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.

Weight-loss therapy in patients with obesity with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia and uterine cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Although obesity is an important risk factor for endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and uterine cancer, little is known about the trends in use of weight-loss therapy for patients with obesity with EIN and uterine cancer. We examined the use of weight-loss therapy among patients with obesity with EIN and uterine cancer. METHODS: The Merative MarketScan Database was used to identify patients aged 18-70 years who were obese and diagnosed with EIN or uterine cancer. The primary treatment for EIN or uterine cancer was categorized as either primary hysterectomy or hormonal therapy. Nutrition counseling, bariatric surgeries, and weight-management medications were identified as weight-loss therapy. We analyzed trends in the use of any weight-loss therapies with Cochran-Armitage tests. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to examine factors associated with weight-loss therapy use. RESULTS: Overall, 15,374 patients were identified, including 5561 (36.2%) patients with EIN and obesity, and 9813 (63.8%) patients with uterine cancer and obesity. Weight-loss therapy was utilized within 1 year after diagnosis in 480 (8.6%) patients with EIN and in 802 (8.2%) patients with uterine cancer. Use of any weight-loss therapy after diagnosis of EIN increased from 4.1% in 2009 to 12.6% in 2020 (P < .001), and the use of any weight-loss therapy after diagnosis of uterine cancer increased from 4.9% in 2009 to 11.4% in 2020 (P < .001). In a multivariable regression model, younger age and patients with high comorbidity score were associated with a higher likelihood of using any weight-loss therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Use of weight-loss therapy has increased, however there is still a significant underuse of this adjunctive therapy in patients with obesity with EIN or uterine cancer.

Sexual Harassment, Abuse, and Discrimination in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Unlike other surgical specialties, obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) has been predominantly female for the last decade. The association of this with gender bias and sexual harassment is not known. Objective: To systematically review the prevalence of sexual harassment, bullying, abuse, and discrimination among OB-GYN clinicians and trainees and interventions aimed at reducing harassment in OB-GYN and other surgical specialties. Evidence Review: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted to identify studies published from inception through June 13, 2023.: For the prevalence of harassment, OB-GYN clinicians and trainees on OB-GYN rotations in all subspecialties in the US or Canada were included. Personal experiences of harassment (sexual harassment, bullying, abuse, and discrimination) by other health care personnel, event reporting, burnout and exit from medicine, fear of retaliation, and related outcomes were included. Interventions across all surgical specialties in any country to decrease incidence of harassment were also evaluated. Abstracts and potentially relevant full-text articles were double screened.: Eligible studies were extracted into standard forms. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence of included research were assessed. A meta-analysis was not performed owing to heterogeneity of outcomes. Findings: A total of 10 eligible studies among 5852 participants addressed prevalence and 12 eligible studies among 2906 participants addressed interventions. The prevalence of sexual harassment (range, 250 of 907 physicians [27.6%] to 181 of 255 female gynecologic oncologists [70.9%]), workplace discrimination (range, 142 of 249 gynecologic oncologists [57.0%] to 354 of 527 gynecologic oncologists [67.2%] among women; 138 of 358 gynecologic oncologists among males [38.5%]), and bullying (131 of 248 female gynecologic oncologists [52.8%]) was frequent among OB-GYN respondents. OB-GYN trainees commonly experienced sexual harassment (253 of 366 respondents [69.1%]), which included gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. The proportion of OB-GYN clinicians who reported their sexual harassment to anyone ranged from 21 of 250 AAGL (formerly, the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists) members (8.4%) to 32 of 256 gynecologic oncologists (12.5%) compared with 32.6% of OB-GYN trainees. Mistreatment during their OB-GYN rotation was indicated by 168 of 668 medical students surveyed (25.1%). Perpetrators of harassment included physicians (30.1%), other trainees (13.1%), and operating room staff (7.7%). Various interventions were used and studied, which were associated with improved recognition of bias and reporting (eg, implementation of a video- and discussion-based mistreatment program during a surgery clerkship was associated with a decrease in medical student mistreatment reports from 14 reports in previous year to 9 reports in the first year and 4 in the second year after implementation). However, no significant decrease in the frequency of sexual harassment was found with any intervention. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found high rates of harassment behaviors within OB-GYN. Interventions to limit these behaviors were not adequately studied, were limited mostly to medical students, and typically did not specifically address sexual or other forms of harassment.

Trends in uterine cancer incidence in the United States: The contribution of age, period and cohort effects.

OBJECTIVE: In the U.S., uterine cancer incidence is rising, with racial and ethnic minorities experiencing the largest increases. We performed age-period-cohort analyses using novel methods to examine the contribution of age at diagnosis (age), year of diagnosis (period), and birth cohort (cohort), to trends in uterine cancer incidence. METHODS: We used uterine cancer incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) 12 database (1992-2019), and performed hysterectomy-correction. We generated hexamaps to visualize age, period, and cohort effects, and used mutual information to estimate the percent contribution of age, period, and cohort effects, individually and combined, on uterine cancer incidence, overall and by race and ethnicity and histology. RESULTS: Hexamaps showed an increase in uterine cancer in later time periods, and a cohort effect around 1933 showing a lower incidence compared with earlier and later cohorts. Age, period, and cohort effects combined contributed 86.6% (95% CI: 86.4%, 86.9%) to the incidence. Age effects had the greatest contribution (65.1%, 95% CI: 64.3%, 65.9), followed by cohort (20.7%, 95% CI: 20.1%, 21.3%) and period (14.2%, 95% CI: 13.7%, 14.8%) effects. Hexamaps showed higher incidence in recent years for non-Hispanic Blacks and non-endometrioid tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Age effects had the largest contribution to uterine cancer incidence, followed by cohort and period effects overall and across racial and ethnic groups and histologies. IMPACT: These findings can inform uterine cancer modeling studies on the effects of interventions that target risk factors which may vary across age, period, or cohort.

Walking the tightrope: Fertility preservation among hereditary breast and ovarian Cancer syndrome Previvors.

INTRODUCTION: Fertility-related concerns cause significant anxiety among patients with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC). The Society of Gynecologic Oncology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommend patients diagnosed with HBOC receive early referral to a reproductive endocrinologist. However, evidence about fertility trends in this patient population are limited and guidelines are scarce. The aim of this study is to compare fertility preservation among patients with HBOC to control patients undergoing fertility treatment without a diagnosis of infertility. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who presented to a single academic institution for fertility preservation in the setting of diagnosis of HBOC. In this study, HBOC patients are referred to as those who had tested positive for pathogenic mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2 or were at high-risk for HBOC based on a strong family history (defined as >3 family members diagnosed with HBOC) without a genetic mutation. HBOC patients were matched in a 1:1 fashion to a control group undergoing fertility preservation without a diagnosis of infertility or HBOC. All analysis was done using SPSS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). RESULTS: Between August 1st, 2016 and August 1st, 2022, 81 patients presented to the study center for consultation in the setting of HBOC. Of those who presented, 48 (59.2%) ultimately underwent oocyte cryopreservation and 33 (40.7%) underwent embryo cryopreservation. Patients who underwent oocyte cryopreservation due to BRCA1 status were more likely to present for fertility consultation at a younger age compared to control patients (32.6 vs. 34.7 years, p = 0.03) and were more likely to undergo oocyte cryopreservation at a younger age (32.1 vs. 34.6 years, p = 0.007). There was no difference in age at initial consultation or age at procedure for patients with BRCA2 or patients with a strong family history compared to control patients (p > 0.05). There was no difference in the mean age of patients with HBOC at presentation for consultation for embryo cryopreservation or the mean age the patient with HBOC underwent embryo cryopreservation compared to control patients (p > 0.05). Patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 did not have expedited time from consultation to first cycle start (p > 0.05). After adjusting for factors including anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level and age, patients considered in the HBOC group due to family history had less time between consultation and oocyte cryopreservation cycle compared to control patients. (179 vs. 317 days, p = 0.045). There was no difference in time from consultation to starting cycle for embryo cryopreservation for patients with HBOC compared to controls (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with HBOC did not undergo expedited fertility treatment compared to control patients undergoing oocyte and embryo cryopreservation for non-infertility reasons. Patients diagnosed with BRCA1 had more oocytes retrieved compared to the control population which is possibly due to earlier age of presentation in the setting of recommended age of risk reducing surgery being age 35-40. When age matched, cycle outcomes did not differ between HBOC and control patients. Given the known cancer prevention benefit and recommendations for risk-reducing surgery, future studies should focus on guidelines for fertility preservation for patients with HBOC.

Mitigating disparity?: Treatment patterns, survival, and recurrence rates by race, ethnicity, and hospital site across a large urban health system.

Objective: National data have shown worse endometrial cancer (EC) outcomes among racial and ethnic minorities. We aimed to analyze EC patient outcomes within a large urban academic health system, with a focus on patterns of care and recurrence rates. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of EC patients at three system hospitals from 1/1/07-12/31/17. Demographic and clinical factors, including time from EMB to surgery, rate of chemotherapy completion, persistent or recurrent disease, and palliative care referrals were extracted. Descriptive statistics and survival curves were generated. Analysis was done using SAS version 9.4. Results: Black patients had lower overall survival compared to all others on univariate analysis only (p < 0.0001). Hospital site was associated with OS, with the academic anchor and satellite 1 having higher rates of all-cause mortality compared to satellite 2 (HR 4.68 academic anchor, 95 % CI 1.72-12.76, HR 5.36 satellite 1, 95 % CI 1.85-15.52). Time from EMB to surgery and rates of persistent disease following primary treatment were higher in Black patients. After adjusting for stage and grade, chemotherapy completion rate was significantly associated with race. Palliative care was utilized more for Black than White patients after adjusting for stage and grade (p = 0.005). Conclusions: Racial disparities in EC are caused by a complex web of interconnected factors that ultimately lead to worse outcomes in Black women. While precision medicine has helped to close the gap, social determinants of health should be addressed, and models focusing on the complex interactions between biologic, genetic, and social factors should be utilized.

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

▪ ▪ ▪.

Personalized survivorship care: Routine breast cancer risk assessment in the gynecologic oncology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Gynecologic and breast cancers share several risk factors. Breast cancer risk assessment tools can identify those at elevated risk and allow for enhanced breast surveillance and chemoprevention, however such tools are underutilized. We aim to evaluate the use of routine breast cancer risk assessment in a gynecologic oncology clinic. METHODS: A patient-facing web-based tool was used to collect personal and family history and run four validated breast cancer risk assessment models (Tyrer-Cuzick (TC), Gail, BRCAPRO, and Claus) in a gynecologic oncology clinic. We evaluated completion of the tools and identification of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer using the four validated models. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients were included in this analysis. The BRCAPRO model had the highest completion rate (84.8%), followed by the TC model (74.7%), Gail model (74.7%), and the Claus model (52.1%). The TC model identified 21.6% of patients completing the model as having ≥20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, compared to 6.8% by the Gail model, and 0% for both the BRCAPRO and Claus models. The Gail model identified 52.5% of patients as having ≥1.67% 5-year risk of breast cancer. Among patients identified as high-risk for breast cancer and eligible for screening, 9/9 (100%) were referred to a high-risk breast clinic. CONCLUSION: Among patients that completed the TC breast cancer risk assessment in a gynecologic oncology clinic, approximately 1 in 5 were identified to be at significantly elevated lifetime risk for breast cancer. The gynecologic oncologist's office might offer a convenient and feasible setting to incorporate this risk assessment into routine patient care, as gynecologic oncologists often have long-term patient relationships and participate in survivorship care.

Worse Depression Profiles Are Associated With Higher Symptom Burden and Poorer Quality of Life in Patients With Gynecologic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a pervasive symptom in patients with gynecological cancer undergoing chemotherapy. OBJECTIVES: Purposes were to identify subgroups of patients with distinct depression profiles and evaluate for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, severity of common symptoms, and quality of life (QOL) outcomes among these subgroups. METHODS: Patients with gynecological cancer (n = 231) completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale 6 times over 2 cycles of chemotherapy. All of the other measures were completed prior to the second or third cycle of chemotherapy. Latent profile analysis was done to identify the distinct depression profiles. Differences were evaluated using parametric and nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Three distinct profiles were identified: low (60.1%), high (35.1%), and very high (4.8%). Compared with low class, the other 2 classes had lower functional status and were more likely to self-report a diagnosis of depression. Patients in the 2 worse profiles reported a higher comorbidity burden, higher levels of trait and state anxiety, sleep disturbance, and fatigue, as well as lower levels of cognitive function and poorer QOL. State and trait anxiety, evening fatigue, and sleep disturbance scores exhibit a "dose-response effect" (ie, as the depression profile worsened, the severity of these symptoms increased). CONCLUSIONS: Almost 40% of our sample experienced high or very high levels of depression across 2 cycles of chemotherapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Clinicians can use the identified risk factors to identify high patients risk and provide tailored psychological interventions aimed to decrease symptom burden and prevent decrements in QOL.

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.

Durvalumab Plus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel Followed by Maintenance Durvalumab With or Without Olaparib as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Endometrial Cancer: The Phase III DUO-E Trial.

PURPOSE: Immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations have shown activity in endometrial cancer, with greater benefit in mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient (dMMR) than MMR-proficient (pMMR) disease. Adding a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor may improve outcomes, especially in pMMR disease. METHODS: This phase III, global, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer 1:1:1 to: carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control arm); carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib placebo (durvalumab arm); or carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib arm). The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the durvalumab arm versus control and the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control. RESULTS: Seven hundred eighteen patients were randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population, statistically significant PFS benefit was observed in the durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89]; P = .003) and durvalumab + olaparib arms (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.69]; P < .0001) versus control. Prespecified, exploratory subgroup analyses showed PFS benefit in dMMR (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.80]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75]) and pMMR subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control] 0.57; [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.73]); and in PD-L1-positive subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.83]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.57]). Interim overall survival results (maturity approximately 28%) were supportive of the primary outcomes (durvalumab v control: HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.07]; P = .120; durvalumab + olaparib v control: HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83]; P = .003). The safety profiles of the experimental arms were generally consistent with individual agents. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS benefit in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

Remotely Delivered Cancer Genetic Testing in the Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) Trial: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Requiring personalized genetic counseling may introduce barriers to cancer risk assessment, but it is unknown whether omitting counseling could increase distress. Objective: To assess whether omitting pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling would increase distress during remote testing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) was a 4-arm, randomized noninferiority trial testing the effects of individualized pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling on participant distress 3 and 12 months posttest. Participants were recruited via social and traditional media, and enrollment occurred between April 27, 2017, and September 29, 2020. Participants were women aged 30 years or older, English-speaking, US residents, and had access to the internet and a health care professional. Previous cancer genetic testing or counseling was exclusionary. In the family history cohort, participants had a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. In the familial pathogenic variant (PV) cohort, participants reported 1 biological relative with a PV in an actionable cancer susceptibility gene. Data analysis was performed between December 13, 2020, and May 31, 2023. Intervention: Participants completed baseline questionnaires, watched an educational video, and were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: the control arm with pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling, or 1 of 3 study arms without pretest and posttest counseling. Genetic counseling was provided by phone appointments and testing was done using home-delivered saliva kits. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was participant distress measured by the Impact of Event Scale 3 months after receiving the results. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret. Results: A total of 3839 women (median age, 44 years [range 22-91 years]), most of whom were non-Hispanic White and college educated, were randomized, 3125 in the family history and 714 in the familial PV cohorts. In the primary analysis in the family history cohort, all experimental arms were noninferior for distress at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months. The highest completion rates were seen in the 2 arms without pretest counseling. Conclusions and Relevance: In the MAGENTA clinical trial, omitting individualized pretest counseling for all participants and posttest counseling for those without PV during remote genetic testing was not inferior with regard to posttest distress, providing an alternative care model for genetic risk assessment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993068.

Letters of recommendation for gynecologic oncology fellowship differ by gender and race.

INTRODUCTION: Letters of recommendation (LOR) play a significant role in applicant selection for gynecologic oncology (GO) fellowship. LORs can be agentic, associated with competence, independence and strength, or communal, associated with being accommodating, cooperative and empathetic. Agentic LORs have been shown to reflect favorably on applicants, making them more likely to be selected for interview. The primary goal of this study was to determine linguistic differences in LORs for applicants applying to GO fellowship based on applicant gender and race. METHODS: All applications to a single academic institution from the years 2018-2020 were analyzed. LORs were extracted from all applicants who self-reported their gender and race/ethnicity. Analysis was performed using Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) in terms of agentic and communal language. All analysis was done using SAS version 9.4. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2020, there were 239 GO fellowship applications to a single academic institution. There were 186 (78.1%) applicants who identified as female and 52 (21.8%) who identified as male. Female applicants were more likely to have more research (p = 0.047) and volunteer activities (p = 0.02) than male applicants. There were no differences between female and male applicants in terms of age, geographic location of residency, USMLE scores, AOA status, number of publications or attending a Doximitiy-rated top 20 residency program. There were 139 (60.7%) applicants who identified as White, 46 (20.1%) as Asian, 16 (7.0%) as Black, 19 (8.3%) as Latinx and 9 (3.9%) as other. On multivariable analysis, LORs written for male applicants had higher agentic scores compared to females (p < 0.05), and LORs of female applicants received higher communal scores (p < 0.05). LORs for applicants who identified as Black or Latinx were found to have lower agentic scores compared to individuals who identified as White(p < 0.05 for both). CONCLUSION: There were demonstrated linguistic differences in LOR for GO fellowship based on applicant gender and race/ethnicity. LORs written for white, male applicants were more likely to have higher agentic scores compared to minority, female applicants. LORs written for female applicants were more likely to have higher communal scores. As LORs have been shown to be instrumental in GO fellowship interview selection and linguistic differences exist based on applicant gender and race/ethnicity, this study highlights the need for a more objective GO fellowship application process. DISCLOSURES: Portion of this paper was presented at the Society for Gynecologic Oncology as part of a focus plenary.

Identification of distinct symptom profiles in patients with gynecologic cancers using a pre-specified symptom cluster.

PURPOSE: Pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and depression are four of the most common symptoms in patients with gynecologic cancer. The purposes were to identify subgroups of patients with distinct co-occurring pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and depression profiles (i.e., pre-specified symptom cluster) in a sample of patients with gynecologic cancer receiving chemotherapy and assess for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the severity of other common symptoms and QOL outcomes among these subgroups. METHODS: Patients completed symptom questionnaires prior to their second or third cycle of chemotherapy. Latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups of patients using the pre-specified symptom cluster. Parametric and nonparametric tests were used to evaluate for differences between the subgroups. RESULTS: In the sample of 233 patients, two distinct latent classes were identified (i.e., low (64.8%) and high (35.2%)) indicating lower and higher levels of symptom burden. Patients in high class were younger, had child care responsibilities, were unemployed, and had a lower annual income. In addition, these women had a higher body mass index, a higher comorbidity burden, and a lower functional status. Patients in the high class reported higher levels of anxiety, as well as lower levels of energy and cognitive function and poorer quality of life scores. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a number of modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors associated with membership in the high class. Clinicians can use this information to refer patients to dieticians and physical therapists for tailored interventions.

Outcomes for patients with high-risk endometrial cancer undergoing sentinel lymph node assessment versus full lymphadenectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among patients with high-risk endometrial cancer (EC) who underwent sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping and dissection compared to patients who underwent pelvic +/- para-aortic lymphadenectomy (LND). METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed high-risk EC were identified. Inclusion criteria included patients who underwent primary surgical management from January 1, 2014 to September 1, 2020 at our institution. Patients were categorized into either the SLN or LND group based on their method of planned lymph node assessment. Patients in the SLN group had dye injected followed by successful bilateral lymph node mapping, retrieval, and processing per our institutional protocol. Clinicopathological and follow-up data were extracted from patient's medical records. The t-test or Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous variables and Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test were used for categorical variables. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from the date of initial surgery to the date of progression, death, or last follow-up. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of surgical staging to the date of death or last follow-up. Three-year PFS and OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to compare cohorts. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the relationship between nodal assessment cohort and OS/PFS while adjusting for age, adjuvant therapy, and surgical approach. A result was considered statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level of significance and all statistical analysis was done using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). RESULTS: Out of 674 patients diagnosed with EC during the study period, 189 were diagnosed with high-risk EC based on our criteria. Forty-six (23.7%) patients underwent SLN assessment and 143 (73.7%) underwent LND. No difference was observed between the two groups in regards to age, histology, stage, body mass index, tumors myometrial invasion, lymphovascular space invasion, or peritoneal washing positivity. Patients in the SLN group underwent robotic-assisted procedures more frequently than those in the LND group (p < 0.0001). The three-year PFS rate was 71.1% (95% CI 51.3-84.0%) in the SLN group and 71.3% (95% CI 62.0-78.6%) in the LND group (p = 0.91). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence in the SLN versus LND group was 1.11 (95% CI 0.56-2.18; p = 0.77), and after adjusting for age, adjuvant therapy, and surgical approach, the HR for recurrence was 1.04 (95% CI 0.47-2.30, p = 0.91). The three-year OS rate was 81.1% (95% CI 51.1-93.7%) in the SLN group and 95.1% (95% CI 89.4-97.8%) in the LND group (p = 0.009). Although the unadjusted HR for death was 3.74 in the SLN vs LND group (95% CI 1.39-10.09; p = 0.009), when adjusted for age, adjuvant therapy, and surgical approach, it was no longer significant with a HR of 2.90 (95% CI 0.94-8.95, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in three-year PFS in patients diagnosed with high-risk EC who underwent SLN evaluation compared to those who underwent full LND in our cohort. The SLN group did experience shorter unadjusted OS; however, when adjusting for age, adjuvant therapy and surgical approach, there was no difference OS in patients who underwent SLN compared to LND.

Missing a chance to prevent: disparities in completion of genetic evaluation in high-risk patients with endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this study is to examine disparities in high-risk endometrial cancer (EC) patients in relation to rates of genetic referrals (GR), testing (GT), and counseling (GC). METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients with newly diagnosed EC between January 1, 2014 and September 1, 2020 at a single institution. Patients were defined as high-risk EC patients when they were 1) diagnosed at 50 years or younger, 2) had a positive family history for cancer or 3) had evidence of loss of mismatch repair protein expression on tumor immunohistochemistry. Rates of GR, GT and GC were analyzed based on race, ethnicity, primary language and insurance status. RESULTS: During the study period, 674 patients were diagnosed with EC and 249 (36.9%) were considered high-risk EC patients. Among high-risk patients, 128 (51.2%) were referred to GT and GC. Of those referred, 103 (80.5%) underwent GT and 85 (66.4%) completed GC. Out of all high-risk patients, 20 (18.4%) were positive for LS on GT and 29 (28.2%) had VUS results. In multivariate analysis, the odds of GT and GC referral were lower among patients who identified as Hispanic (OR=0.40; 95% CI=0.19-0.87; p=0.020). Patients who identified as black were less likely to receive GC when compared to patients of other races (p=0.030). CONCLUSION: It is our hope that through this data we will increase awareness around existing disparities in genetic evaluation for patients with EC and ultimately create strategies to improve equitable access to care for all patients.

Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 1% of individuals have a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, however, the majority are not aware. Collecting a cancer family history (CFH) can triage patients to receive genetic testing. To rigorously assess different methods of CFH collection, we compared a web-based tool (WBT) to usual care (clinician collects CFH) in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: New gynecologic oncology patients (seen 9/2019-9/2021) were randomized to one of three arms in a 2:2:1 allocation ratio: 1) usual care clinician CFH collection, 2) WBT completed at home, or 3) WBT completed in office. The WBT generated a cancer-focused pedigree and scores on eight validated cancer risk models. The primary outcome was collection of an adequate CFH (based on established guidelines) with usual care versus the WBT. RESULTS: We enrolled 250 participants (usual care - 110; WBT home - 105; WBT office - 35 [closed early due to COVID-19]). Within WBT arms, 109 (78%) participants completed the tool, with higher completion for office versus home (33 [94%] vs. 76 [72%], P = 0.008). Among participants completing the WBT, 63 (58%) had an adequate CFH versus 5 (5%) for usual care (P < 0.001). Participants completing the WBT were significantly more likely to complete genetic counseling (34 [31%] vs. 15 [14%], P = 0.002) and genetic testing (20 [18%] vs. 9 [8%], P = 0.029). Participant and provider WBT experience was favorable. CONCLUSIONS: WBTs for CFH collection are a promising application of health information technology, resulting in more comprehensive CFH and a significantly greater percentage of participants completing genetic counseling and testing.

The use of Instagram by gynecologic oncology providers as a patient education tool for patients at high-risk of gynecologic cancer.

Social media outlets have increased in popularity within the last decade and are influencing the ways in which patients interact with the healthcare system. The objective of this study is to examine the presence of gynecologic oncology divisions on Instagram and to analyze the content of their posts. Secondary objectives included examining and analyzing the use of Instagram as a tool for patient education among people at increased genetic risk of gynecologic cancers. Seventy-one NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, their gynecologic oncology divisions and hereditary gynecologic cancer related posts were searched on Instagram. Content was reviewed and authorship was analyzed. Of the 71 NCI-designated Cancer Centers, 29 (40.8 %) had Instagram accounts, whereas, four (6 %) gynecologic oncology divisions had Instagram accounts. The search of the seven most common gynecologic oncology genetic terms yielded 126,750 posts with the majority under BRCA1(n = 56,900) and BRCA2 (n = 45,000) followed by Lynch syndrome (n = 14,700) and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (n = 8,900). In terms of authorship, 93 (66 %) of all top 140 posts were written by patients, 20 (14.2 %) were written by health care providers and 27 (19.3 %) were written by "other." This study highlights the lack of presence of divisions of gynecologic oncology at NCI-designated Cancer Centers on Instagram but does demonstrate the existence of active discussion on hereditary gynecologic cancers on Instagram by patients.