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.

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.

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.

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.

Disparities in Fertility-Sparing Treatment and Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology After a Diagnosis of Cervical, Ovarian, or Endometrial Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the presence of sociodemographic and clinical disparities in fertility-sparing treatment and assisted reproductive technology (ART) use among patients with a history of cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of patients aged 18-45 years who were diagnosed with cervical cancer (stage IA, IB), endometrial cancer (grade 1, stage IA, IB), or ovarian cancer (stage IA, IC) between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2015, using linked data from the CCR (California Cancer Registry), the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The primary outcome was receipt of fertility-sparing treatment , defined as surgical or medical treatment to preserve the uterus and at least one ovary. The secondary outcome was fertility preservation , defined as ART use after cancer diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to estimate odds ratios and 95% CIs for the association between fertility-sparing treatment and exposures of interest: age at diagnosis, race and ethnicity, health insurance, socioeconomic status, rurality, and parity. RESULTS: We identified 7,736 patients who were diagnosed with cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer with eligible histology. There were 850 (18.8%) fertility-sparing procedures among 4,521 cases of cervical cancer, 108 (7.2%) among 1,504 cases of endometrial cancer, and 741 (43.3%) among 1,711 cases of ovarian cancer. Analyses demonstrated nonuniform patterns of sociodemographic disparities by cancer type for fertility-sparing treatment, and ART. Fertility-sparing treatment was more likely among young patients, overall, and of those in racial and ethnic minority groups among survivors of cervical and ovarian cancer. Use of ART was low (n=52) and was associated with a non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity designation, being of younger age (18-35 years), and having private insurance. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that clinical and sociodemographic disparities exist in the receipt of fertility-sparing treatment and ART use among patients with a history of cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancer.

Disparities in fertility preservation use among adolescent and young adult women with cancer.

PURPOSE: Women face multiple barriers to fertility preservation after cancer diagnosis, but few studies have examined disparities in use of these services. METHODS: Women aged 15-39 years diagnosed with cancer during 2004-2015 were identified from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and linked to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System. Women who cryopreserved oocytes or embryos for fertility preservation (n = 96) were compared to women who received gonadotoxic treatment but did not use fertility preservation (n = 7964). Conditional logistic and log-binomial regression were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) or prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Few adolescent and young adult women with cancer in our study (1.2%) used fertility preservation. In multivariable regression, women less likely to use fertility preservation were older at diagnosis (ages 25-29 vs. 35-39: OR = 6.27, 95% CI: 3.35, 11.73); non-Hispanic Black (vs. non-Hispanic White: PR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.79); and parous at diagnosis (vs. nulliparous: PR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.45); or lived in census tracts that were non-urban (vs. urban: PR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.37) or of lower socioeconomic status (quintiles 1-3 vs. quintiles 4 and 5: PR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Women with cancer who were older, non-Hispanic Black, parous, or living in areas that were non-urban or of lower socioeconomic position were less likely to use fertility preservation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Clinical and policy interventions are needed to ensure equitable access to fertility services among women facing cancer treatment-related infertility.

Barriers to completion of cascade genetic testing: how can we improve the uptake of testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome?

Cascade testing for familial cancer syndromes has historically been difficult to execute. As part of a facilitated cascade testing pathway, we evaluated barriers to completion of cascade testing. Our previously published study evaluated a facilitated cascade testing pathway whereby a genetics team facilitated at-risk relative (ARR) cascade testing through telephone genetic counseling and mailed saliva kit testing. This follow-up study evaluated barriers to completion of cascade genetic testing through six-month follow-up telephone interviews. Probands identified 114 ARRs, of whom 97 were successfully contacted by telephone. Among those contacted, 83 (86%) reported interest in genetic testing and 14 (14%) declined. Among those reporting interest in testing, 71% (69/83) completed testing. Follow-up telephone interviews revealed that 14 ARRs did not complete testing despite reporting interest for the following reasons: concern about genetic discrimination, fear of a positive result and belief that the pathogenic variant was not relevant to his/her health. Five ARRs reported that they remained interested in testing and the telephone call prompted completion of testing. Even when facilitated by a medical team with prioritization of relative convenience, significant barriers to cascade testing ARRs for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome persist due to concern about genetic discrimination, cost, and fear of positive test results.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, providing relatives the opportunity for early detection and prevention of cancer. The current standard is for patients to contact and encourage relatives (patient-mediated contact) to undergo counseling and testing. Direct relative contact by the medical team or testing laboratory has shown promise but is complicated by privacy laws and lack of infrastructure. We sought to compare outcomes associated with patient-mediated and direct relative contact for hereditary cancer cascade genetic counseling and testing in the first meta-analysis on this topic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020134276). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer cascade testing. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Among relatives included in the meta-analysis, 48% (95% CI, 38 to 58) underwent cascade genetic counseling and 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) cascade genetic testing. Compared with the patient-mediated approach, direct relative contact resulted in significantly higher uptake of genetic counseling for all relatives (63% [95% CI, 49 to 75] v 35% [95% CI, 24 to 48]) and genetic testing for first-degree relatives (62% [95% CI, 49 to 73] v 40% [95% CI, 32 to 48]). Methods of direct contact included telephone calls, letters, and e-mails; respective rates of genetic testing completion were 61% (95% CI, 51 to 70), 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59), and 48% (95% CI, 45 to 50). CONCLUSION: Most relatives at risk for hereditary cancer do not undergo cascade genetic counseling and testing, forgoing potentially life-saving medical interventions. Compared with patient-mediated contact, direct relative contact increased rates of cascade genetic counseling and testing, arguing for a shift in the care delivery paradigm, to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

Financial Impacts And Operational Implications Of Private Equity Acquisition Of US Hospitals.

Although private equity acquisition of short-term acute care hospitals purportedly improves efficiency and cost-effectiveness, financial performance after acquisition remains unexamined. We compared changes in the financial performance of 176 hospitals acquired during 2005-14 versus changes in matched control hospitals. Acquisition was associated with a $432 decrease in cost per adjusted discharge and a 1.78-percentage-point increase in operating margin. The majority of acquisitions-134 members of the Hospital Corporation of America, acquired in 2006-were associated with a $559 decrease in cost per adjusted discharge but no change in operating margin. Conversely, non-HCA hospitals exhibited a 3.27-percentage-point increase in operating margin without a concomitant change in cost per adjusted discharge. When we examined markers of hospital capacity, operational efficiency, and costs, we found that private equity acquisition was associated with decreases in total beds, ratio of outpatient to inpatient charges, and staffing (total personnel and nursing full-time equivalents and total full-time equivalents per occupied bed). Therefore, financial performance improved after acquisition, whereas patient throughput and inpatient utilization increased and staffing metrics decreased. Future research is needed to identify any unintended trade-offs with safety and quality.

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.

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.