Utilizing geospatial artificial intelligence to map cancer disparities across health regions.

We have developed an innovative tool, the Intelligent Catchment Analysis Tool (iCAT), designed to identify and address healthcare disparities across specific regions. Powered by Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, our tool employs a robust Geographic Information System (GIS) to map healthcare outcomes and disease disparities. iCAT allows users to query publicly available data sources, health system data, and treatment data, offering insights into gaps and disparities in diagnosis and treatment paradigms. This project aims to promote best practices to bridge the gap in healthcare access, resources, education, and economic opportunities. The project aims to engage local and regional stakeholders in data collection and evaluation, including patients, providers, and organizations. Their active involvement helps refine the platform and guides targeted interventions for more effective outcomes. In this paper, we present two sample illustrations demonstrating how iCAT identifies healthcare disparities and analyzes the impact of social and environmental variables on outcomes. Over time, this platform can help communities make decisions to optimize resource allocation.

Vulvar Cancer, Version 3.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Vulvar cancer is annually diagnosed in an estimated 6,470 individuals and the vast majority are histologically squamous cell carcinomas. Vulvar cancer accounts for 5% to 8% of gynecologic malignancies. Known risk factors for vulvar cancer include increasing age, infection with human papillomavirus, cigarette smoking, inflammatory conditions affecting the vulva, and immunodeficiency. Most vulvar neoplasias are diagnosed at early stages. Rarer histologies exist and include melanoma, extramammary Paget's disease, Bartholin gland adenocarcinoma, verrucous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and sarcoma. This manuscript discusses recommendations outlined in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for treatments, surveillance, systemic therapy options, and gynecologic survivorship.

The burden of cervical cancer survivorship: Understanding morbidity and survivorship needs through hospital admissions.

Objective: To describe disease- and treatment-related survivorship burden amongst survivors of cervical cancer and identify risk factors for hospital admissions after initial treatment. Methods: Retrospective chart review including patients treated for cervical cancer from 2014 to 2020 at a single urban academic institution. Clinical, demographic, and hospital admission characteristics were summarized. Associations between patient characteristics and likelihood of admission were examined using univariate and multivariate regression. Results: Of 366 patients undergoing surveillance following completion of primary treatment, 156 (43 %) were hospitalized for cancer or treatment-related sequela in the median follow-up of 3.6 years (IQR 1.4-6.4), with a median of 2 admissions (IQR 1-4.5) per patient and 570 unique admissions. While 65 (35 %) of admitted patients had multiple reasons for admission, the most common reasons for admission were: gastrointestinal complications (43 %), infection (38 %), genitourinary complications (33 %), and pain control (23 %). A substantial proportion of admitted patients underwent interventions including surgical procedures (57 %), transfusion of blood products (40 %), and interventional radiology procedures (28 %) and utilized supportive care services including case management (53 %), physical therapy (40 %), and occupational therapy (36 %). On multivariate analysis, odds of admission were higher among Black patients (aOR 2.4, p <.01), uninsured patients (aOR 2.7, p <.05), those with lower performance status (aOR 1.4, p <.05), and those with recurrence (aOR 5.5, p <.001). Conclusion: Survivors of cervical cancer represent a high-risk population frequently hospitalized after initial treatment. Black patients, uninsured patients, those with recurrence, and those with lower performance status faced higher odds of admission. Comprehensive, team-based care is necessary to address complex survivorship needs.

Disparities in Gynecologic Cancers.

ABSTRACT: Gynecologic cancer disparities have different trends by cancer type and by sociodemographic/economic factors. We highlight disparities in the United States arising due to poor delivery of cancer care across the continuum from primary prevention, detection, and diagnosis through treatment and identify opportunities to eliminate/reduce disparities to achieve cancer health equity. Our review documents the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in cervical, ovarian, and uterine cancer outcomes, with Black patients experiencing the worst outcomes, and notes literature investigating social determinants of health, particularly access to care. Although timely delivery of screening and diagnostic evaluation is of paramount importance for cervical cancer, efforts for ovarian and uterine cancer need to focus on timely recognition of symptoms, diagnostic evaluation, and delivery of guideline-concordant cancer treatment, including tumor biomarker and somatic/germline genetic testing.

Perceived Appropriateness of Assessing for Health-related Socioeconomic Risks Among Adult Patients with Cancer.

Cancer treatment can trigger or exacerbate health-related socioeconomic risks (HRSR; food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence). The American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute recommend HRSR screening and referral, but little research has examined the perceptions of patients with cancer on the appropriateness of HRSR screening in healthcare settings. We examined whether HRSR status, desire for assistance with HRSRs, and sociodemographic and health care-related factors were associated with perceived appropriateness of HRSR screening in health care settings and comfort with HRSR documentation in electronic health records (EHR). A convenience sample of adult patients with cancer at two outpatient clinics completed self-administered surveys. We used χ 2 and Fisher exact tests to test for significant associations. The sample included 154 patients (72% female, 90% ages 45 years or older). Thirty-six percent reported ≥1 HRSRs and 27% desired assistance with HRSRs. Overall, 80% thought it was appropriate to assess for HRSRs in health care settings. The distributions of HRSR status and sociodemographic characteristics were similar among people who perceived screening to be appropriate and those who did not. Participants who perceived screening as appropriate were three times as likely to report prior experience with HRSR screening (31% vs. 10%, P = 0.01). Moreover, 60% felt comfortable having HRSRs documented in the EHR. Comfort with EHR documentation of HRSRs was significantly higher among patients desiring assistance with HRSRs (78%) compared with those who did not (53%, P < 0.01). While initiatives for HRSR screening are likely to be seen by patients with cancer as appropriate, concerns may remain over electronic documentation of HRSRs. Significance: National organizations recommend addressing HRSRs such as food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence among patients with cancer. In our study, most patients with cancer perceived screening for HRSRs in clinical settings as appropriate. Meanwhile, concerns may remain over the documentation of HRSRs in EHRs.

Communicating the Gynecologic Brachytherapy Experience (CoGBE): Clinician perceived benefits of a graphic narrative discussion guide.

PURPOSE: Many current radiotherapy patient education materials are not patient-centered. An interprofessional team developed Communicating the Gynecologic Brachytherapy Experience (CoGBE), a graphic narrative discussion guide for cylinder, intracavitary, and interstitial high-dose-rate (HDR) gynecologic brachytherapy. This study assesses perceived clinical benefits, usability, and anxiety-reduction of CoGBE. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An electronic survey was sent to members of the American Brachytherapy Society. Participants were assigned to assess one of the three modality-specific CoGBE versions using a modified Systems Usability Scale (SUS), modified state-trait anxiety index (mSTAI), and Likert-type questions. Free response data was analyzed using modified grounded theory. RESULTS: Median modified SUS score was 76.3 (interquartile range [IQR], 71.3-82.5) and there were no significant differences between guide types. Median mSTAI was 40 (IQR, 40-43.3) for all guides collectively. The cylinder guide had a significantly higher median mSTAI than the intracavitary and interstitial guides (41.6 vs. 40.0 and 40.0; p = 0.04) suggesting the cylinder guide may have less impact on reducing anxiety. Most respondents reported that CoGBE was helpful (72%), would improve patient understanding (77%) and consultation memorability (82%), and was at least moderately likely to be incorporated into their practice (80%). Qualitative analysis themes included personalization and relatability (positive); generalizability (negative); illustrations (both). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians rate CoGBE as usable with potential to reduce patient anxiety, especially with more invasive treatment modalities including intracavitary or interstitial high-dose-rate. CoGBE has the potential to improve patient-clinician communication for a wider range of patients due to its accessible, adaptable, and patient-centered design.

Clinicopathologic Evaluation and Molecular Profiling of Recurrent Stage IA Endometrial Endometrioid Carcinoma: A Case-control Study.

Most low-grade, early-stage endometrial endometrioid carcinomas (EEC) have an excellent prognosis; however, recurrences occur in a small subset with several studies reporting an increase in CTNNB1 exon 3 mutations in this population. Herein we evaluated 10 recurrent low-grade (FIGO 1 or 2), early-stage (FIGO IA) EECs matched to 10 nonrecurrent EECs to further characterize their clinicopathologic features and molecular phenotype. Cases were matched to controls based on size, grade, and depth of invasion. All tumors were evaluated for specific clinicopathologic parameters followed by next-generation sequencing using a 1213 gene panel. Recurrent EECs demonstrated no significant clinicopathologic differences when compared with nonrecurrent EECs, in terms of age, body mass index, pattern of invasion, presence of endometrial atypical hyperplasia/endometrioid intraepithelial neoplasia, associated metaplastic changes, peritumoral lymphocytes, mitoses, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Both cohorts also showed a similar number of pathogenic mutations, including CTNNB1 exon 3 mutations, as well as tumor mutational burden and microsatellite profiles. Although in this particular study, the lack of correlation between CTNNB1 exon 3 mutation and recurrence might be secondary to a small sample size, it also suggests the presence of other contributing factors. Thus, it helps set the foundation for larger series incorporating whole genome, transcriptome, proteome, and epigenome analyses to answer this clinically important question.

Utilization of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Platform to Evaluate the Psychosocial and Quality-of-Life Experience Among a Community Sample of Ovarian Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Novel distress screening approaches using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measurements are critical for the provision of comprehensive quality community cancer care. Using an ePRO platform, the prevalence of psychosocial factors (distress, post-traumatic growth, resilience, and financial stress) affecting quality of life in ovarian cancer survivors (OCSs) was examined. METHODS: A cross-sectional OCS sample from the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition-Illinois Chapter completed web-based clinical, sociodemographic, and psychosocial assessment using well-validated measures: Hospital Anxiety/Depression Scale-anxiety/depression, Post-traumatic Growth Inventory, Brief Resilience Scale, comprehensive score for financial toxicity, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian (FACT-O/health-related quality of life [HRQOL]). Correlational analyses between variables were conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent (174 of 300) of OCS completed virtual assessment: median age 59 (range 32-83) years, 94.2% White, 60.3% married/in domestic partnership, 59.6% stage III-IV, 48.8% employed full-time/part-time, 55.2% had college/postgraduate education, 71.9% completed primary treatment, and median disease duration 6 (range < 1-34) years. On average, OCS endorsed normal levels of anxiety (mean ± standard deviation = 6.9 ± 3.8), depression (4.1 ± 3.6), mild total distress (10.9 ± 8.9), high post-traumatic growth (72.6 ± 21.5), normal resilience (3.7 ± 0.72), good FACT-O-HRQOL (112.6 ± 22.8), and mild financial stress (26 ± 10). Poor FACT-O emotional well-being was associated with greater participant distress (P < .001). Partial correlational analyses revealed negative correlations between FACT-O-HRQOL and anxiety (r = -0.65, P < .001), depression (r = -0.76, P < .001), and total distress (r = -0.92, P < .001). Yet, high FACT-O-HRQOL was positively correlated with post-traumatic coping (r = 0.27; P = .006) and resilience (r = 0.63; P < .001). CONCLUSION: ePRO assessment is feasible for identification of unique psychosocial factors, for example, financial toxicity and resilience, affecting HRQOL for OCS. Future investigation should explore large-scale, longitudinal ePRO assessment of the OCS psychosocial experience using innovative measures and community-based advocacy populations.

Lessons learned: Telemedicine patterns and clinical application in patients with gynecologic cancers during COVID-19.

Objective: To describe the use of telemedicine in gynecologic oncology and identify patient characteristics associated with telemedicine use during COVID-19. Methods: Single-institution retrospective chart review of patients with gynecologic cancer who participated in in-person and telemedicine visits (video and telephone) from January 2019 to November 2020. Patient characteristics, visit and treatment characteristics were collected. Comparisons between 2019 and 2020 and between in-person and telemedicine visits were performed. Cancer-specific visit details were described. Results: From January to November 2020, 2,039 patients attended 5240 ambulatory visits in our gynecologic oncology outpatient clinics with 4,304 (82.1%) in-person visits, 512 (9.8%) video telemedicine visits, and 424 (8.1%) telephone visits. In 2020, 936 (45.9%) patients participated in a telemedicine visit. Demographic characteristics did not differ between those who participated in any telemedicine versus in-person visits (p > 0.05). Black patients represented a larger share of telephone visits but this was not significant. Patients aged > 65 years were more likely to use the telephone for a visit and less likely to use video visits compared to their younger counterparts. The majority of patients who attended a telemedicine visit also attended a visit in-person (88.0%). The most common purpose of the telemedicine visits was to discuss results and/or treatment plans (46%) with other appointments occurring for treatment check-ins and clinical trials. Conclusions: The use of telemedicine drastically increased in 2020. Patient demographics were not different between in-person and telemedicine visits except that older patients were more likely to use telephone visits over video visits. Telemedicine can be used for a variety of care needs in gynecologic oncology but further work needs to be done to optimize implementation, assess cost-effectiveness and patient outcomes.

Resilience in the Face of Pandemic: The Impact of COVID-19 on the Psychologic Morbidity and Health-Related Quality of Life Among Women With Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has created new challenges for ovarian cancer survivors. This study aims to evaluate the psychologic morbidity and alterations in medical care caused by the pandemic. METHODS: Advanced-stage ovarian cancer survivors at our institution were contacted for participation in a cross-sectional telephone-based quantitative survey study assessing pandemic-related psychologic morbidity. Psychologic domains using validated measures were explored: health-related quality of life (HRQOL; functional assessment of cancer therapy [FACT-G7]), anxiety (generalized anxiety disorder-7 [GAD7]), depression (Patient Health Questionnarie-2 [PHQ2]), global health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System - Global Physical Health/Global Mental Health (PROMIS-GMH/GPH), resilience (brief resilience scale), and loneliness (English Longitudinal Study on Aging). Novel COVID-19 pandemic questions were drawn from a larger survey developed in our department. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent (61 of 104) of contacted patients completed the survey. One quarter of respondents had high resilience, with only 10% reporting low resilience. Only one patient screened positive for depression, and two for anxiety. Increased loneliness was reported by 43% of respondents. Patients' overall HRQOL was good (median = 21; range = 6-28). Few patients experienced treatment delays, with only four experiencing chemotherapy interruption and two reporting surgical delays. Multiple regression analyses revealed that high FACT-G7 HRQOL was predicted by age > 65 years, high self-reported mental health, high resilience, and being off chemotherapy. Lower COVID-19 concern was predicted by recurrent cancer and high resilience. CONCLUSION: Despite the far-reaching impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, ovarian cancer survivors' HRQOL has been maintained. Older age, high resilience, high mental health, and being off chemotherapy predicted better HRQOL. Ovarian cancer survivors remain resilient in the face of the pandemic, and the support of clinicians to preserve this invaluable personal resource is critical for well-being.

Provider-Level Barriers to Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in Survivors of Childhood and Young Adult Cancers.

Purpose: We sought to understand clinician-level barriers to providing HPV vaccination to survivors of childhood and young adult cancers (CYACs). Methods: We conducted 30-minute qualitative interviews with primary care and specialty clinicians who care for survivors of CYACs at our academic medical center. Blinded reviewers analyzed transcripts and used an inductive approach to identify barriers to vaccination in this population. Results: We conducted 24 interviews (n = 11 primary care clinicians, n = 13 oncology clinicians). Thematic analysis revealed that primary care clinicians are universally viewed as holding ultimate responsibility for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among survivors of CYACs. Both primary care and oncology clinicians believed vague, inconsistent HPV guidelines engendered uncertainty toward HPV vaccination's role and timing following completion of CYAC therapies. As such, compared with other vaccines, the HPV vaccination is not as consistently offered to survivors. Respondents identified direct guidance from oncologists to primary care clinicians and to patients as a potential strategy for improving HPV vaccination rates in this population. Finally, oncology clinicians frequently deprioritize the issue of preventing second, noniatrogenic cancers and consequently miss opportunities to discuss vaccination's merits with their patients. Conclusions: Despite not holding ultimate responsibility for vaccination, oncology clinicians have an opportunity to play an important role in ensuring access and overcoming hesitancy among survivors of CYACs. Developing clearer and more collaborative guidelines, helping to integrate vaccination into institutional electronic health record protocols, offering direct guidance to primary care colleagues, and participating in conversations with survivors of CYACs may help improve vaccination rates.

Gaps in patient-physician communication at the time of malignant bowel obstruction from recurrent gynecologic cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: We sought to investigate the patient and physician approaches to malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) due to recurrent gynecologic cancer by (1) comparing patient and physician expectations and priorities during a new MBO diagnosis, and (2) highlighting factors that facilitate patient-doctor communication. METHODS: Patients were interviewed about their experience during an admission for MBO, and physicians were interviewed about their general approach towards MBO. Interviews were analyzed for themes using QDAMiner qualitative analysis software. The analysis utilized the framework analysis and used both predetermined themes and those that emerged from the data. RESULTS: We interviewed 14 patients admitted with MBO from recurrent gynecologic cancer and 15 gynecologic oncologists. We found differences between patients and physicians regarding plans for next chemotherapy treatments, foremost priorities, communication styles, and need for end-of-life discussions. Both patients and physicians felt that patient-physician communication was improved in situations of trust, understanding patient preferences, corroboration of information, and increased time spent with patients during and before the MBO. CONCLUSION: Gaps in patient-physician communication could be targeted to improve the patient experience and physician counseling during a difficult diagnosis. Our findings emphasize a need for patient-physician discussions to focus on expectations for future cancer-directed treatments, support for patients at home with home health or hospice level support in line with their wishes, and acknowledgement of uncertainty while providing direct information about the MBO diagnosis.

Resilience: a mediator of the negative effects of pandemic-related stress on women's mental health in the USA.

The role of resilience in mediating the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of US women is poorly understood. We examined socioeconomic factors associated with low resilience in women, the relationship of low resilience with psychiatric morbidity, and the mediating role of resilience in the relationship between pandemic-related stress and other coincident psychiatric morbidities. Using a quota-based sample from a national panel, we conducted a web-based survey of 3200 US women in April 2020. Weighted, multivariate logistic regression was used to model the odds of pandemic-related stress, and coincident depression and anxiety symptoms among those with and without low resilience. Structural equation modeling was used to evaluate resilience as a mediator of the relationship between pandemic-related stress and other coincident psychiatric morbidities. Risk factors for low resilience included younger age, lower household income, lower education, unemployment, East/Southeast Asian race, unmarried/unpartnered status, and higher number of medical comorbidities. Low resilience was significantly associated with greater odds of depression symptoms (OR = 3.78, 95% CI [3.10-4.60]), anxiety symptoms (OR = 4.17, 95% CI [3.40-5.11]), and pandemic-related stress (OR = 2.86, 95% CI [2.26-3.26]). Resilience acted as a partial mediator in the association between pandemic-related stress and anxiety symptoms (proportion mediated = 0.23) and depression symptoms (proportion mediated = 0.28). In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, low resilience mediated the association between pandemic-related stress and psychiatric morbidity. Strategies proven to enhance resilience, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness-based stress reduction, and addressing socioeconomic factors, may help mitigate mental health outcomes.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health-Related Socioeconomic Risks During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey of U.S. Women.

Background: Nearly half of U.S. women experienced new or worsening health-related socioeconomic risks (HRSRs) (food, housing, utilities and transportation difficulties, and interpersonal violence) early in the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to examine racial/ethnic disparities in pandemic-related changes in HRSRs among women. Materials and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey (04/2020) of 3200 women. Pre- and early pandemic HRSRs were described by race/ethnicity. Weighted, multivariable logistic regression models generated odds of incident and worsening HRSRs by race/ethnicity. Results: The majority of Black, East or Southeast (E/SE) Asian, and Hispanic women reported ≥1 prepandemic HRSR (51%-56% vs. 38% of White women, p < 0.001). By April 2020, 68% of Black, E/SE Asian, and Hispanic women and 55% of White women had ≥1 HRSR (p < 0.001). For most HRSRs, the odds of an incident or worsening condition were similar across racial/ethnic groups, except Black, E/SE Asian and Hispanic women had 2-3.6 times the odds of incident transportation difficulties compared with White women. E/SE Asian women also had higher odds of worsening transportation difficulties compared with White women (adjusted odds ratios = 2.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1-5.6). In the early pandemic, 1/19 Hispanic, 1/28 E/SE Asian, 1/36 Black and 1/100 White women had all 5 HRSRs (extreme health-related socioeconomic vulnerability). Conclusions: Prepandemic racial/ethnic disparities in HRSRs persisted and prevalence rates increased for all groups early in the pandemic. Disparities in transportation difficulties widened. White women were much less likely than others to experience extreme health-related socioeconomic vulnerability. An equitable COVID-19 response requires attention to persistent and widening racial/ethnic disparities in HRSRs among women.

A look at the gynecologic oncologist workforce - Are we meeting patient demand?

OBJECTIVE: to examine the geographic distribution of gynecologic oncologists (GO) and assess if the GO workforce is meeting the demand for oncology services for patients with gynecologic cancers. METHODS: We identified GO by National Provider Identifiers (NPI) and calculated county-level density of GO. County-level gynecologic cancer rates were derived from the U.S. Cancer Statistics to represent demand for GO services. A spatial data plot compared GO workforce to gynecologic cancer service demand. U.S. census county-level demographic information was collected and compared. RESULTS: In 2019, 1527 GO had a registered NPI. Of 3142 counties in the US, 2864 (91.2%) counties had no GO in their local county and 1943 (61.8%) counties had no GO in local or adjacent (neighboring) counties. As the gynecologic cancer rate increases (described in quintiles) in counties, there are fewer counties without a GO or adjacent GO. However, county-level GO density (number of GO per 100,000 women) did not significantly increase as the county-level incidence of gynecologic cancer increased (r = -0.12, p = 0.06)… Women living in counties with the highest gynecologic cancer rates and without access to a GO were more likely to reside in a rural area where residents had a lower median income and were predominately of White race.. CONCLUSION: There are a significant number of counties in the U.S. without a GO. As county-level gynecologic cancer incidence increased, the proportion of counties without a GO decreased; GO density did not increase with increasing cancer rates. Rural counties with high gynecologic incidence rates are underserved by GO. This information can inform initiatives to improve outreach and collaboration to better meet the needs of patients in different geographic areas.

Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib versus carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A Markov analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib (P/L) versus standard-of-care carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/T) as first-line systemic therapy for patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer. METHODS: We designed a Markov model to simulate treatment outcomes for advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer patients whose tumors are either microsatellite stable (MSS) or have high microsatellite instability (MSI-high). We adopted a healthcare sector perspective for the analysis. Model inputs for costs, health utility, and clinical estimates were obtained from the literature including data from GOG0209 and KEYNOTE-146. Primary outcomes included costs of care, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The time-horizon was three years and the discount rate was 3% annually. RESULTS: In a MSS cohort, compared to C/T, first-line treatment with P/L increased treatment costs by $212,670 and decreased QALYs by 0.28 per patient. In a MSI-high cohort, compared to C/T, P/L increased costs by $313,487 and increased QALYs by 0.11 per patient, representing an ICER of $2,849,882 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found that the price of the new drugs was the most important determinant of the ICER and that the price of the new drugs would need to decrease by 85% to $2817 per cycle to reach a $150,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: In the MSS model, we found that first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer with P/L increased costs and worsened outcomes compared to C/T. In the MSI-high model, P/L improved survival and QALYs compared to C/T but was not cost-effective at the current cost of the drugs.

Differences in Sociodemographic Disparities Between Patients Undergoing Surgery for Advanced Colorectal or Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for ovarian cancer with peritoneal metastases (OPM) is an established treatment, yet access-related racial and socioeconomic disparities are well documented. CRS for colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases (CRPM) is garnering more widespread acceptance, and it is unknown what disparities exist with regards to access. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional multicenter study analyzed medical records from the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2015. Patients diagnosed with CRPM or ORP only and either no or confirmed resection were included. Patient- and facility-level characteristics were analyzed using uni- and multivariable logistic regressions to identify associations with receipt of CRS. RESULTS: A total of 6634 patients diagnosed with CRPM and 14,474 diagnosed with OPM were included in this study. Among patients with CRPM, 18.1% underwent CRS. On multivariable analysis, female gender (odds ratio [95% CI] 2.04 [1.77-2.35]; P < 0.001) and treatment at an academic or research facility (OR 1.55 [1.17-2.05]; P = 0.002) were associated with CRS. Among patients with OPM, 87.1% underwent CRS. On multivariable analysis, treatment at facilities with higher-income patient populations was positively associated with CRS, while age (OR 0.97 [0.96-0.98]; P < .0001), use of nonprivate insurance (OR 0.69 [0.56-0.85]; P = 0.001), and listed as Black (OR 0.62 [0.45-0.86]; P = 0.004) were negatively associated with CRS. CONCLUSION: There were more systemic barriers to CRS for patients with OPM than for patients with CRPM. As CRS becomes more widely practiced for CRPM, it is likely that more socioeconomic and demographic barriers will be elucidated.