Faculty Bibliography

Objectives: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is the standard of care for gynecologic and gynecologic oncology conditions. For large specimen retrieval, morcellation is a controversial option due to concerns of undetected malignancy and dissemination. Our objective was to compare safety and discharge outcomes for patients with mini-laparotomy (ML) versus morcellation for large specimen retrieval during robotic cases.
Method(s): In this retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent robotic gynecologic surgery (RGS) from January 2013 to June 2016, we compared intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing ML or morcellation. Mode of specimen delivery was at the discretion of the surgeon. The ML group consisted of patients who at the completion of RGS underwent an abdominal ML incision and the morcellation group consisted of patients who underwent manual or power morcellation for specimen delivery. Outcomes were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-squared/Fisher's exact tests, and multivariate logistic models.
Result(s): Of the 2,126 patients undergoing RGS, 154 (7.2%) underwent a ML for specimen retrieval and 834 (39.2%) underwent specimen removal with morcellation. Median age was greater for the ML compared to morcellation (45 [IQR 37.1-52.8] vs 40 [IQR 35.0-46.0]; p<0.001), but median body mass index (26.1 [IQR 22.6-32.2] vs 25.7 22.6-30.2]; p=0.31) and proportion of patients with >=3 comorbidities (9.1% vs 6.5%; p=0.32) were similar between groups. Twenty-one (13.6%) patients with ML were undergoing surgery for cancer diagnosis, compared to 1 (0.1%) patient with morcellation (p<0.001). Patients with ML had significantly heavier specimen weights, (median 386.3 g [IQR 245.0-641.0] vs 280.0 g [IQR 114.0-510.0]; p<0.001), estimated blood loss (EBL, median 122.5 mL [IQR 50.0-250.0] vs 100.0 mL [IQR 50.0-250.0]; p=0.03), and longer operative time (median 211.0 min [IQR 162.3-67.0] vs 178.0 min [IQR 135.0-233.7]; p<0.001). Both groups had similar times to discharge (median 7.5 hour [IQR 4.9-17.4] vs 7.5 hour [IQR 5.5-11.0]; p=0.81), but patients with ML were less likely to have same day discharge (67.5% vs 77.0%; p=0.02). Complications (13.6% vs 9.7%; p=0.19), wound infection (1.9% vs 1.9%; p=1.00), post-operative blood transfusion (0.6% vs 0.5%; p=0.57), and re-admission (1.3% vs 1.1%; p=0.69) were similar between ML and morcellation groups. In multivariable analysis, there was no difference in same day discharge between ML and morcellation groups after controlling for age, cancer diagnosis, and operative time (odds ratio=0.94; 95% CI (0.59-1.46); p=0.78). [Formula presented]
Conclusion(s): Despite increased EBL and operative time, ML for specimen retrieval does not affect postoperative outcomes such as time to discharge, wound infection, complications, need for blood transfusion, or re-admission rates. These results highlight that ML may play an important role when removing large specimens while still enabling patients to have a successful MIS procedure and same day discharge.
Copyright

Background/UNASSIGNED:Medical marijuana (MM) use is common among cancer patients, but relatively little is known about the usage patterns and efficacy of MM used by gynecologic cancer patients. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Demographic and clinical data were collected for gynecologic cancer patients prescribed MM between May 2016 and February 2019. The electronic medical record was used to query formulation prescribed, usage patterns, length of use, symptom relief, and side effect profile. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 45 gynecologic cancer patients prescribed MM, 89% were receiving chemotherapy; 56% were undergoing primary treatment. MM was used for a median of 5.2 months (range 0.6-25.4). Over 70% of patients reported improvement in nausea/vomiting, compared to 36% of patients using MM for pain relief (p = 0.02). Of 41 patients with follow-up information, 71% found MM improved at least one symptom. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Among a small sample of gynecologic cancer patients prescribed MM for symptom management, self-reported follow-up indicated symptom relief for the majority of patients and minimal therapy-related side effects. This data can prove useful for counseling gynecologic cancer patients on the efficacy and side effects of MM.

BACKGROUND:In women with BRCA mutations, risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) has been shown to decrease gynecologic cancer-specific and overall mortality. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends that patients with BRCA mutations undergo RRSO between the ages of 35-40 years for BRCA1 mutation carriers and between the ages of 40-45 years for BRCA2 mutation carriers, or after childbearing is complete. Currently, uptake and timing of RRSO and reasons for delays in RRSO are not well understood. OBJECTIVE:We sought to evaluate uptake and timing of RRSO among women with BRCA1/2 mutations in relation to NCCN guidelines, and reasons for delays in RRSO. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:In this retrospective chart review, we identified women with BRCA1/2 mutations who discussed RRSO with a provider between 2012 and 2021. Uptake of RRSO was documented, and patients were classified as having timely or delay in RRSO based on NCCN guidelines. For those with delay in RRSO, reasons cited for delay were collected. Comparative statistical analyses were performed to evaluate characteristics of those with timely vs delayed RRSO. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate the associations between factors related to timing of RRSO. RESULTS:We identified 638 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers seen between 2012 and 2021. Of these patients, 306 (48.0%) had undergone RRSO and 332 (52.0%) had not. When evaluating timing of RRSO, 136 (21.3%) underwent timely RRSO, 239 (37.5%) had delay in RRSO, and 263 (41.2%) had not undergone RRSO but were younger than NCCN age guidelines so were neither timely nor delayed. Patients with delay in RRSO were significantly older at the time of genetic testing compared to those with timely RRSO (mean 49.8 vs 36.3 years; p < 0.001). Of the 306 patients who underwent RRSO, those with delayed RRSO had a significantly shorter interval between BRCA identification and RRSO compared to those with timely RRSO (median 8.7 vs 17.6 months; p < 0.001). Patients with delay in RRSO were more likely to have a personal history of cancer than those with timely RRSO (49.8% vs 37.5%; p=0.028). Of the 239 women with delay in RRSO, reasons included: 188 (78.7%) for delayed BRCA mutation identification; 29 (12.1%) for menopausal concerns; 17 (7.1%) for ongoing cancer treatment; 12 (5.0%) for coordination with breast surgery; 20 (8.4%) for miscellaneous reasons; and 19 (7.9%) with no reasons documented. In the multivariate model, older age at BRCA diagnosis (OR 0.73; 95%CI [0.68-0.78]; p<0.001) was significantly associated with delayed RRSO timing; those with BRCA2 mutation type were 7.54 times as likely to have timely RRSO compared to BRCA1 mutation carriers (OR 7.54; 95%CI [3.70-16.42]; p<0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Nearly 38% of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers undergo or have yet to undergo RRSO beyond the NCCN recommended age. The most common reason for delay in RRSO was delayed identification of BRCA mutation, noted in 79% of patients with delayed RRSO. Timely genetic testing for eligible patients can increase appropriately timed RRSO for prevention of ovarian cancer and reduction of mortality in BRCA mutation carriers.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We evaluated the incidence of breast cancer and overall survival in a multi-center cohort of ovarian cancer patients carrying BRCA1/2 mutations in order to assess risks and formulate optimal preventive interventions and/or surveillance. METHODS:Medical records of 502 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2000 and 2018 at 7 medical centers in Israel and one in New York were retrospectively analyzed for breast cancer diagnosis. Data included demographics, type of BRCA mutations, surveillance methods, timing of breast cancer diagnosis, and family history of cancer. RESULTS:The median age at diagnosis of ovarian cancer was 55.8 years (range, 23.9-90.1). A third (31.5%) had a family history of breast cancer and 17.1% of ovarian cancer. Most patients (67.3%) were Ashkenazi Jews, 72.9% were BRCA1 carriers. Breast cancer preceded ovarian cancer in 17.5% and was diagnosed after ovarian cancer in 6.2%; an additional 2.2% had a synchronous presentation. Median time to breast cancer diagnosis after ovarian cancer was 46.0 months (range, 11-168). Of those diagnosed with both breast cancer and ovarian cancer (n = 31), 83.9% and 16.1% harbored BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively. No deaths from breast cancer were recorded. Overall survival did not differ statistically between patients with an ovarian cancer diagnosis only and those diagnosed with breast cancer after ovarian cancer. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The low incidence of breast cancer after ovarian cancer in women carrying BRCA1/2 mutations suggests that routine breast surveillance, rather than risk-reducing surgical interventions, may be sufficient in ovarian cancer survivors.