Faculty Bibliography

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged our ability to provide timely surgical care for our patients. In response, the U.S. Surgeon General, the American College of Srugeons, and other surgical professional societies recommended postponing elective surgical procedures and proceeding cautiously with cancer procedures that may require significant hospital resources and expose vulnerable patients to the virus. These challenges have particularly distressing for women with a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and their providers. Currently, circumstances vary greatly by region and by hospital, depending on COVID-19 prevalence, case mix, hospital type, and available resources. Therefore, COVID-19-related modifications to surgical practice guidelines must be individualized. Special consideration is necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of procedural interventions, recognizing the significant resources and personnel they require. Additionally, the pandemic may occur in waves, with patient demand for surgery ebbing and flowing accordingly. Hospitals, cancer centers and providers must prepare themselves to meet this demand. The purpose of this white paper is to highlight all phases of gynecologic cancer surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic and to illustrate when it is best to operate, to hestitate, and reintegrate surgery. Triage and prioritization of surgical cases, preoperative COVID-19 testing, peri-operative safety principles, and preparations for the post-COVID-19 peak and surgical reintegration are reviewed.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The COVID-19 pandemic has consumed considerable resources and has impacted the delivery of cancer care. Patients with cancer may have factors which place them at high risk for COVID 19 morbidity or mortality. Highly immunosuppressive chemotherapy regimens and possible exposure to COVID-19 during treatment may put patients at additional risk. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology convened an expert panel to address recommendations for best practices during this crisis to minimize risk to patients from deviations in cancer care and from COVID-19 morbidity. METHODS:An expert panel convened to develop initial consensus guidelines regarding anti-neoplastic therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to gynecologic cancer care and clinical trials. RESULTS:COVID-19 poses special risks to patients who are older, have medical co-morbidities, and cancer. In addition, this pandemic will likely strain resources, making delivery of cancer care or conduct of clinical trials unpredictable. Recommendations are to limit visits and contact with health care facilities by using telemedicine when appropriate, and choosing regimens which require less frequent visits and which are less immunosuppressive. Deviations will occur in clinical trials as a result of limited resources, and it is important to understand regulatory obligations to trial sponsors as well as to the IRB to ensure that clinical trial and patient safety oversight are maintained. CONCLUSIONS:The ongoing crisis will strain resources needed to deliver cancer care. When alterations to the delivery of care are mandated, efforts should be taken to minimize risks and maximize safety while approximating standard practice.

Gynecologic oncologists have the unique opportunity of caring for patients in a broad range of surgical and medical settings. With increasing awareness of the opioid epidemic and the various factors that contribute to chronic opioid use, gynecologic oncologists must also better understand how to best address acute postoperative pain without unknowingly placing patients at risk for opioid misuse. This article examines the use of opioids in the acute surgical setting and provides clinical guidelines and various strategies to reduce opioid misuse.

OBJECTIVE:Poly(ADP-ribosyl) polymerases (PARPs) are nuclear enzymes with roles in DNA damage recognition and repair. PARP1 inhibition enhances the effects of DNA-damaging agents like doxorubicin. We sought to determine the recommended phase two dose (RP2D) of veliparib with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in breast and recurrent gynecologic cancer patients. METHODS:on day 1 of a 28-day cycle. Dose escalation proceeded in two strata: A (prior PLD exposure) and B (no prior PLD exposure). Patients underwent limited pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling; an expansion PK cohort was added. RESULTS:44 patients with recurrent ovarian or triple negative breast cancer were enrolled. Median age 56 years; 23 patients BRCA mutation carriers; median prior regimens four. Patients received a median of four cycles of veliparib/PLD. Grade 3/4 toxicities were observed in 10% of patients. Antitumor activity was observed in both sporadic and BRCA-deficient cancers. Two BRCA mutation carriers had complete responses. Two BRCA patients developed oral squamous cell cancers after completing this regimen. PLD exposure was observed to be higher when veliparib doses were > 200 mg BID. CONCLUSIONS:PLD on day 1 of a 28-day cycle. Anti-tumor activity was seen in both strata. However, given development of long-term squamous cell cancers and the PK interaction observed, efforts should focus on other targeted combinations to improve efficacy.

BACKGROUND:Timely genetic testing at ovarian cancer diagnosis is essential as results impact front line treatment decisions. Our objective was to determine rates of genetic counseling and testing with an expedited genetics referral pathway wherein women with newly-diagnosed ovarian cancer are contacted by a genetics navigator to facilitate genetic counseling. METHODS:Patients were referred for genetic counseling by their gynecologic oncologist, contacted by a genetics navigator and offered appointments for genetic counseling. Patients completed quality of life (QoL) surveys immediately pre- and post-genetic assessment and 6 months later. The primary outcome was feasibility of this pathway defined by presentation for genetic counseling. RESULTS:From 2015 to 2018, 100 patients were enrolled. Seventy-eight had genetic counseling and 73 testing. Median time from diagnosis to genetic counseling was 34 days (range 10-189). Among patients who underwent testing, 12 (16%) had pathogenic germline mutations (BRCA1-7, BRCA2-4, MSH2-1). Sixty-five patients completed QoL assessments demonstrating stress and anxiety at time of testing, however, scores improved at 6 months. Despite the pathway leveling financial and logistical barriers, patients receiving care at a public hospital were less likely to present for genetic counseling compared to private hospital patients (56% versus 84%, P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS:Facilitated referral to genetic counselors at time of ovarian cancer diagnosis is effective, resulting in high uptake of genetic counseling and testing, and does not demonstrate a long term psychologic toll. Concern about causing additional emotional distress should not deter clinicians from early genetics referral as genetic testing can yield important prognostic and therapeutic information.