Outcomes of Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Carcinoma, with or without Prior Cervical Excision Procedure.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of a prior cervical excisional procedure on the oncologic outcomes of patients with apparent early-stage cervical carcinoma undergoing radical hysterectomy. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (2004-2015) was accessed, and patients with FIGO 2009 stage IB1 cervical cancer who had a radical hysterectomy with at least 10 lymph nodes (LNs) removed and a known surgical approach were identified. Patients who did and did not undergo a prior cervical excisional procedure (within 3 months of hysterectomy) were selected for further analysis. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated following the generation of Kaplan-Meier curves and compared with the log-rank test. A Cox model was constructed to control a priori-selected confounders. RESULTS: A total of 3159 patients were identified; 37.1% (n = 1171) had a prior excisional procedure. These patients had lower rates of lymphovascular invasion (29.2% vs. 34.9%, p = 0.014), positive LNs (6.7% vs. 12.7%, p < 0.001), and a tumor size >2 cm (25.7% vs. 56%, p < 0.001). Following stratification by tumor size, the performance of an excisional procedure prior to radical hysterectomy was associated with better OS even after controlling for confounders (aHR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.66). The rate of minimally invasive surgery was higher among patients who had a prior excisional procedure (61.5% vs. 53.2%, p < 0.001). For these patients, performance of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was not associated with worse OS (aHR: 1.37, 95% CI: 0.66, 2.82). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing radical hysterectomy, preoperative cervical excision may be associated with a survival benefit. For patients who had a prior excisional procedure, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was not associated with worse overall survival.

Role of systematic lymphadenectomy at the time of interval debulking surgery for patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma who achieved complete gross resection.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of systematic lymphadenectomy at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery for patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma who achieved complete gross resection. METHODS: The National Cancer DataBase was accessed, and patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 with advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma who underwent interval cytoreductive surgery and achieved complete gross resection were identified. Patients who did not undergo lymphadenectomy and those who underwent systematic lymphadenectomy (defined as at least 20 lymph nodes removed) were selected for further analysis. Median overall survival was compared with the log-rank test and controlled for a priori selected confounders. RESULTS: A total of 1060 patients were identified. Systematic lymphadenectomy was performed for 125 (11.8%) patients with a median of 29 lymph nodes (range 20-72) removed. Rate of lymph node metastasis was 62.4%. Patients who underwent systematic lymphadenectomy had higher rate of unplanned readmission (8.9% vs 1.6%, p<0.001), and median hospital stay (6 vs 4 days, p<0.001). Median overall survival for patients who did and did not undergo systematic lymphadenectomy was 44.2 and 40.4 months, respectively, p=0.40. After controlling for confounders, performance of systematic lymphadenectomy was not associated with better survival (HR=0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19). CONCLUSION: Systematic lymphadenectomy is rarely performed at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery and not associated with a survival benefit for patients who achieved complete gross resection.

"Having cancer is very expensive": A qualitative study of patients with ovarian cancer and PARP inhibitor treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patient barriers and facilitators to PARP inhibitor (PARP-I) maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer. PARP-I improves survival in ovarian cancer, but these multi-year therapies cost around $100,000 annually and are under-prescribed. METHODS: We recruited patients with ovarian cancer treated with PARP-I maintenance therapy at an academic health system for a semi-structured interview. Patient demographics, including genetics and PARP-I cost, were self-reported. We assessed patient experiences with barriers and facilitators of PARP-I usage. Two team members used a thematic approach to analyze and identify key themes. RESULTS: In May 2022, we interviewed 10 patients (mean age = 65 years; 80% White; 60% with a germline genetic mutation). Patients paid on average $227.50 monthly for PARP-I, straining resources for some participants. While sampled patients were insured, all patients identified having no or inadequate insurance as a major barrier to PARP-I. At the same time, all participants prioritized clinical effectiveness over costs of care. Patients identified PARP-I delivery from specialty pharmacies, separate and different from other medications, as a potential barrier, but each had been able to navigate delivery. Patients expressed significant initial side effects of PARP-I as a potential barrier yet reported clinician communication and prompt dose reduction as facilitating continuation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified cost, restrictive pharmacy benefits, and initial side effects as barriers to PARP-I usage. Having insurance and a supportive care team were identified as facilitators. Enhancing communication about PARP-I cost and side effects could improve patient experience and receipt of evidence-based maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer.

Addressing transportation barriers in oncology: existing programs and new solutions.

Transportation is an underrecognized, but modifiable barrier to accessing cancer care, especially for clinical trials. Clinicians, insurers, and health systems can screen patients for transportation needs and link them to transportation. Direct transportation services (i.e., ride-sharing, insurance-provided transportation) have high rates of patient satisfaction and visit completion. Patient financial reimbursements provide necessary funds to counteract the effects of transportation barriers, which can lead to higher trial enrollment, especially for low socioeconomic status and racially and ethnically diverse patients. Expanding transportation interventions to more cancer patients, and addressing knowledge, service, and system gaps, can help more patients access needed cancer care.

Ovarian Cancer Isn't Just a White Woman's Disease.

This Viewpoint highlights the need for recognition that ovarian cancer affects women from racial and ethnic minority groups worldwide and that the rates of ovarian cancer are increasing in those populations while decreasing among White women.

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

▪ ▪ ▪.

Prior authorization for FDA-approved PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer.

Objectives: PARP inhibitors (PARP-I) improve survival in ovarian cancer, especially in patients with germline or somatic BRCA mutations or other homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). With high efficacy and costs, insurers may enact barriers or facilitators to PARP-I. Our objective was to examine the prevalence of prior authorization for PARP-I in ovarian cancer. Methods: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients with ovarian cancer prescribed a PARP-I within the University of Pennsylvania practices from December 2018 through May 2021. We assessed prevalence of prior authorization for PARP-I overall, by frontline or recurrent maintenance, and by genetic status. We then assessed approval and appeal rates and time to PARP-I start. Results: Of 180 patients with a PARP-I prescription and information regarding prior authorization, 116 (64 %, 95 % CI 57-71) experienced prior authorization. Of patients in the frontline setting, 60 of 90 (67 %, 95 % CI 56-76) experienced prior authorization. Of patients prescribed PARP-I in recurrence, 55 of 85 (65 %, 95 % CI 54-74) experienced prior authorization. Having a germline or somatic genetic mutation was associated with higher risk of prior authorization (adjusted risk ratio 1.35, 95 %CI 1.09-1.67). 102 patients (89 %, 95 % CI 83-94) required one appeal, 8 required two appeals and 5 cases required 3 appeals. Five patients were denied. Mean time from PARP-I prescription to PARP-I start was 10 days longer for patients who experienced prior authorization. Conclusions: 64% of patients experienced prior authorization for PARP-I. Risk of prior authorization was increased for patients with BRCA, despite greater clinical benefit. Prior authorization contributes to delays in care, and reform is needed.

Federal Transportation Regulations Limit Access to Clinical Trials and Oncology Care.

This Viewpoint discusses how improving accessibility to oncology services will lead to more equitable care for patients with cancer.

Variation in telemedicine usage in gynecologic cancer: Are we widening or narrowing disparities?

INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine rapidly increased with the COVID-19 pandemic and could reduce cancer care disparities. Our objective was to evaluate sociodemographic (race, insurance), patient, health system, and cancer factors associated with telemedicine use in gynecologic cancers. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with endometrial cancer and epithelial ovarian cancer with at least one visit from March 2020 to October 2021, using a real-world electronic health record-derived database, representing approximately 800 sites in US academic (14%) and community practices (86%). We used multivariable Poisson regression modeling to analyze the association of ever using telemedicine with patient, sociodemographic, health system, and cancer factors. RESULTS: Of 3950 patients with ovarian cancer, 1119 (28.3%) had at least one telemedicine visit. Of 2510 patients with endometrial cancer, 720 (28.7%) had at least one telemedicine visit. At community cancer practices, patients who identified as Black were less likely to have a telemedicine visit than patients who identified as white in both ovarian and endometrial cancer (Ovarian: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42-0.9; Endometrial: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38-0.83). Patients in the Southeast, Midwest, West, and Puerto Rico were less likely to have telemedicine visits than patients in the Northeast. Uninsured patients were less likely, and patients with Medicare were more likely, to have one or more telemedicine visit than patients with private insurance. CONCLUSIONS: In this national cohort study, <30% of patients ever used telemedicine, and significant racial and regional disparities existed in utilization. Telemedicine expansion efforts should include programs to improve equity in access to telemedicine.

Treatment of node-positive endometrial cancer: chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy.

OPINION STATEMENT: The standard of treatment for node-positive endometrial cancer (FIGO Stage IIIC) in North America has been systemic therapy with or without additional external beam radiation therapy (RT) given as pelvic or extended field RT. However, this treatment paradigm is rapidly evolving with improvements in systemic chemotherapy, the emergence of targeted therapies, and improved molecular characterization of these tumors. The biggest question facing providers regarding management of stage IIIC endometrial cancer at this time is: what is the best management strategy to use with regard to combinations of cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, other targeted therapeutics, and radiation that will maximize clinical benefit and minimize toxicities for the best patient outcomes? While clinicians await the results of ongoing clinical trials regarding combined immunotherapy/RT as well as management based on molecular classification, we must make decisions regarding the best treatment combinations for our patients. Based on the available literature, we are offering stage IIIC patients without measurable disease postoperatively both adjuvant chemotherapy and IMRT with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and with or without pembrolizumab/dostarlimab as primary adjuvant therapy. Patients with measurable disease post operatively, high risk histologies, or stage IV disease receive chemoimmunotherapy, and vaginal brachytherapy is added for those with uterine risk factors for vaginal recurrence. In the setting of endometrioid EC recurrence more than 6 months after treatment, patients with pelvic nodal and vaginal recurrence are offered IMRT and brachytherapy without chemotherapy. For measurable recurrence not suitable for pelvic radiation alone, chemoimmunotherapy is preferred as standard of care.