Fertility-sparing surgery vs standard surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: difference in 5-year life expectancy by tumor size.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer incidence among premenopausal women is rising, and fertility-sparing surgery serves as an important option for this young population. There is a lack of evidence on what tumor size cutoff should be used to define candidacy for fertility-sparing surgery. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe how the association between fertility-sparing surgery (compared with standard surgery) and life expectancy varies by tumor size among patients with cervical cancers measuring ≤4 cm in largest diameter. Our secondary objective was to quantify the probability of undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy among patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery as a function of tumor size. STUDY DESIGN: We identified patients in the National Cancer Database aged ≤45 years, diagnosed with stage I cervical cancer with tumors ≤4 cm between 2006 and 2018, who received no preoperative radiation or chemotherapy, and who underwent either fertility-sparing surgery (cone or trachelectomy, either simple or radical) or standard surgery (simple or radical hysterectomy) as their primary treatment. Propensity-score matching was performed to compare patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery with those who underwent standard surgery. A flexible parametric model was employed to quantify the difference in life expectancy within 5 years of diagnosis (restricted mean survival time) based on tumor size among patients who underwent fertility-sparing and those who underwent standard surgery. In addition, among those who underwent fertility-sparing surgery, a logistic regression model was used to explore the relationship between tumor size and the probability of receiving adjuvant radiation. RESULTS: A total of 11,946 patients met the inclusion criteria of whom 904 (7.6%) underwent fertility-sparing surgery. After propensity-score matching, 897 patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery were matched 1:1 with those who underwent standard surgery. Although the 5-year life expectancy was similar among patients who had fertility sparing surgery and those who had standard surgery regardless of tumor sizes, the estimates of life-expectancy differences associated with fertility-sparing surgery were more precise among patients with smaller tumors (1-cm tumor: restricted mean survival time difference, -0.10 months; 95% confidence interval, -0.67 to 0.47) than among those with larger tumors (4-cm tumor: restricted mean survival time difference, -0.11 months; 95% confidence interval, -3.79 to 3.57). The probability of receiving adjuvant radiation increased with tumor size, ranging from 5.6% (95% confidence interval, 3.9-7.9) for a 1-cm tumor to 37% (95% confidence interval, 24.3-51.8) for a 4-cm tumor. CONCLUSION: Within 5 years of diagnosis, young patients with stage I cancers measuring ≤4 cm had similar survival outcomes after either fertility-sparing surgery or standard surgery. However, because few patients with tumors >2 cm underwent fertility-sparing surgery, a clinically important survival difference could not be excluded in this population.

Cancer diagnosis during pregnancy is associated with severe maternal and neonatal morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Data on maternal and fetal outcomes in patients diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy are limited. Given expected increase in patients diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy, there is a growing need to evaluate clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate obstetric outcomes among women with early-stage gynecologic or breast cancer who were diagnosed during pregnancy compared to women without cancer in a population-based cohort. METHODS: We performed a population-based study of women aged 18-45 years with stage I gynecologic or stage I-III breast cancer reported to the California Cancer Registry for the years 2000-2012. Data were linked to the 2000-2012 California birth data to produce a database with cancer characteristics and obstetric outcomes. We included patients who had a delivery within the 10 months following cancer diagnosis. The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity (SMM). Secondary outcomes included pre-term birth (PTB) and neonatal morbidity. Propensity scores were used to match similar controls to cases in a 2:1 ratio based on demographic attributes and medical comorbidities included in the Obstetric Comorbidity Index (OB-CMI). Logistic regressions were used to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 503 women with cancer in pregnancy (319 breast, 125 ovarian, 59 cervical), and 1,006 matched controls. Cancer during pregnancy was associated with higher odds of SMM (6.8% vs <1.1%; odds ratio [OR] 8.03, 95% CI 3.82-16.88), PTB between 32-36 weeks (32.6% vs 8.3%, OR 5.38, 95% CI 4.02-7.20), and neonatal morbidity (12.5% vs 6.1%; OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.53-3.21) compared to matched controls. In sub-analysis of SMM indicators, hysterectomy and sepsis were significantly associated with cancer during pregnancy (4.8% vs <1.1%, P<.001; <2.2% vs 0.0%, P=.037, respectively). CONCLUSION: Cancer during pregnancy is associated with increased risk of maternal and neonatal morbidity. These findings highlight the need for careful management and consideration of obstetric outcomes in these patients.

Secondary databases in gynecologic cancer research.

Observational and cohort studies using large databases have made important contributions to gynecologic oncology. Knowledge of the advantages and potential limitations of commonly used databases benefits both readers and reviewers. In this review, researchers familiar with National Cancer Database (NCDB), Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER), SEER-Medicare, MarketScan, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and Premier, describe each database, its included data, access, management, storage, highlights, and limitations. A better understanding of these commonly used datasets can help readers, reviewers, and researchers to more effectively interpret and apply study results, evaluate new research studies, and develop compelling and practice-changing research.

Adjuvant external beam radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy for intermediate-risk cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with intermediate-risk cervical cancer receive external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) as adjuvant treatment. It is commonly administered with brachytherapy without proven benefits. Therefore, we evaluated the frequency of brachytherapy use, the doses for EBRT administered alone or with brachytherapy, and the overall survival impact of brachytherapy in patients with intermediate-risk, early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed using data collected from the National Cancer Database. Patients diagnosed with cervical cancer from 2004 to 2019 who underwent a radical hysterectomy and lymph node staging and had disease limited to the cervix but with tumors larger than 4 cm or ranging from 2 to 4 cm with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) were included. Patients with distant metastasis or parametrial involvement were excluded. Patients who underwent EBRT alone were compared with those who also received brachytherapy after 2:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: In total, 1174 patients met the inclusion criteria, and 26.7% of them received brachytherapy. After 2:1 propensity score matching, we included 620 patients in the EBRT group and 312 in the combination treatment group. Patients who received brachytherapy had higher equivalent doses than those only receiving EBRT. Overall survival did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio (HR) 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62 to 1.23]; p=0.45). After stratification according to tumor histology, LVSI, and surgical approach, brachytherapy was not associated with improved overall survival. However, in patients who did not receive concomitant chemotherapy, the overall survival rate for those receiving EBRT and brachytherapy was significantly higher than that for those receiving EBRT alone (HR, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.86]; p=0.011). CONCLUSION: About one-fourth of the study patients received brachytherapy and EBRT. The variability in the doses and radiotherapy techniques used highlights treatment heterogeneity. Overall survival did not differ for EBRT with and without brachytherapy. However, overall survival was longer for patients who received brachytherapy but did not receive concomitant chemotherapy.

Racial and sociodemographic disparities in the use of targeted therapies in advanced ovarian cancer patients with Medicare.

OBJECTIVE: To describe sociodemographic and racial disparities in receipt of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and bevacizumab among insured patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database to identify patients with advanced stage, high grade serous ovarian cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. The primary outcome of interest was receipt of PARPi or bevacizumab at any time after diagnosis. χ2 tests were used to compare categorical variables. Factors independently associated with the receipt of PARPi and/or bevacizumab were identified using a multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The cohort included 6242 patients; 276 (4.4%) received PARPi, 2142 (34.3%) received bevacizumab, and 389 (6.2%) received both. Receipt of either targeted treatment increased over the study period. On univariate analysis, patients who received either targeted therapy were younger (63% vs 48% aged <75 years; p<0.001), had a lower comorbidity index (86% vs 80% Charlson Comorbidity Index 0-1; p<0.001), and higher socioeconomic status (74% vs 71% high socioeconomic status; p=0.047) compared with those who did not receive targeted therapy. In the multivariable model, non-Hispanic black patients were less likely than non-Hispanic white patients to receive either targeted therapy (odds ratio 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.98; p=0.032). Older patients (aged >74 years) were also less likely to receive PARPi or bevacizumab compared with those aged 65-69 years (all p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Sociodemographic and racial disparities exist in receipt of PARPi and bevacizumab among patients with advanced ovarian cancer insured by Medicare. As targeted therapies become more commonly used, a widening disparity gap is likely.

The association of the chemotherapy response score and homologous recombination deficiency in patients undergoing interval tumor reductive surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: In patients undergoing interval tumor reductive surgery, a good response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy may limit available tumor for homologous recombination deficiency testing. The objective of this study was to assess whether the chemotherapy response score predicts homologous recombination status. METHODS: We identified patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (diagnosed January 2019 to 20 June 2023) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, underwent interval surgery, and for whom a chemotherapy response score was reported (1=no or minimal tumor response, 2=appreciable tumor response, 3=complete or near complete response with no residual tumor). Comparisons were made using ANOVAs or Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and χ2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 234 patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent interval surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Of those who underwent germline genetic testing, 22% (51/232) had a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and of those with tumors sent for testing, 65% were found to have homologous recombination deficiency (66/146). With increasing chemotherapy response scores, a higher likelihood of a complete gross resection was observed (50% (chemotherapy response score, CRS 1) vs 77% (CRS 2) vs 88% (CRS 3), p<0.001). On multivariable analysis, CRS 2 (adjusted odds ratio=3.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 9.60, p=0.03) and CRS 3 (5.83, 1.79 to 18.93, p=0.003) were independently associated with homologous recombination deficiency compared with CRS 1. CONCLUSION: A positive response to chemotherapy at the time of interval tumor reductive surgery defined by the chemotherapy response score was associated with homologous recombination status and the likelihood of achieving a complete gross resection.

Delivery of hereditary cancer genetics services to patients newly diagnosed with ovarian and endometrial cancers at three gynecologic oncology clinics in the USA, Brazil, and Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: Three gynecologic oncology clinics located in the USA, Brazil, and Mexico collaborated to evaluate their delivery of hereditary cancer genetics services. This descriptive retrospective review study aimed to establish baseline rates and timeliness of guideline-recommended genetics service delivery to patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, primary peritoneal (ovarian), and endometrial cancers at each clinic. METHODS: Patients who were newly diagnosed with ovarian and endometrial cancers between September 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020 were identified from the medical records of the clinics. Genetics service delivery metrics included the rates of mismatch repair deficiency tumor testing for patients with endometrial cancer (microsatellite instability/immunohistochemistry, MSI/IHC), referral to genetics services for patients with ovarian cancer, completed genetics consultations, and germline genetic testing for patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers. Timeliness was calculated as the average number of days between diagnosis and the relevant delivery metric. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data. RESULTS: In total, 1195 patients (596 with ovarian cancer, 599 with endometrial cancer) were included in the analysis, and rates of genetics service delivery varied by clinic. For patients with ovarian cancer, referral rates ranged by clinic from 32.6% to 89.5%; 30.4-65.1% of patients completed genetics consultation and 32.6-68.7% completed genetic testing. The timeliness to genetic testing for patients with ovarian cancer ranged by clinic from 107 to 595 days. A smaller proportion of patients with endometrial cancer completed MSI/IHC testing (10.0-69.2%), with the average time to MSI/IHC ranging from 15 to 282 days. Rates of genetics consultation among patients with endometrial cancer ranged by clinic from 10.8% to 26.0% and 12.5-16.6% completed genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: All clinics successfully established baseline rates and timeliness of delivering hereditary cancer genetics services to patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers. Lower rates of delivering genetics services to patients with endometrial cancer warrant additional research and quality improvement efforts.

Recurrence After Biopsy-Confirmed Cervical High-Grade Intraepithelial Lesion Followed by Negative Conization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: The aim of the study is to assess the recurrence rate (as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ [CIN2+]) in patients who had a confirmed high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (CIN2-3) in a cervical biopsy specimen followed by a negative conization specimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Ovid/MEDLINE, Ovid/Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until January 2023. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID number CRD42023393951). The search identified 3,089 articles; 1,530 were removed as duplicates, and 1,559 titles and abstracts were assessed for inclusion. The full text of 26 studies was assessed for eligibility, and finally, 12 studies with 1,036 patients were included. All included studies were retrospective cohort studies. A proportion meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: For patients with negative conization specimens, the recurrence rate as CIN2+ during follow-up was 6% (95% CI, 1.8%-12.1%; I2 = 49.2; p < .0001, 215 patients and 4 studies) in the proportion meta-analysis, ranging from 0.3% to 13.0% for the individual studies. For patients with ≤CIN1 conization specimens, the recurrence rate as CIN2+ during follow-up was 3.6% (95% CI, 1.2%-7%; I2 = 75.1; p < .0001, 991 patients and 10 studies) in the proportion meta-analysis and ranged from 0.6% to 13.0% for the individual studies. CONCLUSIONS: The recurrence rate as CIN2+ for patients with a confirmed high-grade intraepithelial lesion on a cervical biopsy followed by a negative conization specimen is 6%. In patients with negative and CIN1 conization specimens, the recurrence rate is 3.6%.

All-cause and cancer-specific mortality after fertility-sparing surgery for stage IA and IC epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare all-cause and cancer-specific mortality between women who underwent fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) versus standard surgery for stage IA and IC epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Reproductive aged patients (18-45) with stage IA or IC epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2015 were identified in the California Cancer Registry. FSS was defined as retention of the contralateral ovary and the uterus, and standard surgery included at least removal of both ovaries and the uterus. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the secondary outcome was cancer-specific mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to create two groups balanced on covariates of interest. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards analysis were used to model survival outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1119 women who met inclusion criteria, 390 (34.9%) underwent FSS. IPTW yielded a balanced cohort of 394 women who underwent FSS and 723 women who underwent standard surgery. Among patients who underwent FSS, there were 45 deaths corresponding to an 85.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.92) 10-year all-cause survival probability, compared to 81 deaths and 86.4% 10-year all-cause survival probability (95% CI 0.83-0.90) among patients who underwent standard surgery. FSS was not associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.72-1.49) or cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.50, 95%CI 0.97-2.31). CONCLUSIONS: Among reproductive-aged patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer fertility-sparing surgery was not associated with an increased risk of death compared to standard surgery.

Minimally invasive interval debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Assess outcomes of interval debulking surgery (IDS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with laparotomy in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer between 2013 and 2018 who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and IDS were identified in the National Cancer Database. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were 5-year survival, 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality, extent of surgery, residual disease, hospitalization duration, surgical conversions, and unplanned readmissions. Propensity score matching was used to compare MIS and laparotomy for IDS. Association of treatment approach with overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. Sensitivity analysis was conducted for effect of unmeasured confounders. RESULTS: A total of 7897 patients met inclusion criteria; 2021 (25.6%) underwent MIS. Percentage undergoing MIS increased from 20.3%-29.0% over the study period. After propensity score matching, median overall survival was 46.7 months in the MIS group versus 41.0 months in the laparotomy group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.86 (95%CI 0.79-0.94)]. Five-year survival probability was higher in MIS versus laparotomy (38.3% vs 34.8%, p < 0.01). There was lower 30- and 90-day mortality (0.3% vs 0.7% [p = 0.04] and 1.4% vs 2.5% [p = 0.01], respectively), shorter length of stay (median 3 vs 5 days, p < 0.01), lower residual disease (23.9% vs 26.7%, p < 0.01), and lower additional cytoreductive procedures (59.3% vs 70.8%, p < 0.01) in MIS compared to laparotomy, with similar rates of unplanned readmission (2.7% vs 3.1%, p = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo IDS by MIS have similar overall survival and decreased morbidity compared with laparotomy.

Systematic mapping review of guidelines for BRCA1/2 genetic testing globally: investigating geographic and regional disparities in health equity for women and families at risk for hereditary ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Identification of persons at risk for hereditary syndromes through genetic testing prior to cancer diagnosis may proactively reduce the cancer burden morbidity and mortality. Using a framework of health equity, this study characterizes the global landscape of publication and reference to BRCA1/2 genetic testing guidelines (GTG). METHODS: This study used a systematic literature search supplemented by an International Gynecologic Cancer Society (IGCS) informal survey and cross referenced with Myriad Genetics records, to identify published GTG, their country of origin, and countries referencing them. RESULTS: Of 1011 identified publications, 166 met the inclusion criteria, from which 46 unique guidelines were identified, published by 18 countries and two regions (Europe and the UK). Authorship from the USA accounted for 63% of publications on GTG. Systematic mapping reviews revealed 34 countries with published and/or referenced guidelines, the IGCS survey revealed 22 additional countries, and coordination with Myriad Genetics revealed additional information for two countries and primary information for one country. Of the 57 countries evaluated, 33% published their own guidelines and reference guidelines from another country/region, 5% published their own guidelines without referencing another country/region, and 61% only referenced a guideline from another country/region. No data were available for 138 of 195 countries, disproportionately from Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia. CONCLUSIONS: Global geographic disparities in the publication and referencing of GTG exist, with a large emphasis on North American and European guidelines in the published literature. These disparities highlight a need for uniform BRCA GTG to improve global health equity.

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.

Interventions to improve delivery of cancer genetics services in the United States: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: Interventions that decrease barriers and improve clinical processes can increase patient access to guideline-recommended cancer genetics services. We sought to identify and describe interventions to improve patient receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services in the United States. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1, 2000 to February 12, 2020. Eligible articles reported interventions to improve the identification, referral, genetic counseling (GC), and genetic testing (GT) of patients in the United States. We independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full-text articles. Data were synthesized by grouping articles by clinical process. RESULTS: Of 44 included articles, 17 targeted identification of eligible patients, 14 targeted referral, 15 targeted GC, and 16 targeted GT. Patient identification interventions included universal tumor testing and screening of medical/family history. Referral interventions included medical record system adaptations, standardizing processes, and provider notifications. GC interventions included supplemental patient education, integrated GC within oncology clinics, appointment coordination, and alternative service delivery models. One article directly targeted the GT process by implementing provider-coordinated testing. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified and described interventions to improve US patients' access to and receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services.

Association between time to diagnosis, time to treatment, and ovarian cancer survival in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the association between time to diagnosis and treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with overall and ovarian cancer specific mortality using a retrospective cross sectional study of a population based cancer registry database. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was searched from 1992 to 2015 for women aged ≥66 years with epithelial ovarian cancer and abdominal/pelvic pain, bloating, difficulty eating, or urinary symptoms within 1 year of cancer diagnosis. Time from presentation to diagnosis and treatment were evaluated as outcomes and covariables. Cox regression models and adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves evaluated 5 year overall and cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Among 13 872 women, better survival was associated with longer time from presentation to diagnosis (overall survival hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.95; cancer specific survival HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.96) and diagnosis to treatment (overall survival HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.96; cancer specific survival HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.96). There was longer time from presentation to diagnosis in Hispanic women (relative risk (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32) and from diagnosis to treatment in non-Hispanic black women (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.54), with lower likelihood of survival at 5 years after adjustment for time to diagnosis and treatment among non-Hispanic black women (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.26) compared with non-Hispanic white women. Gynecologic oncology visit was associated with improved overall (p<0.001) and cancer specific (p<0.001) survival despite a longer time from presentation to treatment (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Longer time to diagnosis and treatment were associated with improved survival, suggesting that tumor specific features are more important prognostic factors than the time interval of workup and treatment. Significant sociodemographic disparities indicate social determinants of health influencing workup and care. Gynecologic oncologist visits were associated with improved survival, highlighting the importance of appropriate referral for suspected ovarian cancer.

Peritoneal carcinomatosis after minimally invasive surgery versus open radical hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients undergoing minimally invasive or open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. METHODS: The MEDLINE (accessed through Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Clinical Trials, and Scopus databases were searched for articles published from inception up to April 2022. Articles published in English were considered. The included studies reported on patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA-IIA squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and/or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix who underwent primary surgery. Studies had to report at least one case of peritoneal carcinomatosis as a recurrence pattern, and only studies comparing recurrence after minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery were considered. Variables of interest were manually extracted into a standardized electronic database. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022325068). RESULTS: The initial search identified 518 articles. After the removal of the duplicate entries from the initial search, two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the remaining 453 articles. Finally, 78 articles were selected for full-text evaluation; 22 articles (a total of 7626 patients) were included in the analysis-one randomized controlled trial and 21 observational retrospective studies. The most common histology was squamous cell carcinoma in 60.9%, and the tumor size was <4 cm in 92.8% of patients. Peritoneal carcinomatosis pattern represented 22.2% of recurrences in the minimally invasive surgery approach versus 8.8% in open surgery, accounting for 15.5% of all recurrences. The meta-analysis of observational studies revealed a statistically significant higher risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis after minimally invasive surgery (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.74, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery is associated with a statistically significant higher risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with open surgery.

Employment disruption among women with gynecologic cancers.

BACKGROUND: Adverse employment outcomes pose significant challenges for cancer patients, though data patients with gynecologic cancers are sparse. We evaluated the decrease in employment among patients in the year following the diagnosis of a gynecologic cancer compared with population-based controls. METHODS: Patients aged 18 to 63 years old, who were diagnosed with cervical, ovarian, endometrial, or vulvar cancer between January 2009 and December 2017, were identified in Truven MarketScan, an insurance claims database of commercially insured patients in the USA. Patients working full- or part-time at diagnosis were matched to population-based controls in a 1:4 ratio via propensity score. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the risk of employment disruption in patients versus controls. RESULTS: We identified 7446 women with gynecologic cancers (191 vulvar, 941 cervical, 1839 ovarian, and 4475 endometrial). Although most continued working following diagnosis, 1579 (21.2%) changed from full- or part-time employment to long-term disability, retirement, or work cessation. In an adjusted model, older age, the presence of comorbidities, and treatment with surgery plus adjuvant therapy versus surgery alone were associated with an increased risk of employment disruption (p<0.0003, p=0.01, and p<0.0001, respectively) among patients with gynecologic cancer. In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with gynecologic cancers had over a threefold increased risk of employment disruption relative to controls (HR 3.67, 95% CI 3.44 to 3.95). CONCLUSION: Approximately 21% of patients with gynecologic cancer experienced a decrease in employment in the year after diagnosis. These patients had over a threefold increased risk of employment disruption compared with controls.

Fertility preservation in women with early-stage gynecologic cancer: optimizing oncologic and reproductive outcomes.

Almost all standard therapies for gynecologic cancer, including surgical intervention, gonadotoxic chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, threaten a woman's childbearing potential. Preservation of fertility should be discussed with premenopausal women with early-stage gynecologic cancer shortly after diagnosis and, for women who desire to preserve fertility, during treatment planning. Many authors have investigated both oncologic and reproductive outcomes following fertility-sparing therapy, and there is ongoing development of assisted reproduction techniques available to cancer patients and survivors. Women with early-stage (IA1-IB1) cervical cancer may be candidates for fertility-sparing cervical conization, simple trachelectomy, or radical trachelectomy. In women with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer, fertility-sparing surgery appears safe overall, although controversy remains in patients with high-risk features (eg, high pathologic grade, clear cell histology, or stage IC disease). In women with low-grade, early-stage endometrial cancer, hormonal therapy has emerged as a viable option. Criteria for patient selection for fertility-sparing therapy are not well defined, thus patients and providers must carefully discuss potential risks and benefits. In general, in carefully selected patients, survival outcomes do not appear to differ significantly between radical and fertility-sparing approaches. Women who undergo fertility-sparing therapies may experience a number of fertility and obstetric complications. Preconception counseling with high-risk obstetric specialists is important to optimize health before a woman attempts to conceive. Identifying appropriate candidates for fertility-sparing treatments, assessing fertility potential, and helping women conceive after cancer treatment is best accomplished through multidisciplinary collaboration between gynecologic oncologists and fertility specialists.

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.

Correlation of surgeon radiology assessment with laparoscopic disease site scoring in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radiographic triage measures in patients with new advanced ovarian cancer have yielded inconsistent results. OBJECTIVE: To determine the correlation between surgeon radiology assessment and laparoscopic scoring by disease sites in patients with newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer. METHODS: Fourteen gynecologic oncology surgeons from a single institution performed a blinded review of pre-operative contrast-enhanced CT imaging from patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Each of the patients had also undergone laparoscopic scoring assessment, between April 2013 and December 2017, to determine primary resectability using the validated Fagotti scoring method, and assigned a predictive index value score. Surgeons were asked to provide expected predictive index value scores based on their blinded review of the antecedent CT imaging. Linear mixed models were conducted to calculate the correlation between radiologic and laparoscopic score for surgeons individually, and as a group. Once the model was fit, the inter-class correlation and 95% CI were calculated. RESULTS: Radiology review was performed on 20 patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer who underwent laparoscopic scoring assessment. Surgeon faculty rank included assistant professor (n=5), associate professor (p=4), and professor (n=5). The kappa inter-rater agreement was -0.017 (95% CI -0.023 to -0.005), indicating low inter-rater agreement between radiology review and actual laparoscopic score. The inter-class correlation in this model was 0.06 (0.02-0.21), indicating that surgeons do not score the same across all the images. When using a clinical cut-off point for the predictive index value of 8, the probability of agreement between radiology and actual laparoscopic score was 0.56 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.73). Examination of disease site sub-scales showed that the probability of agreement was as follows: peritoneum 0.57 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.62), diaphragm 0.54 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.60), mesentery 0.51 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.57), omentum 0.61 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.67), bowel 0.54 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64), stomach 0.71 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.76), and liver 0.36 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.42). The number of laparoscopic scoring cases, tumor reductive surgery cases, or faculty rank was not significantly associated with overall or sub-scale agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon radiology review did not correlate highly with actual laparoscopic scoring assessment findings in patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Our study highlights the limited accuracy of surgeon radiographic assessment to determine resectability.

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Recent evidence has shown adverse oncological outcomes when minimally invasive surgery is used in early-stage cervical cancer. The objective of this study was to compare disease-free survival in patients that had undergone radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, either by laparoscopy or laparotomy. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with cervical cancer stage IA1 with lymph-vascular invasion, IA2, and IB1 (FIGO 2009 classification), between January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2017, at seven cancer centers from six countries. We included squamous, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous histologies. We used an inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity score to construct a weighted cohort of women, including predictor variables selected a priori with the possibility of confounding the relationship between the surgical approach and survival. We estimated the HR for all-cause mortality after radical hysterectomy with weighted Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 1379 patients were included in the final analysis, with 681 (49.4%) operated by laparoscopy and 698 (50.6%) by laparotomy. There were no differences regarding the surgical approach in the rates of positive vaginal margins, deep stromal invasion, and lymphovascular space invasion. Median follow-up was 52.1 months (range, 0.8-201.2) in the laparoscopic group and 52.6 months (range, 0.4-166.6) in the laparotomy group. Women who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had a lower rate of disease-free survival compared with the laparotomy group (4-year rate, 88.7% vs 93.0%; HR for recurrence or death from cervical cancer 1.64; 95% CI 1.09-2.46; P=0.02). In sensitivity analyzes, after adjustment for adjuvant treatment, radical hysterectomy by laparoscopy compared with laparotomy was associated with increased hazards of recurrence or death from cervical cancer (HR 1.7; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.57; P=0.01) and death for any cause (HR 2.14; 95% CI 1.05-4.37; P=0.03). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective multicenter study, laparoscopy was associated with worse disease-free survival, compared to laparotomy.