Patterns of use of primary and first-line chemotherapy for recurrence among patients with cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about real-world patterns of chemotherapy use in patients with cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE: To examine the patterns of chemotherapy use in patients with cervical cancer METHODS: We identified patients with cervical cancer in the IBM MarketScan Database who underwent primary hysterectomy or radiation therapy between 2011 and 2020 and described their treatment in the primary setting and at first recurrence. RESULTS: We identified 5390 patients: 2667 (49.5%) underwent primary hysterectomy and 2723 (50.5%) primary radiotherapy. Among patients who underwent primary hysterectomy, 979 (36.7%) received adjuvant radiation, and 617 (23.1%) received primary chemotherapy. The most common chemotherapy regimens were single-agent platinum (51.7%), platinum combination therapy (42.9%), and non-platinum (3.4%). Among patients treated with primary radiation, 73.6% received primary/concurrent chemotherapy, either platinum alone (66.4% of those who received chemotherapy), platinum combinations (32.2%), or non-platinum (1.4%). The median duration of primary chemotherapy was 1.2 months. Therapy for recurrent cervical cancer was initiated in 959 patients. The most common regimens were platinum combination (63.9%), non-platinum cytotoxic agents (16.5%), single-agent platinum (14.9%), targeted therapy with bevacizumab (6.0%), and immunotherapy with pembrolizumab (3.2%). Overall, the proportion of patients treated with single-agent platinum therapy increased from 17.4% in 2011 to 32.1% in 2019, while platinum combinations decreased from 64.1% to 41.5% over the same years. Use of non-platinum agents increased from 18.5% in 2011 to 32.9% in 2018 and 26.4% in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the most commonly used therapy in patients with cervical cancer in the primary setting and at the time of recurrence. The rate of use of non-platinum agents at first recurrence has increased over time.

Utilization and outcomes of adjuvant therapy for stage II and III uterine leiomyosarcoma.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal adjuvant therapy for uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) remains uncertain. We analyzed the utilization of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for stage II and III uLMS and explored the association between use of adjuvant therapy and survival. METHODS: Patients with stage II or III uLMS treated from 2004 to 2016 and recorded in the National Cancer Database were identified. Multivariable regression models were fit to estimate predictors of use of either adjuvant radiation therapy or chemotherapy. To analyze the impact of chemotherapy on all-cause mortality, an inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) propensity score method was used to account for measured confounders, and the receipt of radiation therapy was adjusted in the outcome model. The process was repeated to analyze the impact of radiation therapy on all-cause mortality by using an IPTW propensity score method and adjusting for the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 890 patients were identified. Adjuvant chemotherapy use increased from 62.2% in 2010 to 70.4% in 2016, whereas radiation usage decreased from 26.7% in 2010 to 10.4% in 2016. Patients with stage III (vs. stage II) disease were less likely to receive radiation therapy. After propensity score weighting, chemotherapy was associated with a 30% decreased risk of all-cause mortality in stage III patients (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45-0.98) but had no effect on mortality for stage II patients (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70-1.20). Radiation therapy was associated with a 26% decreased risk of mortality for stage II tumors (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99) and a 57% decrease in mortality for stage III disease (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.18-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with stage II-III uLMS, use of chemotherapy is increasing while use of radiation therapy is decreasing. Radiation therapy is associated with improved survival in both stage II and III disease, while there was no association between use of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in stage II patients.

Ultrasound location of intrauterine devices placed at cesarean section over the first year postpartum.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to measure IUD-fundus and IUD-myometrium distances by ultrasound of IUDs placed during cesarean section over the first year of use. The secondary objective was to determine if these distances are associated with risk of expulsion or removal for side effects. STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective observational study, we performed ultrasounds at six - ten weeks, three months and one year postpartum to measure the distance from the top of the device to the fundal serosa (IUD-fundus) and upper margin of the endometrial cavity (IUD-myometrium). We also assessed IUD expulsion or discontinuation for side effects at each visit. RESULTS: We enrolled 93 women who had copper (n = 77) or levonorgestrel (n = 16) IUDs placed at time of cesarean section. Two patients had complete expulsion, six had partial expulsion and nine requested removal for symptoms. Overall, median IUD-fundus measurements were 2.13 cm (IQR 1.87-2.55) at 6-10 weeks, 1.87 cm (IQR 1.53-2.23) at 3-months and 2.02 cm (IQR 1.67-2.40) at 1-year. Among copper IUD users, distances at six weeks and three months were similar in women who did or did not have expulsion or removal at one year however small numbers limit our ability to assess this relationship. CONCLUSION: We describe the location on ultrasound of IUDs placed at the time of Cesarean section over the first year. We found similar IUD locations at six weeks and three months for participants who did or did not experience expulsion or removal by one year. IMPLICATIONS: Position of intrauterine devices placed during cesarean section was similar for those who did or did not have expulsion or removal for symptoms in the first year after placement. These data may help in the design of future studies to determine if ultrasound measurement of IUDs predicts IUD complications.