Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To implement a quality-improvement intervention aimed at reducing unnecessary opioid prescriptions for patients who are undergoing gynecologic surgery. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study that included data from the pre- and post-quality-improvement initiative cohorts. Patients at an urban, tertiary academic medical center who were undergoing scheduled minimally invasive surgery and open abdominal surgery by a gynecologic oncologist were included. Patients underwent preoperative counseling, standardization of perioperative analgesia, and a postoperative opioid prescribing algorithm. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic and perioperative characteristics, process measures, and outcome measures. RESULTS:A total of 532 abdominal surgeries were analyzed. The total percentage of patients discharged with an opioid prescription decreased from 82.7% (n=229/276) to 23.1% (n=59/256) (P<.001) and was significantly reduced for all routes of surgery. The mean number of opioid tablets prescribed for all patients was significantly reduced from 7.2 tablets (SD=5.7) to 1.8 tablets (SD=4.3) (P<.001). Eighty-three percent of patients (n=97/117) who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy and were discharged on postoperative day 0 or day 1 were not provided an opioid prescription. Fifty-one percent of patients who underwent laparotomy were discharged without an opioid prescription. The percentage of patients who required an opioid refill or new prescription in the preintervention and postintervention cohorts remained constant (6.5%, n=18/276 vs 5.9%, n=15/256, P=.75), as did postoperative calls for pain (8.3%, n=23/276 vs 10.9%, n=33/256). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients who are undergoing scheduled abdominal gynecologic surgery can be safely discharged without opioid prescriptions with appropriate education and perioperative analgesia prescribing practices. These protocols and prescribing practices profoundly limit opioid prescriptions, which is an important factor in combating the ongoing opioid crisis.

OBJECTIVE:Elevated inflammatory markers are predictive of COVID-19 infection severity and mortality. It is unclear if these markers are associated with severe infection in patients with cancer due to underlying tumor related inflammation. We sought to further understand the inflammatory response related to COVID-19 infection in patients with gynecologic cancer. METHODS:Patients with a history of gynecologic cancer hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with available laboratory data were identified. Admission laboratory values and clinical outcomes were abstracted from electronic medical records. Severe infection was defined as infection requiring ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or resulting in death. RESULTS:86 patients with gynecologic cancer were hospitalized with COVID-19 infection with a median age of 68.5 years (interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-74.8). Of the 86 patients, 29 (33.7%) patients required ICU admission and 25 (29.1%) patients died of COVID-19 complications. Fifty (58.1%) patients had active cancer and 36 (41.9%) were in remission. Patients with severe infection had significantly higher ferritin (median 1163.0 vs 624.0 ng/mL, p < 0.01), procalcitonin (median 0.8 vs 0.2 ng/mL, p < 0.01), and C-reactive protein (median 142.0 vs 62.3 mg/L, p = 0.02) levels compared to those with moderate infection. White blood cell count, lactate, and creatinine were also associated with severe infection. D-dimer levels were not significantly associated with severe infection (p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS:The inflammatory markers ferritin, procalcitonin, and CRP were associated with COVID-19 severity in gynecologic cancer patients and may be used as prognostic markers at the time of admission.

BACKGROUND:New York City (NYC) is the epicenter of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) in the United States. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of vulnerable populations, such as those with gynecologic cancer who develop COVID-19 infections, is limited. METHODS:Patients from 6 NYC-area hospital systems with known gynecologic cancer and a COVID-19 diagnosis were identified. Demographic and clinical outcome data were abstracted through a review of electronic medical records. RESULTS:Records for 121 patients with gynecologic cancer and COVID-19 were abstracted; the median age at the COVID-19 diagnosis was 64.0 years (interquartile range, 51.0-73.0 years). Sixty-six of the 121 patients (54.5%) required hospitalization; among the hospitalized patients, 45 (68.2%) required respiratory intervention, 20 (30.3%) were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 9 (13.6%) underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. Seventeen patients (14.0%) died of COVID-19 complications. No patient requiring mechanical ventilation survived. On multivariable analysis, hospitalization was associated with an age ≥64 years (risk ratio [RR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.51), African American race (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15), and 3 or more comorbidities (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.03-1.98). Only recent immunotherapy use (RR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.08-11.27) was associated with death due to COVID-19 on multivariable analysis; chemotherapy treatment and recent major surgery were not predictive of COVID-19 severity or mortality. CONCLUSIONS:The case fatality rate among gynecologic oncology patients with a COVID-19 infection is 14.0%. Recent immunotherapy use is associated with an increased risk of mortality related to COVID-19 infection. LAY SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:The case fatality rate among gynecologic oncology patients with a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is 14.0%; there is no association between cytotoxic chemotherapy and cancer-directed surgery and COVID-19 severity or death. As such, patients can be counseled regarding the safety of continued anticancer treatments during the pandemic. This is important because the ability to continue cancer therapies for cancer control and cure is critical.

Objective: We aimed to explore the disparities associated with the delay of initiating chemoradiation therapy (CRT) and brachytherapy (BT) beyond the recommended 8 weeks for patients with cervical cancer and the effect on outcomes.
Method(s): Patients with FIGO stage IB2-IVA cervical cancer treated at an academic medical center and an urban public hospital by the same team of gynecologic and radiation oncologists with definitive CRT and BT from July 2009 to September 2017 were included. Patients received CRT followed by BT (7 Gy x 4 fractions) delivered via 2 insertions 1 week apart with image-guided CT/MR delineation. Patients who initiated CRT within 8 weeks from diagnosis as recommended (rCRT) were compared across demographic and cancer outcomes to patients who received delayed CRT after 8 weeks (dCRT). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using adjusted Cox regression analysis (P < 0.05).
Result(s): In our cohort of 97 patients, 72 (75.0%) had rCRT and 24 (25.0%) had dCRT. At a median follow-up of 31.5 months, overall local control was achieved in 94.8% of patients. Patients with dCRT were more likely to be African-American (37.5% vs 17.8%, P = 0.046) and be uninsured or on Medicaid (87.5% vs 61.6%, P = 0.023). There were no differences in stage and grade. Patients with dCRT were more likely to recur or progress (OR = 2.65, 95% CI 1.02-6.86). Of those who recurred, 35.0% of rCRT patients had locoregional recurrence versus 66.7% of dCRT patients (P = 0.144). When controlling for age, race, insurance, referring hospital, and stage, patients with dCRT had lower DFS than patients with rCRT (50.6 vs 63.2 months, aHR = 6.11, 95% CI 2.00-18.62). However, there were no differences in OS.
Conclusion(s): Patients receiving delayed CRT tended to have worse recurrence and DFS than those initiating CRT by 8 weeks from diagnosis. African-American and uninsured patients were more likely to experience a delay in care. Navigator and social work services may help improve access to treatments for these patients.
Copyright

Objectives: Interest in utilizing poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) for the treatment of recurrent disease beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers has been growing. We sought to characterize the prevalence of somatic and germline mutations in non-BRCA1 and BRCA2 homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) pathway genes among ovarian cancer patients.
Method(s): We reviewed Foundation Medicine (Cambridge, MA) comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of tumor tissue for all patients from a single institution between January 2014 and July 2019 as well as germline genetic testing results for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients participating in a prospective research study of germline genetic testing from October 2015 to October 2018. Alterations in non-BRCA1 and BRCA2 HRD genes, including ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D, were included. Clinicopathologic and treatment data were extracted from the electronic medical record. Descriptive statistics were used to report patient and treatment characteristics.
Result(s): Among 79 ovarian cancer patients whose tumors underwent tumor CGP, 3 (4%) had somatic mutations in non-BRCA1 and BRCA2 HRD genes. Among 133 patients who underwent germline genetic testing, no non-BRCA1 and BRCA2 HRD mutations were noted. One patient each had an ATM, BRIP1, and RAD51C mutation on tumor CGP. All patients with mutations on tumor testing underwent panel germline genetic testing, and no pathogenic mutations were identified. All patients with non-BRCA1 and BRCA2 HRD mutations had stage III disease, with initial disease-free intervals of 18-23 months after primary therapy. See Table 1.
Conclusion(s): Among patients with ovarian cancer, somatic, or germline mutations in non-BRCA1 and BRCA2 HRD genes are rare, detected in less than 5% of tumors. Although PARPi may benefit this patient population, our data suggest they represent a small percentage of ovarian cancer patients. Further study confirming these data in a larger cohort of ovarian cancer patients as well as testing efficacy of PARPi in these patients is needed.
Copyright

Objective: We sought to prospectively evaluate the feasibility of obtaining genetic testing for at least 1 first- or second-degree family member of a proband known to have actionable germline mutation associated with endometrial and/or ovarian cancer through a coordinated referral system. We also identified barriers to genetic assessment in family members. Here we report initial probands screened and their reasons for declining cascade testing.
Method(s): Patients with a diagnosed pathogenic or suspected pathogenic mutation associated with ovarian and/or endometrial cancer were identified from the gynecologic oncology and genetics clinics. If patients did not consent to the study, their reasons for declining participation were documented. Patients who provided consent were asked to contact their first- and/or second-degree relatives to disclose their genetic testing results and advise them to contact our center for a referral to a genetic counselor. The number of relatives per proband who contacted us for a genetic counseling referral was recorded. In addition to providing the referral, we followed up with relatives to determine whether they attended their genetic counseling appointment, received genetic testing, or took any cancer risk-reducing measures based on their results.
Result(s): This study opened in March 2019. To date, we have screened 71 patients and enrolled 26 (37%). Among the 45 patients who were screened but not enrolled, 48.9% (n = 22) reported that their reason for declining participation in the study was that their family members had already received genetic testing. Other common reasons for declining participation were family members refusing testing (17.8%, n = 8) or no eligible family members (17.8%, n = 8) (Table 1).
Conclusion(s): The majority of probands declined participation in this facilitated cascade testing protocol. The most common reason for lack of participation was family members already having genetic testing or not having eligible family members. Patients who declined participation because family members refused testing could benefit from counseling on how to best to communicate with their relatives. Genetic testing for both patients and their relatives is critical to provision of appropriate cancer screening and prevention services. Knowledge of these barriers is important to further improve cascade testing among family members.
Copyright