Patient Location and Disparities in Access to Fertility Preservation for Women With Gynecologic or Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of geographic factors on fertility-sparing treatment or assisted reproductive technology (ART) utilization among women with gynecologic or breast cancers. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of reproductive-aged patients (18-45 years) with early-stage cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer or stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2015 using linked data from the California Cancer Registry, the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate associations between distance from fertility and gynecologic oncology clinics, as well as California Healthy Places Index score (a Census-level composite community health score), and ART or fertility-sparing treatment receipt. RESULTS: We identified 7,612 women with gynecologic cancer and 35,992 women with breast cancer. Among all patients, 257 (0.6%) underwent ART. Among patients with gynecologic cancer, 1,676 (22.0%) underwent fertility-sparing treatment. Stratified by quartiles, residents who lived at increasing distances from gynecologic oncology or fertility clinics had decreased odds of undergoing fertility-sparing treatment (gynecologic oncology clinics: Q2, odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% CI, 0.63-0.93, P=.007; Q4, OR 0.72, 95% CI, 0.56-0.94, P=.016) (fertility clinics: Q3, OR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.65-0.97, P=.025; Q4, OR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.52-0.88, P=.004), whereas this relationship was not observed among women who resided within other quartiles (gynecologic oncology clinics: Q3, OR 0.81 95% CI, 0.65-1.01, P=.07; fertility clinics: Q2, OR 0.87 95% CI, 0.73-1.05, P=.15). Individuals who lived in communities with the highest (51st-100th percentile) California Healthy Places Index scores had greater odds of undergoing fertility-sparing treatment (OR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.06-1.57, P=.01; OR 1.66, 95% CI, 1.35-2.04, P=.001, respectively). The relationship between California Healthy Places Index scores and ART was even more pronounced (Q2 OR 1.9, 95% CI, 0.99-3.64, P=.05; Q3 OR 2.86, 95% CI, 1.54-5.33, P<.001; Q4 OR 3.41, 95% CI, 1.83-6.35, P<.001). CONCLUSION: Geographic disparities affect fertility-sparing treatment and ART rates among women with gynecologic or breast cancer. By acknowledging geographic factors, health care systems can ensure equitable access to fertility-preservation services.

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.

Potential of molecular classification to guide fertility-sparing management among young patients with endometrial cancer.

The traditional histological classification system for endometrial carcinoma falls short in addressing the disease's molecular heterogeneity, prompting the need for alternative stratification methods. Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) has emerged as a clinically efficient tool to categorize endometrial cancers according to mismatch repair deficiency, POLE exonuclease domain mutations, and p53 expression. However, the application of this classification to fertility-sparing treatments remains unexplored, and current guidelines lack specificity in how it should be used. In this review, we summarize the available literature and establish the framework for future investigations focused on molecular profiling-based risk assessment of endometrial cancer, with the goal of utilizing precision medicine to optimally counsel patients seeking fertility-sparing treatment. While the available evidence is limited and of low quality, it does provide insights and frames future perspectives for managing fertility-sparing approaches on the basis of molecular subtypes. Evidence suggests that mismatch repair-deficient tumors are likely to recur despite progestin therapy, emphasizing the need for alternative treatments, with targeted therapies being a new landscape that still needs to be explored. Tumors with POLE mutations exhibit a favorable prognosis, but the safety of hysteroscopic resection alone requires further investigation. p53 abnormal tumors have an unfavorable prognosis, raising questions about their suitability for fertility-sparing treatment. Lastly, the no specific molecular profile (or p53 wild-type) tumors, while having a relatively good prognosis, are heterogeneous and require more precise biomarkers to effectively guide therapy for those with poorer prognoses. Addressing these research gaps will lead to more precise guidelines to ensure optimal selection for fertility-sparing treatment.

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.

Cervical Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Practices in U.S. Prisons.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to better understand cervical cancer screening and follow-up practices in U.S. prisons. METHODS: A 29-question survey examining cervical cancer screening practices, education, and facility/patient characteristics was disseminated to state-prison medical directors. RESULTS: A total of 70% (35/50) of state medical directors completed the survey between August 2021 and January 2022. All prison systems provided cervical cancer screening both at intake and specified intervals. A total of 36% provided colposcopy on site, and 9% performed excisional procedures on site. A total of 11 states identified 1‒5 cases of cervical cancer within the last year. Frequently cited challenges included a perceived lack of patient interest, delays in community referral, and lack of follow-up of abnormal results after release. CONCLUSIONS: This study found relatively high rates of screening with a perceived lack of patient interest as the most reported barrier. Follow-up care was also often affected by reported lack of patient interest, delays in community referral for diagnostic procedures, and patient release before follow-up. There is room for further optimization of screening and surveillance among incarcerated women by understanding and addressing systems-based challenges. By understanding patient barriers to primary screening, expanding access to onsite testing and community referral for abnormal results, and streamlining post-release follow-up, disparities in care among incarcerated women can be reduced.

A stepwise guide for healthcare professionals requesting compassionate release for patients who are incarcerated.

PURPOSE: Compassionate release is a process that allows for the early release or parole of some incarcerated people of advanced age, with life-limiting illness, complex medical care needs or significant functional decline. Despite the expansion of State and Federal compassionate release programs, this mechanism for release remains underutilized. Health-care professionals are central to the process of recommending compassionate release, but few resources exist to support these efforts. The purpose of this paper is to provide a guide for health-care professionals requesting compassionate release for patients who are incarcerated. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This study is stepwise guide for health-care professionals requesting compassionate release for patients who are incarcerated. FINDINGS: This study describes the role of the health-care professional in requesting compassionate release and offers guidance to help them navigate the process of preparing a medical declaration or request for compassionate release. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: No prior publications have created a step-wise guide of this nature to aid health-care professionals through the compassionate release process.

Acceptability of virtual prenatal care: thinking beyond the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Obstetrical providers have had to rapidly rethink how to provide comprehensive prenatal care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. At our institution, we implemented a risk-stratified approach to incorporating telemedicine into our prenatal care. The objective of this study was to determine acceptability of virtual prenatal care and preferences for future pregnancies among our patient population. STUDY DESIGN: We sought feedback from a convenience sample of patients regarding the acceptability of virtual prenatal care and desires for future pregnancies. RESULTS: We found that virtual prenatal care is acceptable to patients, and the majority would like to incorporate it into future post-pandemic pregnancy care, although preferences differ by race. CONCLUSION: Virtual prenatal care should continue to be employed in post-pandemic obstetric practice. Obstetrical providers must determine how to incorporate this practice in a risk-stratified and equitable fashion.

Lymph node assessment at the time of hysterectomy has limited clinical utility for patients with pre-cancerous endometrial lesions.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of patients with a pre-invasive endometrial lesion who meet Mayo criteria for lymph node dissection on final pathology to determine if the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with pre-invasive lesions would be warranted. METHODS: All women who underwent hysterectomy for a pre-invasive endometrial lesion (atypical hyperplasia or endometrial intra-epithelial neoplasia) between 2009 and 2019 were included for analysis. Relevant statistical tests were utilized to test the associations between patient, operative, and pathologic characteristics. RESULTS: 141 patients met inclusion criteria. 51 patients (36%) had a final diagnosis of cancer, the majority (96%) of which were Stage IA grade 1 endometrioid carcinomas. Seven patients (5%) met Mayo criteria on final pathology (one grade 3, seven size >2 cm, one >50% myoinvasive). Three of these seven patients had lymph nodes assessed of which 0% had metastases. Six of these patients had frozen section performed, and 2 met (33%) Mayo criteria intraoperatively. Of the seven patients in the overall cohort that had lymph node sampling, six had a final diagnosis of cancer and none had positive lymph nodes. Of the 51 patients with cancer, only 10 had cancer diagnosed using frozen section, and only two met intra-operative Mayo criteria. Age > 55 was predictive of meeting Mayo criteria on final pathology (p = 0.007). No patients experienced a cancer recurrence across a median follow up of 24.3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Atypical hyperplasia and endometrial intra-epithelial neoplasia portend low risk disease and universal nodal assessment is of limited value.

Six versus twelve hours of single-balloon catheter placement with oxytocin administration for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor is common in the United States. Multiple previous studies have tried to outline a faster time to delivery to improve maternal and fetal outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether women who undergo induction of labor with a single-balloon catheter and oxytocin have a shorter time to delivery with planned removal of the catheter at 6 vs 12 hours. STUDY DESIGN: In this randomized controlled trial, induction of labor was performed using a combination of single-balloon catheter and oxytocin. Term women, both nulliparous and multiparous, aged 18 to 50 years old with cephalic singletons were included if they were undergoing induction of labor with a Bishop score of <6 and cervical dilation of <2 cm. Women were randomized to planned removal of the single-balloon catheter at 6 hours vs 12 hours. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery. We were powered to show a 4-hour time difference with a sample size of 89 women per group (n=178). Planned sensitivity analyses were performed to account for cesarean delivery in labor. RESULTS: From February 2019 to June 2020, 237 women were screened, 178 women were randomized, and 177 women were included in the final analysis (89 women in the 6-hour group and 88 women in the 12-hour group). Insertion to delivery time was significantly shorter in the 6-hour group (19.2 vs 24.3 hours; P=.04), and the proportion of women delivered by 24 hours was significantly greater in the 6-hour group (67.4% vs 47.4%; P<.01). There was no difference in the Bishop score at removal of the catheter or secondary maternal or neonatal outcomes. In a Cox proportional-hazards model censoring for cesarean delivery, the 6-hour group had a significantly shorter insertion to delivery time (hazard ratio, 0.67; P=.02). CONCLUSION: Induction of labor with a single-balloon catheter and oxytocin with planned removal of the catheter at 6 hours rather than 12 hours results in a shorter time from insertion to delivery without increasing the rate of cesarean delivery. Decreasing the length of time a single-balloon catheter is in place should be considered in clinical protocols.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not disproportionately influence post-operative complication rates or time to chemotherapy in obese patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) disproportionately benefits obese patients. METHODS: Data were collected from stage IIIC-IV ovarian cancer patients treated between 01/2010-07/2015. We performed univariate/multivariate logistic regression analyses with post-operative infection, readmission, any postoperative complication, and time to chemotherapy as outcomes. An interaction term was included in models, to determine if the effect of NACT on post-operative complications was influenced by obesity status. RESULTS: Of 507 patients, 115 (22.6%) were obese and 392 (77.3%) were non-obese (obese defined as BMI ≥30). Among obese patients undergoing primary debulking surgery (PDS) vs. NACT, rates of postoperative infection were 42.9% vs. 30.8% (p = 0.12), 30-day readmission 30.2% vs. 11.5% (p < 0.02), and any post-operative complication were 44.4% vs 30.8% (p = 0.133). Among non-obese patients undergoing PDS vs. NACT, rates of post-operative infection were 20.0% vs. 12.9% (p = 0.057), 30-day readmission 16.9% vs. 9.2% (p = 0.02), and any post-operative complication were 19.4% vs 28% (p = 0.044). Obesity was associated with post-operative infection (OR 2.3; 95%CI 1.22-4.33), 30-day readmission/reoperation (OR 2.27; 95%CI 1.08-3.21) and the development of any post-operative complication (OR 2.1; CI 1.13-3.74). However, there was not a significant interaction between obesity and NACT in any of the models predicting post-operative complications. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to use NACT should not be predicated on obesity alone, as the reduction in post-operative complications in obese patients is similar to non-obese patients.

Incarcerated Individuals' Perspectives on Living with Serious Illness.

The object of this study was to elicit patient perspectives on the experience of living with serious illness while incarcerated. The study was conducted at the Rhode Island Adult Corrections Institutions (ACI) in both the men's medium security and women's (all levels) facilities in June of 2016. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants, who met study criteria for serious illness. Interviews were coded following the template organizing style. Eighteen participants were enrolled, 13 males and five females with majority Caucasian (n=11) and ages 40-59 (n=9). Incarcerated individuals with serious illness perceived diverse healthcare deficits, including access to care, quality of care, and accommodations for medical needs and physical disabilities. Deficits were somewhat mitigated through prison programs and support from community advocates. The findings of our study support a quantitative needs assessment of available physical accommodations in prisons, national standardization of what constitutes adequate care, and reevaluation of the prison co-pay system. [Full article available at http://rimed.org/rimedicaljournal-2019-03.asp].

"No One Wants to Die Alone": Incarcerated Patients' Knowledge and Attitudes About Early Medical Release.

CONTEXT: Deaths among incarcerated individuals have steadily increased in the U.S., exceeding 5000 in 2014. Nearly every state has a policy to allow patients with serious life-limiting illness to apply for release from prison or jail to die in the community ("early medical release"). Although studies show these policies are rarely used, patient-level barriers to their use are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess incarcerated patients' knowledge of early medical release policies and to identify patient-level barriers to accessing these policies. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 46 male patients in two state prisons and one large urban jail who had visited a primary care provider at least three times within three months was conducted. RESULTS: Participants' average age was 64 years, and 89% had more than one chronic illness. Fewer than half (43%) demonstrated the knowledge needed to apply for early medical release and 22% demonstrated no relevant knowledge. Participants with sufficient knowledge were significantly more likely to endorse anxiety (35% vs. 0%, P = .003) and loneliness (65% vs. 30%, P = .017). CONCLUSION: Many medically complex incarcerated patients in this study did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge to apply for early medical release suggesting that patient education may help expand access to these policies. Moreover, seriously ill patients with knowledge of early medical release may benefit from enhanced psychosocial support given their disproportionate burdens of anxiety and loneliness. Our findings highlight the pressing need for larger studies to assess whether improved patient education and support can expand access to early medical release.