the probability of high-risk disease at diagnosis. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were estimated from peer-reviewed literature, with all cost data applicable to the United States and adjusted to 2020 US dollars. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year ($/quality-adjusted life year) with a $100,000/quality-adjusted life year willingness-to-pay threshold. RESULTS: Under base-case assumptions, we found no further surveillance after the first normal human chorionic gonadotropin to be the dominant strategy from both the healthcare system and societal perspectives, for both complete and partial molar pregnancy. After complete mole, this strategy had the lowest average cost (healthcare system, $144 vs maximum $283; societal, $152 vs maximum $443) and highest effectiveness (2.711 vs minimum 2.682 quality-adjusted life years). This strategy led to a slightly higher rate of death from gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (0.013% vs minimum 0.009%), although with high costs per gestational trophoblastic neoplasia death avoided (range, $214,000 to >$4 million). Societal perspective costs of lost wages had a greater impact on frequent surveillance costs than rare gestational trophoblastic neoplasia treatment costs, and no further surveillance was more favorable from this perspective in otherwise identical analyses. No further surveillance remained dominant or preferred with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000 in all analyses for partial mole, and most sensitivity analyses for complete mole. Under the assumption of no disutility from surveillance, surveillance strategies were more effective (by quality-adjusted life year) than no further surveillance, and a single human chorionic gonadotropin test at 3 months was found to be cost-effective after complete mole with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $53,261 from the healthcare perspective, but not from the societal perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $288,783). CONCLUSION: Largely owing to the rare incidence of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia after human chorionic gonadotropin normalization after molar pregnancy, prolonged surveillance is not cost-effective under most assumptions. It would be reasonable to reduce, and potentially eliminate, current recommendations for surveillance after human chorionic gonadotropin normalization after molar pregnancy, particularly among partial moles. With any reduction in surveillance, patients should be counseled on symptoms of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia and established in routine gynecologic care.

Impact of Medicaid expansion on women with gynecologic cancer: a difference-in-difference analysis.

BACKGROUND: Women with gynecologic cancer face socioeconomic disparities in care that affect survival outcomes. The Affordable Care Act offered states the option to expand Medicaid enrollment eligibility criteria as a means of improving timely and affordable access to care for the most vulnerable. The variable uptake of expansion by states created a natural experiment, allowing for quasi-experimental methods that offer more unbiased estimates of treatment effects from retrospective data than the traditional regression adjustment. OBJECTIVE: To use a quasi-experimental, difference-in-difference framework to create unbiased estimates of impact of Medicaid expansion on women with gynecologic cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a quasi-experimental retrospective cohort study from the National Cancer Database files for women with invasive cancers of the uterus, ovary and fallopian tube, cervix, vagina, and vulva diagnosed from 2008 to 2016. Using a marker for state Medicaid expansion status, we created difference-in-difference models to assess the impact of Medicaid expansion on the outcomes of access to and timeliness of care. We excluded women aged <40 years owing to the suppression of the state Medicaid expansions status in the data and women aged ≥65 years owing to the universal Medicare coverage availability. Our primary outcome was the rate of uninsurance at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included Medicaid coverage, early-stage diagnosis, treatment at an academic facility, and any treatment or surgery within 30 days of diagnosis. Models were run within multiple subgroups and on a propensity-matched cohort to assess the robustness of the treatment estimates. The assumption of parallel trends was assessed with event study time plots. RESULTS: Our sample included 335,063 women. Among this cohort, 121,449 were from nonexpansion states and 213,614 were from expansion states, with 79,886 posttreatment cases diagnosed after the expansion took full effect in expansion states. The groups had minor differences in demographics, and we found occasional preperiod event study coefficients diverging from the mean, but the outcome trends were generally similar between the expansion and nonexpansion states in the preperiod, satisfying the necessary assumption for the difference-in-difference analysis. In a basic difference-in-difference model, the Medicaid expansion in January 2014 was associated with significant increases in insurance at diagnosis, treatment at an academic facility, and treatment within 30 days of diagnosis (P<.001 for all). In an adjusted model including all states and accounting for variable expansion implementation time, there was a significant treatment effect of Medicaid expansion on the reduction in uninsurance at diagnosis (-2.00%; 95% confidence interval, -2.3 to -1.7; P<.001), increases in early-stage diagnosis (0.80%; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.4; P=.02), treatment at an academic facility (0.83%; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-1.5; P=.02), treatment within 30 days (1.62%; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.3; P<.001), and surgery within 30 days (1.54%; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.3; P<.001). In particular, large gains were estimated for women living in low-income zip codes, Hispanic women, and women with cervical cancer. Estimates from the subgroup and propensity-matched cohorts were generally consistent for all outcomes besides early-stage diagnosis and treatment within 30 days. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was significantly associated with gains in the access and timeliness of treatment for nonelderly women with gynecologic cancer. The implementation of Medicaid expansion could greatly benefit women in nonexpansion states. Gynecologists and gynecologic oncologists should advocate for Medicaid expansion as a means of improving outcomes and reducing socioeconomic and racial disparities.

Primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced stage endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Endometrial cancer uncommonly presents at an advanced stage and little prospective evidence exists to guide the management thereof. We aimed to summarize the evidence about primary cytoreductive surgery in the treatment of advanced stage endometrial cancer. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to September 11, 2020, using search terms representing the themes "endometrial cancer," "advanced stage," and "primary cytoreductive surgery." STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included full-text, English reports that included ≥10 patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced stage endometrial cancer and that reported on the outcomes of primary cytoreductive surgery and survival rates based on the residual disease burden. METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened the studies and with disagreements between the reviewers resolved by a third reviewer. Data were extracted using a standardized form. The percentage of cases reaching maximal (no gross residual disease) and optimal (<1 cm or <2 cm residual disease) cytoreduction were assessed by summing binomials proportions, and the association with survival was assessed using an inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis of logarithmic hazard ratios. RESULTS: From 1219 unique records identified, 34 studies were selected for inclusion. Studies consisted of single or multi-institutional cohorts of patients collected over a period of 6 to 24 years and included various mixes of histologies (endometrioid, serous, clear cell, and carcinosarcoma) and disease stages (III or IV). In a meta-analysis of the extent of residual disease after primary cytoreductive surgery, we found that 52.1% of cases reached no gross residual disease status (n=18 studies; 1329 patients) and 75% reached <1 cm residual disease status (n=27 studies; 2343 patients). The proportion of cytoreduction for both thresholds was lower for studies of stage IV vs stage III to IV disease (41.4% vs 69.8% for no gross residual disease; 63.2% vs 82.2% for <1 cm residual disease) but did not vary notably by histology. In a meta-analysis of the reported hazard ratios, submaximal (any gross residual disease vs no gross residual disease) and suboptimal (≥1 cm vs <1 cm) cytoreduction thresholds were associated with worse progression-free survival (submaximal hazard ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-3.21; I2=68%; suboptimal hazard ratio, 2.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.93-3.37; I2=63%) and overall survival rates (submaximal hazard ratio, 2.57; 95% confidence interval, 2.13-3.10; I2=1%; suboptimal hazard ratio, 2.62; 95% confidence interval, 2.20-3.11; I2=15%). Sensitivity analyses limited to high-quality studies demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSION: Among cases of advanced stage endometrial cancer undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery, a significant proportion of patients are left with residual disease, which is associated with worse survival outcomes. Further investigations about the roles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and primary cytoreductive surgery in prospective trials is warranted in this population.

Adjuvant treatment and outcomes for patients with stage IIIA grade 1 endometrioid endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The role and type of adjuvant therapy for patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIA grade 1 endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma are controversial. This retrospective cohort study aimed to determine associations between adjuvant therapy use and survival among patients with stage IIIA grade 1 endometrial cancer. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary surgery for stage IIIA (FIGO 2009 staging) grade 1 endometrial cancer between January 2004 and December 2016 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Demographics and receipt of adjuvant therapy were compared. Overall survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank test, and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Of 1120 patients, 248 (22.1%) received no adjuvant treatment, 286 (25.5%) received chemotherapy alone, 201 (18.0%) radiation alone, and 385 (34.4%) chemotherapy and radiation. Five-year overall survival rate was 83.0% (95% CI 80.1% to 85.6%). Older age, increasing comorbidity count, and lymphovascular space invasion status were significant negative predictors of survival. Over time, there was an increasing rate of chemotherapy (45.4% in 2004-2009 vs 69.2% in 2010-2016; p<0.001). In the multivariable analysis, chemotherapy was associated with significantly improved overall survival compared with no adjuvant therapy (HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.79); p=0.003). There was no survival association when comparing radiation alone with no treatment, and none when adding radiation to chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone. Those with lymphovascular space invasion (n=124/507) had improved overall survival with chemotherapy and radiation (5-year overall survival 91.2% vs 76.7% for chemotherapy alone and 27.3% for radiation alone, log-rank p<0.001), but there was no survival difference after adjusting for age and comorbidity (HR 0.25 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.41); p=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjuvant chemotherapy for the treatment of stage IIIA grade 1 endometrial cancer increased over time and was associated with improved overall survival compared with radiation alone or chemoradiation. Patients with lymphovascular space invasion may benefit from combination therapy.

Facilitated cascade testing (FaCT): a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Identifying mutation-carrying relatives of patients with hereditary cancer syndromes via cascade testing is an underused first step in primary cancer prevention. A feasibility study of facilitated genetic testing of at-risk relatives of patients with a known pathogenic mutation demonstrated encouraging uptake of cascade testing. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective is to compare the proportion of genetic testing of identified first-degree relatives of probands with a confirmed BRCA1/2 mutation randomized to a facilitated cascade testing strategy versus standard of care, proband-mediated, information sharing. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that facilitated cascade testing will drive significantly higher uptake of genetic testing than the standard of care. TRIAL DESIGN: The FaCT (Facilitated Cascade Testing) trial is a prospective multi-institutional randomized study comparing the efficacy of a multicomponent facilitated cascade testing intervention with the standard of care. Patients with a known BRCA1/2 mutation (probands) cared for at participating sites will be randomized. Probands randomized to the standard of care group will be instructed to share a family letter with their first-degree relatives and encourage them to complete genetic testing. First-degree relatives of probands randomized to the intervention arm will receive engagement strategies with a patient navigator, an educational video, and accessible genetic testing services. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Adult participants who are first-degree relatives of a patient with a BRCA1/2 mutation and have not had prior genetic testing will be included. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: Analyses will assess the proportion of first-degree relatives identified by the proband who complete genetic testing by 6 months in the intervention arm versus the control arm. SAMPLE SIZE: One hundred and fifty probands with a BRCA1/2 mutation will be randomized. Each proband is expected to provide an average of 3 relatives, for an expected 450 participants. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: January 2024. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04613440.

Oocyte cryopreservation versus ovarian tissue cryopreservation for adult female oncofertility patients: a cost-effectiveness study.

PURPOSE: In December 2019, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine designated ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) as no longer experimental and an alternative to oocyte cryopreservation (OC) for women receiving gonadotoxic therapy. Anticipating increased use of OTC, we compare the cost-effectiveness of OC versus OTC for fertility preservation in oncofertility patients. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model to compare OC versus OTC was built from a payer perspective. Costs and probabilities were derived from the literature. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the percentage of patients who achieved live birth. Strategies were compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). All inputs were varied widely in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, the estimated cost for OC was $16,588 and for OTC $10,032, with 1.56% achieving live birth after OC, and 1.0% after OTC. OC was more costly but more effective than OTC, with an ICER of $1,163,954 per live birth. In sensitivity analyses, OC was less expensive than OTC if utilization was greater than 63%, cost of OC prior to chemotherapy was less than $8100, cost of laparoscopy was greater than $13,700, or standardized discounted costs were used. CONCLUSIONS: With current published prices and utilization, OC is more costly but more effective than OTC. OC becomes cost-saving with increased utilization, when cost of OC prior to chemotherapy is markedly low, cost of laparoscopy is high, or standardized discounted oncofertility pricing is assumed. We identify the critical thresholds of OC and OTC that should be met to deliver more cost-effective care for oncofertility patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing "PARP inhibitors-for-all" to the biomarker-directed use of PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials evaluating universal PARP inhibitor (PARPi) frontline maintenance therapy for advanced stage ovarian cancer have reported progression-free survival (PFS) benefit. It is unclear whether PARPi maintenance therapy will universally enhance value (clinical benefits relative to cost of delivery). We compared a "PARPi-for-all" to a biomarker-directed frontline maintenance therapy approach as a value-based care strategy. METHODS: The cost of two frontline PARPi maintenance strategies, PARPi-for-all and biomarker-directed maintenance, was compared using modified Markov decision models simulating the study designs of the PRIMA, VELIA, and, PAOLA-1 trials. Outcomes of interest included overall costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported in US dollars per quality adjusted progression-free life-year (QA-PFY) gained. RESULTS: PARPi-for-all was more costly and provided greater PFS benefit than a biomarker-directed strategy for each trial. The mean cost per patient for the PARPi-for-all strategy was $166,269, $286,715, and $366,506 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models, respectively. For the biomarker-directed strategy, the mean cost per patient was $98,188, $167,334, and $260,671 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models. ICERs of PARPi-for-all compared to biomarker-directed maintenance were: $593,250/QA-PFY (PRIMA), $1,512,495/QA-PFY (VELIA), and $3,347,915/QA-PFY (PAOLA-1). At current drug pricing, there is no PFS improvement in a biomarker negative cohort that would make PARPi-for-all cost-effective compared to biomarker-directed maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the high costs of universal PARPi maintenance treatment, compared with a biomarker-directed PARPi strategy. Maintenance therapy in the front-line setting should be reserved for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations until the cost of therapy is significantly reduced.

Estimating the number of potential family members eligible for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing in a "Traceback" approach.

U.S. guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 mutation testing for women diagnosed with high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) to increase recognition of carriers, but most remain unidentified and at risk. Accordingly, an approach termed "Traceback" has been proposed in which probands are retrospectively identified by testing archived pathology specimens, and family members are traced to provide genetic counseling and testing. We used population-based data to estimate the number of family members who might be contacted through such a program. We used incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program to estimate the number of women diagnosed with HGOC from 2005 to 2016, and census data to estimate the number of spouses, offspring, and siblings (both sexes). Using overall survival for HGOC from SEER and all-cause mortality rates from the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention, we estimated the number of patients, spouses, offspring, and siblings of HGOC cases living in 2017. Due to the high mortality rate of HGOC, consent from living probands may be possible in only 42% of the cases; consent to test pathology specimens would need to be sought from next of kin for the remainder. In 2017, an estimated 406,919 living next of kin (spouses, siblings, offspring) would be available for potential consent. Testing archived ovarian cancer pathology specimens may enable the identification of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, but consent from next of kin would be required in in 58% of cases. Although Traceback offers the possibility of identifying unaffected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, pilot feasibility studies that include assessment of methods to secure consent are needed.