Try a new search

Format these results:

Searched for:

person:boydl01

Total Results:

87


Let's chat about cervical cancer: Assessing the accuracy of ChatGPT responses to cervical cancer questions

Hermann, Catherine E; Patel, Jharna M; Boyd, Leslie; Growdon, Whitfield B; Aviki, Emeline; Stasenko, Marina
OBJECTIVE:To quantify the accuracy of ChatGPT in answering commonly asked questions pertaining to cervical cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship/quality-of-life (QOL). METHODS:ChatGPT was queried with 64 questions adapted from professional society websites and the authors' clinical experiences. The answers were scored by two attending Gynecologic Oncologists according to the following scale: 1) correct and comprehensive, 2) correct but not comprehensive, 3) some correct, some incorrect, and 4) completely incorrect. Scoring discrepancies were resolved by additional reviewers as needed. The proportion of responses earning each score were calculated overall and within each question category. RESULTS:ChatGPT provided correct and comprehensive answers to 34 (53.1%) questions, correct but not comprehensive answers to 19 (29.7%) questions, partially incorrect answers to 10 (15.6%) questions, and completely incorrect answers to 1 (1.6%) question. Prevention and survivorship/QOL had the highest proportion of "correct" scores (scores of 1 or 2) at 22/24 (91.7%) and 15/16 (93.8%), respectively. ChatGPT performed less well in the treatment category, with 15/21 (71.4%) correct scores. It performed the worst in the diagnosis category with only 1/3 (33.3%) correct scores. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:ChatGPT accurately answers questions about cervical cancer prevention, survivorship, and QOL. It performs less accurately for cervical cancer diagnosis and treatment. Further development of this immensely popular large language model should include physician input before it can be utilized as a tool for Gynecologists or recommended as a patient resource for information on cervical cancer diagnosis and treatment.
PMID: 37988948
ISSN: 1095-6859
CID: 5608522

Trends in use of radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and combination chemoradiotherapy in advanced uterine cancer before, during, and after GOG 258

Lee, Sarah S; Weil, Christopher R; Boyd, Leslie R; DeCesaris, Cristina; Gaffney, David; Suneja, Gita
OBJECTIVE:To explore the use of Gynecologic Oncology Group 258 (GOG 258) study regimens before, during, and after the study. METHODS:tests were used for continuous and categorical variables. Multi-variable logistic regression assessed factors associated with the receipt of chemoradiotherapy compared with chemotherapy only or radiation therapy only. RESULTS:From 2004 to 2019, 41 408 high-risk endometrial cancer patients received adjuvant therapy (12% radiation therapy, 38% chemotherapy, 50% chemoradiotherapy). Chemoradiotherapy increased over the GOG 258 study period (40% before study opening, 54% during enrollment, and 59% after results). Serous (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.7) and clear cell histology (0.7, 0.6 to 0.8), higher grade (0.8, 0.7 to 0.9), and lymph node positivity (0.8, 0.7 to 0.9) were negatively associated with receipt of chemoradiotherapy compared with single-modality treatment. Non-Hispanic Black ethnicity (0.8, 0.8 to 0.9) and residing ≥50 miles from the treatment facility (0.8, 0.7 to 0.9) were also negatively associated with chemoradiotherapy. Private insurance (1.2, 1.0 to 1.4) and treatment at community hospitals (1.2, 1.2 to 1.3) were positively associated with chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSION:Despite the lack of benefit in the GOG 258 experimental arm, chemoradiotherapy use increased during study enrollment and after results publication.
PMID: 37487661
ISSN: 1525-1438
CID: 5618812

Trends in IMRT Utilization for Definitive Treatment of Cervical Cancer, 2004-2018 [Meeting Abstract]

Lee, S S; Weil, C R; Boyd, L; Burt, L M; Chino, F; Gaffney, D K; Shaikh, F; Suneja, G
Purpose/Objective(s): Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is an advanced radiotherapy technique that delivers conformal radiation to desired targets while minimizing dose to surrounding organs at risk. In the post-operative setting, IMRT is associated with reduced acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal side effects for patients with cervical cancer. However, no prospective randomized data exist for the use of IMRT in the setting of definitive treatment of intact cervical cancer. The objective of this study was to identify trends in IMRT use for this population. Materials/Methods: Patients with stage IB2-IVA cervical cancer diagnosed from 2004-2018 who were treated with curative intent chemoradiation were identified in the National Cancer Database. Patients who underwent primary surgical management, did not receive external beam radiation to the pelvis or received radiation outside the pelvis, or received an unspecified technique or target of radiation were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was utilization of IMRT vs 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) over time. A Cochrane-Armitage test was performed to assess trends over time. T-tests, chi-square tests, and multivariable logistic regression with propensity score matching were used to identify factors associated with receipt of IMRT.
Result(s): Overall, 13,974 patients met inclusion criteria; 4,590 (33%) received IMRT, and 9,384 (67%) received 3DCRT. In this cohort, 65% were non-Hispanic White, 45% were early stage (I-II), 80% were squamous histology, 62% received brachytherapy, and 28% had lymph node involvement. The utilization of IMRT increased from 30% in 2004 to 71% in 2018 (p<0.001). After adjustment for clinical and demographic variables, factors associated with IMRT use were: Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.5), treatment in the Western U.S. (aOR 1.4, CI 1.2-1.7) and the Southern U.S. (aOR 1.3, CI 1.1-1.5), living more than 50 miles from the treatment facility (aOR 1.2, CI 1.0-1.5), stage III disease (aOR 1.3, CI 1.1-1.5), and lymph node involvement (aOR 1.4, CI 1.3-1.6). Compared to an academic medical center, patients receiving care at a comprehensive community cancer center were less likely to receive IMRT (aOR 0.66, CI 0.59-0.72). There were no differences in IMRT use by age, insurance, or medical comorbidities.
Conclusion(s): Despite the lack of prospective efficacy data supporting the use of IMRT in patients with intact cervical cancer, IMRT has dramatically increased over the last fifteen years especially for patients with advanced-stage disease or lymph node involvement. More data on the optimal use of IMRT, including appropriate target volume margins and on-board imaging, are needed.
Copyright
EMBASE:2020264349
ISSN: 1879-355x
CID: 5366262

PO40 Presentation Time: 4:45 PM: Definitive Management of Cervical Cancer Patients at an Urban Institution During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Brachytherapy Treatment During the Surge [Meeting Abstract]

Lymberis, S C; Lee, S S; Boyd, L; Hacker, K E; Salame, G; Pothuri, B; Schiff, P B
Purpose: Locally advanced cervical cancer was defined by an international consensus panel as a high priority malignancy during the COVID-19 pandemic, recommending prompt initiation of definitive treatment and completion of treatment (PMID 32563593). The objective of this study was to study the clinical outcomes of patients (pts) with cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT) and brachytherapy (BT) at our institution in 2019 (pre-COVID) and in 2020 (peri-COVID).
Material(s) and Method(s): This was a retrospective cohort study of pts with FIGO Stage IB2-IVA cervical cancer at our institutions from 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2020. Pts received CRT followed by intracavitary brachytherapy (IC) with two operative insertions one week apart, or interstitial (IS) BT with one operative insertion. BT treatment was planned using image-guided CT or MR delineation. Pre-COVID was defined by initiation of CRT in 1/2019-12/2019, and peri-COVID was defined by initiation in 1/2020-10/2020. Process changes peri-COVID included limited on-site staff (e.g., minimal OR staff, no trainees, remote physics team), universal implementation of COVID-19 testing prior to surgery, and CT instead of MR-delineation based treatment. Outcomes of interest were time to treatment initiation and completion and differences in treatment planning modality or dosimetry. Fisher's exact and Mann Whitney U tests were used with significance p<0.05.
Result(s): Thirty-one pts were included, with 18 patients undergoing treatment pre-COVID and 13 peri-COVID. The median age at diagnosis pre-COVID was 57.7 (range 23-77) and for peri-COVID, 45.5 (range 28-62, p=0.06). There were no differences in non-English speaking pts (44% vs 59%, p=0.71) or uninsured pts (11% vs 33%, p=0.184) between the two cohorts. Median time to initiation of treatment from biopsy diagnosis was 52 days (range 13-209) in 2019 and for peri-COVID, 55.5 (range 20-173, p=0.71). During COVID, four pts had delayed initiation to treatment >100 days: two related to fertility, and one due to fear of COVID-19. For this pt, tumor size progressed from 2.3 cm to 4.2 cm maximal dimension. One pt treated in 2020 tested positive following treatment and did not require hospital admission. All pts except one completed CRT with RT: 25 pts pelvic RT (45 Gy), 3 pelvic and para-aortic RT (45 Gy with 57.5 Gy concomitant boost to nodes), 8 pts pelvic RT (45Gy) with sequential parametrial boost (50.4-59.4 Gy) using IMRT with no dose differences between pre and peri-COVID (Table 1). No pts required treatment breaks and the median overall treatment time was 50 days (range 31-85) in 2019 vs 50 days (range 43-63) in 2020 (p=0.710).
Conclusion(s): Despite the significant burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on our health care system, all cervical cancer pts receiving CRT met standard of care including CRT and BT within the recommended time frame with no significant differences in dosimetric treatment parameters pre- and peri-COVID. Delays in treatment initiation of treatment initiation were seen in 30% of pts in the peri-COVID period, suggesting that patients may have had increased barriers to access care. More follow-up is needed to determine how the Covid pandemic impacted cervical cancer outcome measures.
Copyright
EMBASE:2021567637
ISSN: 1873-1449
CID: 5510352

The impact of the ban on elective surgery in New York City during the coronavirus outbreak on gynecologic oncology patient care

Lee, Sarah S; Ceasar, Danial; Margolis, Benjamin; Venkatesh, Pooja; Espino, Kevin; Gerber, Deanna; Boyd, Leslie R
Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Elective surgical procedures were suspended during the coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19) in New York City (NYC) between March 16 and June 15, 2020. This study characterizes the impact of the ban on surgical delays for patients scheduled for surgery during this first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Patients who were scheduled for surgical treatment of malignant or pre-invasive disease by gynecologic oncologists at three NYC hospitals during NYC's ban on elective surgery were included. Outcomes of interest were the percentage of patients experiencing surgical delay and the nature of delays. Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square, and logistic regression tests were performed with significance set at p < 0.05. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of the 145 patients with malignant or pre-invasive diseases scheduled for surgery during the ban on elective surgery, 40% of patients experienced one or more surgical delays, 10% experienced two or more and 1% experienced three surgical delays. Of patients experiencing an initial delay, 77% were hospital-initiated and 11% were due to known or suspected personal COVID-19. Overall, 81% of patients completed their planned treatment, and 93% of patients underwent their initially planned surgery. Among patients for whom adjuvant therapy was recommended, 67% completed their planned treatment, and the most common reasons for not completing treatment were medically indicated followed by concerns regarding COVID-19. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:During the ban on elective surgery in NYC during the first outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, many patients experienced minor surgical delays, but most patients obtained appropriate, timely care with either surgery or alternative treatment.
PMCID:9085382
PMID: 35573131
ISSN: 2352-5789
CID: 5284172

Qualitative analysis of gynecologic oncology patients' experience with treatment holidays

Margolis, Benjamin; Sutter, Megan E; Boyd, Leslie R; Ford Winkel, Abigail
Objective/UNASSIGNED:Patients with advanced or recurrent gynecologic malignancies occasionally take breaks from systemic treatment colloquially referred to as "treatment holidays" or "chemotherapy holidays." There are no data from the patient perspective that help describe this experience. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Patients with recurrent or advanced primary gynecologic malignancies who had decided to enter a treatment holiday were recruited and interviewed. A treatment holiday was defined as a planned temporary break or delay in treatment for a patient with recurrent or advanced primary gynecologic malignancy for reasons other than pursuit of hospice or best supportive care, research protocol violation or unacceptable toxicity. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and then analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 6 total patients identified for participation, 5 completed interviews with ages ranging from 57 to 80 years. Two participants returned to their previous treatment regimen after their holiday therapy, two switched therapies, and one remained on an extended break from systemic treatment. Treatment holidays were experienced as a break from the physical and psychological routine of being a cancer patient, but also brought about feelings of a lack of structure, uncertainty, and led to a confrontation with mortality issues. Overall, participants had favorable experiences which were initiated by their providers in whom they had a deep sense of trust. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Patients experience treatment holidays as a positive and valuable break from the physical and psychosocial routine of cancer treatment and illness. These experiences produce distinct emotional needs that clinicians should address to best support patients electing treatment holidays.
PMCID:8714996
PMID: 35028355
ISSN: 2352-5789
CID: 5116762

Give me a break: Oncologists' perception of systemic treatment holidays

Kreines, F M; Will, E; Margolis, B; Winkel, A; Boyd, L R
Objective: To analyze physician opinions of, and experiences with patients who take a temporary break from treatment in the setting of metastatic primary or recurrent gynecologic cancer.
Method(s): An electronic survey was sent to the members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO). A treatment holiday was defined as a planned temporary break from systemic treatment in a patient with recurrent or metastatic gynecologic malignancy. Descriptive statistics were calculated using Microsoft Excel, and continuous variables were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. Free text responses were qualitatively analyzed.
Result(s): Of the 1314 individuals invited to participate, 74 responded (5.6% response rate). Ninety-six percent of respondents had a patient take a treatment holiday. Ninety-five percent of respondents would offer a treatment holiday for ovarian cancer, 90% for endometrial cancer, 70% for cervical cancer, 57% for vulvar cancer, 52% for vaginal cancer, and 49% for sarcoma. Using a Likert scale, respondents identified life events (86.6%), fatigue from side effects (77.9%), schedule fatigue (67.6%) and desire for ''life off treatment'' (64.7%) as ''very important'' reasons for offering a treatment holiday. Patients resumed treatment for return of symptoms (62.9%), progression of disease (60.0%), end of pre-specified break (50%), patient anxiety (45.7%) and recommendation of the physician (11%). 6.8% of physicians experienced regret after a patient underwent a treatment holiday. Ninety-eight percent of respondents agreed that a treatment holiday can be valuable.
Conclusion(s): The gynecologic and medical oncologists who responded to this survey almost uniformly offered their patients treatment holidays, were more likely to offer treatment holidays for ovarian and endometrial cancer, and were unlikely to express regret after the experience.
Copyright
EMBASE:2016405224
ISSN: 0392-2936
CID: 5157602

Enhanced recovery Pathways in gynecologic surgery: Are they safe and effective in the elderly?

Lee, Sarah S; Chern, Jing-Yi; Frey, Melissa K; Comfort, Ashley; Lee, Jessica; Roselli, Nicole; Boyd, Leslie R
Objective/UNASSIGNED:To compare perioperative outcomes of the elderly versus non-elderly patients on ERPs undergoing laparotomy for gynecologic surgery. Methods/UNASSIGNED:-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables, with p < 0.05 for significance. Results/UNASSIGNED:One hundred eighty-nine patients were enrolled in the study, including 16 patients ≥ 70 years old. The median age was 75 years for the elderly and 45 years for the non-elderly. Elderly patients were more likely to have more complex surgery and longer operative times (absolute median difference of 39 min). Despite the increasing complexity of surgical procedures for elderly patients, there were no statistically significant differences in serious inpatient complications (Clavien-Dindo score 3A or greater), pain and nausea scores, 30-day complications and readmission rates. Elderly patients had a longer median length of stay compared to non-elderly patients by one day (p < 0.001), however, this was not statistically significant on multivariate analysis. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:In our series, elderly patients on the ERP had similar rates of complications and readmission when compared to non-elderly patients, despite undergoing more complex surgeries. This suggests that ERP may be feasible and safe in the elderly population undergoing elective gynecologic laparotomy.
PMCID:8479239
PMID: 34621945
ISSN: 2352-5789
CID: 5147622

The oncology care model and the future of alternative payment models: A gynecologic oncology perspective [Editorial]

Aviki, Emeline M; Schleicher, Stephen M; Boyd, Leslie; Liang, Margaret; Ko, Emily M; Zanotti, Kristine; Moss, Haley
PMID: 34294415
ISSN: 1095-6859
CID: 4965952

The show must go on: impact of the ban on elective surgery in New York City during the coronavirus outbreak on gynecologic oncology patient care [Meeting Abstract]

Margolis, B; Lee, S; Ceasar, D; Venkatesh, P; Espino, K; Gerber, D; Boyd, L
Objectives: To characterize the effect that a ban on elective surgery had for patients who were scheduled for surgery with a gynecologic oncologist during the first coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) outbreak in New York City.
Method(s): Patients who were scheduled to undergo surgery by a gynecologic oncologist at one of three campuses of a New York City based academic hospital during the ban on elective surgery between March 16, 2020 and June 15, 2020 were included. Patients with benign disease were excluded. Data on patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, nature of surgical delay, and post-operative treatment were abstracted from patient charts. Standard of care was considered met if surgical procedures occurred for suspected malignant and pre-invasive disease, or if an appropriate treatment plan and follow up was documented for malignant cases. Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square test of independence were performed with significance set at p<0.05.
Result(s): A total of 196 patients were scheduled to undergo a surgical procedure during the ban on elective surgery, of which 146 were for malignant, suspected malignant or pre-invasive disease. The majority of cases (42.4%) occurred in patients with known malignancy, followed by suspected malignancy (37.7%) and pre-invasive disease (19.9%). Forty percent of patients experienced one or more surgical delay, 9.6% experienced 2 or more surgical delays and 1.4% experienced three or more surgical delays. Of patients who experienced surgical delays, 75.9% experienced hospital-initiated delays and 24.1% experienced patient-initiated delays. There were no differences between hospital versus patient initiated delays by White vs non-White race (p=0.167). Eight percent of delays were due to a patient with known or suspected COVID-19. The median time from surgical consultation to proposed date of surgery was 20 days for both known malignancy and suspected malignancy, and 34.5 days for pre-invasive disease (p=0.005). Similarly, the median time from surgical consultation to actual date surgery was 23 days for patients with known or suspected malignancy compared to 64 days for preinvasive disease (p=0.011). Of eight patients undergoing treatment for ovarian cancer, 50% underwent primary debulking and 50% underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Among all scheduled cases, the standard of care was met in 89.7% of cases. Standard of care treatment was achieved with a documented alternative plan in 6.1% of cases and with a non-surgical plan in 3% of cases. [Formula presented]
Conclusion(s): During the ban on elective surgery in New York City during the first outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, many patients experienced minor surgical delays, but the majority of patients with known or suspected malignancies obtained appropriate, timely care. Ten percent of patients did not receive standard of care.
Copyright
EMBASE:2014118098
ISSN: 0090-8258
CID: 4985862