Assessment of Cancer Survivorship Training and Knowledge Among Resident Physicians in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The number of gynecologic cancer survivors in the USA is expected to grow to nearly 2 million by 2029. Gynecologic oncologists alone will not be able to care for all of these women. Thus, preparation of general obstetrician/gynecologists (OBGYNs) to deliver this care is crucial. Our objective was to assess cancer survivorship training (CST) among OB/GYN residents and to evaluate knowledge in basic gynecologic cancer survivorship. OB/GYN residents were recruited nationally to complete a de novo questionnaire, querying demographics, hours of CST received, teaching methods used, and efficacy of those methods. Survivorship knowledge was assessed by ten questions based on the 2017 Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations on post-treatment surveillance, which includes topics appropriate for generalists. Analyses were done using t tests and ANOVA, with significance set at p = 0.05. In total, 128 residents responded to the survey. Observation was the most common method of CST (53%), with patient contact reported as the most effective method (42.6%). The mean score of correct responses (MSCRs) among all respondents was 61.5%. MSCR significantly improved with increasing post-graduate year (PGY) (p = 0.003). Survivorship training method was not associated with improved MSCR. Improvements in MSCR were observed with an increasing number of CST hours (p = 0.011). A total of 13.9% of residents reported feeling "very comfortable" with survivorship care, yet 88.5% of respondents indicated they did not want additional CST. More hours of CST are associated with improved resident in knowledge in cancer survivorship care, though deficits still remain. Further investigation into optimizing CST is warranted.

Social determinants of health and vaccine uptake in pregnancy: Disparities in a diverse, predominately foreign-born population.

OBJECTIVE: To identify discrepancies in influenza, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake and offer rates among pregnant individuals across various social determinants of health including race, ethnicity, foreign-born status, education level, and health insurance coverage, highlighting potential interventions to improve vaccine uptake in pregnancy. METHODS: An IRB-approved cross-sectional survey was conducted on the postpartum floor of a large urban hospital in South Florida. Between July to September 2021, 359 participants consented and answered questions on their demographics, social background, and influenza, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccine history. RESULTS: Most participants identified as White (67.7 %), Hispanic (67.4 %), and foreign-born (68.5 %) with an average age of 29.7 ± 6 years. There was a significant difference in mean vaccine between White (1.3) and Black individuals (0.9, p = 0.002). Mean uptake was significantly higher in foreign-born individuals (1.3) compared to US-born (0.9, p < 0.001). Mean uptake was significantly higher for those with graduate (1.7) and college (1.4) degrees compared to those with a high school degree (1.0) or less than high school (1.0, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Significant differences in the uptake and offer rates of influenza, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccines were observed across a variety of social determinants including educational attainment, employment, insurance, and median income of the zip code of primary residence.

Lost opportunities for mismatch repair (MMR) screening among minority women with endometrial cancer.

Lynch Syndrome (LS) prevalence in underrepresented minorities are lacking. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of LS in a minority patient population. Secondary objectives included identifying factors associated with successful LS screening and to characterize clinicopathologic features. Women with endometrial cancer treated within a university system from 2014 and 2016 were included. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) results of MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 were obtained from medical records and clinicopathologic factors abstracted. Patients not previously screened for LS were screened. 276 patients were evaluable. More minority women were screened as part of their routine cancer care (p = 0.005). Additionally, women 50 years or younger were more likely to be screened for LS compared to women older than 51(p = 0.009) and uninsured or reliant on Medicaid patients (p = 0.011) were more likely to be screened during routine care. Six patients received confirmatory germline testing for LS (4.3%), and another 8 patients had a staining pattern suggestive of LS. In an underrepresented population, the rate of LS in endometrial cancer is similar to previous reports. LS may be under diagnosed and opportunities missed when universal screening is not applied in minority women.

Implementing CenteringPregnancy Group Prenatal Care for Minority Women Living with HIV at an Urban University Hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women with HIV require sustained education and support throughout pregnancy to achieve healthy perinatal outcomes. To enhance prenatal care for women with HIV, the Prenatal Immunology Service at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine adapted the Centering Healthcare Institute's CenteringPregnancy curriculum to include HIV content. Nurse-midwives introduced the curriculum in a pilot project to learn if women would enroll in group prenatal care. A retrospective record review was conducted to evaluate perinatal outcomes among women with HIV who received prenatal care in a group setting. METHODS: Data were collected from the electronic health records of women with HIV who received either CenteringPregnancy-HIV group prenatal care or traditional prenatal care between March 2015 and July 2016. Sociodemographic factors, HIV immune markers, and pregnancy and birth outcomes were reviewed. Univariate and bivariate statistics and multiple regression models assessed differences between women in CenteringPregnancy-HIV group prenatal care compared with women with HIV in traditional care. RESULTS: Among women with HIV who received prenatal care during the pilot project, 128 met eligibility criteria for review. Perinatal outcomes were analyzed for 117 women who had a live birth; of these, 14 participated in CenteringPregnancy-HIV group prenatal care, and 103 received traditional care. Demographic profiles were similar in both groups. No significant differences in perinatal outcomes were observed among women in CenteringPregnancy-HIV group prenatal care compared with women with HIV in traditional prenatal care. DISCUSSION: Women with HIV can often feel stigmatized and isolated. Group prenatal care can foster patient engagement, self-management, and social support to improve adherence to antiretroviral and other health regimens that promote healthy outcomes for both woman and newborn. Although results of this pilot study were not statistically significant, they show that CenteringPregnancy-HIV group prenatal care may be an option for women with HIV, but the benefits need further exploration in larger studies.