Faculty Bibliography

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.

To identify potential gaps in attitudes, knowledge, and practices towards LGBTQ2S + patients with a cancer diagnosis, a survey of clinical providers (CP) and allied health staff (AHS) was conducted to identify areas of improvement and guide development for future education and training. A previously published, validated survey was adapted at the direction of a LGBTQ2S + Patient and Family Advisory Council, and modified to include AHS. The survey was disseminated to all faculty and staff, and was adapted to the participants' self-identified level of patient interaction/care responsibilities. Subsections consisted of questions related to demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and practice behaviors towards participating in the care of LGBTQ2S + patients. Results were quantified using stratified analysis and an attitude summary measure. Of the 311 respondents, 179 self-identified as CPs and 132 as AHS. There was high agreement in comfort treating or assisting LGBTQ2S + patients by CP and AHS respondents, respectively. CPs possessed significantly higher knowledge regarding LGBTQ2S + health when compared to AHS; however, there remained high percentages of "neutral" and "do not know or prefer not to answer" responses regardless of clinical role. There was high agreement regarding the importance of knowing a patient's gender identity (GI) and pronouns (CP vs. AHS; 76.9% vs. 73.5% and 89.4% vs. 84.1%, respectively), whereas patient's sexual orientation and sex assigned at birth (CP vs. AHS; 51.1% vs. 53.5% and 58.6% vs. 62.9%, respectively) were viewed as less important. There was high interest in receiving education regarding the unique needs of LGBTQ2S + patients regardless of clinical role. Stratified analyses of CPs revealed early-career physicians (< 1-5 years from graduation) expressed higher interest in additional education and involvement with LGBTQ2S + -focused trainings when compared to mid- and late-career providers. This is the first study, to our knowledge, assessing the attitudes, knowledge, and practices of CPs and AHS regarding the care of LGBTQ2S + patients with cancer. Overall, there was high comfort treating/assisting LGBTQ2S + patients among CP and AHS respondents, respectively; yet, both groups possessed significant gaps in LGBTQ2S + -focused knowledge.

Low-stage, low-grade endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (EEC), the most common histologic type of endometrial cancer, typically has a favorable prognosis. A subset of these cancers, however, displays an aggressive clinical course with early recurrences, including distant relapses. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Using a combination of whole-exome and targeted capture sequencing of 65 FIGO stage IA and IB grade 1 EECs treated with surgery alone, we demonstrate that chromosome 1q gain (odds ratio [OR] = 8.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.59 to 54.6; P = .02), PIK3CA mutation (OR = 9.16, 95% CI = 1.95 to 61.8; P = .01), and DNA mismatch repair-deficient molecular subtype (OR = 7.92, 95% CI = 1.44 to 87.6; P = .02) are independent predictors of early recurrences within 3 years in this patient population. Chromosome 1q gain was validated in an independent dataset of stage I grade 1 EECs subjected to whole-exome sequencing. Our findings expand on the repertoire of genomic parameters that should be considered in the evaluation of patients with low-stage, low-grade EEC.

Sexual and gender minorities (SGM) include persons identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/non-binary, and queer experience a greater cancer burden than their heterosexual or cisgender counterparts. Access to cancer care includes prevention and early detection, however despite known increased risk for various malignancies among SGM individuals, cancer screening rates remain low. This commentary outlines disparities in cancer screening for SGM individuals and provides the current evidence-based screening guidelines for these patients.

Transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people, also referred to as gender minorities, have unique cancer prevention, treatment, and care needs and experience cancer health disparities compared to the cisgender population. We present four composite cases of the cancer care challenges experienced by gender minorities.

The lectin, galectin-3 (Gal3), has been implicated in a variety of inflammatory and oncogenic processes, including tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis. The interactions of Gal3 and MUC16 represent a potential targetable pathway for the treatment of MUC16-expressing malignancies. We found that the silencing of Gal3 in MUC16-expressing breast and ovarian cancer cells in vitro inhibited tumor cell invasion and led to attenuated tumor growth in murine models. We therefore developed an inhibitory murine monoclonal anti-Gal3 carbohydrate-binding domain antibody, 14D11, which bound human and mouse Gal3 but did not bind human Galectins-1, -7, -8 or -9. Competition studies and a docking model suggest that the 14D11 antibody competes with lactose for the carbohydrate binding pocket of Gal3. In MUC16-expressing cancer cells, 14D11 treatment blocked AKT and ERK1/2 phosphorylation, and led to inhibition of cancer cell Matrigel invasion. Finally, in experimental animal tumor models, 14D11 treatment led to prolongation of overall survival in animals bearing flank tumors, and retarded lung specific metastatic growth by MUC16 expressing breast cancer cells. Our results provide evidence that antibody based Gal3 blockade may be a viable therapeutic strategy in patients with MUC16-expressing tumors, supporting further development of human blocking antibodies against Gal3 as potential cancer therapeutics.

OBJECTIVE:To determine the prevalence of sexual harassment and perceptions of gender disparities affecting the careers of physicians in gynecologic oncology. METHODS:We conducted a survey of US physician members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Participants were queried about demographics, sexual harassment experiences during training/practice, and perceptions of gender disparities in compensation and career advancement. Responses were categorized as "never" versus "ever" and compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS:The survey was sent to 1566 members-405 (255 females, 147 males, 3 other) responded (response rate 26%). Sixty-four percent reported having experienced sexual harassment during training/practice. Sexual harassment was experienced by 71% of females and 51% of males. Of these respondents, only 14.5% reported it. Reasons for not reporting included: "incident did not seem important enough" (40%); "did not think anything would be done about it" (37%); and "fear of reprisal" (34%). Female respondents were more likely to report gender affected their career advancement (34% vs. 10%; p ≤ .001) and compensation (64% vs. 19%; p ≤ .001); males were more likely to report no gender income disparity (91% vs. 57%; p ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS:Sexual harassment during training/practice appears common among male and female gynecologic oncologists. Although most are aware of how to report an incident, few do so, mostly for fear of reprisal or concern nothing will be done. Despite practicing in a field defined by caring for women, female physicians more often perceive gender influences their compensation and career advancement. Awareness of these issues can lead to their elimination from our specialty.

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical impact of major diagnostic discrepancies in pathology reports of gynecologic malignancies for patients presenting for second opinion to a comprehensive cancer center.
Method(s): All cases of gynecologic malignancy submitted for second opinion review by gynecologic pathologists between 2010 and 2016 were evaluated. Cases with major discrepancies (deemed to have potential clinical impact) with outside diagnoses were self-identified by the specialized gynecologic pathologists. Cases were grouped according to pathologic disagreement with no impact on care and pathologic disagreement with clinical impact. Clinical impact was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and gynecologic oncologist expert opinion.
Result(s): Of the 8,475 gynecologic cases reviewed, 1,265 (15%) discrepancies with outside hospital diagnoses were identified. Of these, 198 (16%) were deemed to be major discrepancies. There were 77 (39%) endometrial cancers, 42 (21%) ovarian cancers, 32 (16%) sarcomas, 30 (15%) cervical cancers, and 18 (9%) other malignancies. Most cases (n = 78, 39%) resulted in change in histology, while 32 (16%) cases noted a different site of origin of disease compared to original diagnosis. Forty-three (22%) cases were downgraded from malignant to benign, and 33 (17%) upgraded from benign to malignant. There were 123 (62%) cases that were deemed to have a pathologic disagreement that had clinical sequelae (change in treatment). Of these, 53 (43%) were surgical (recommend for or against), and 70 (57%) were nonsurgical. Review of uterine sarcoma cases, although considered major discrepancies by expert pathology, had no clinical impact in 60% (n = 18) of cases.
Conclusion(s): Pathologic review of outside cases by specialized gynecologic pathologists identified a group of cases across all gynecologic tumor types that led to changes in clinical management. The impact on patient outcomes should be further explored.
Copyright