Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the financial burden of severe illness, including associations with higher rates of nonemployment, uninsurance, and catastrophic out-of-pocket health spending. Patients with gynecologic cancer often require expensive and prolonged treatments, potentially disrupting employment and insurance coverage access, and putting patients and their families at risk for catastrophic health expenditures. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to describe the prevalence of insurance churn, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures among nonelderly patients with gynecologic cancer in the United States, to compare within subgroups and to other populations and assess for changes associated with the Affordable Care Act. STUDY DESIGN:We identified respondents aged 18 to 64 years from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006 to 2017, who reported care related to gynecologic cancer in a given year, and a propensity-matched cohort of patients without cancer and patients with cancers of other sites, as comparison groups. We applied survey weights to extrapolate to the US population, and we described patterns of insurance churn (any uninsurance or insurance loss or change), catastrophic health expenditures (>10% annual family income), and nonemployment. Characteristics and outcomes between groups were compared with the adjusted Wald test. RESULTS:We identified 683 respondents reporting care related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis from 2006 to 2017, representing an estimated annual population of 532,400 patients (95% confidence interval, 462,000-502,700). More than 64% of patients reported at least 1 of 3 primary negative outcomes of any uninsurance, part-year nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, with 22.4% reporting at least 2 of 3 outcomes. Catastrophic health spending was uncommon without nonemployment or uninsurance reported during that year (1.2% of the population). Compared with patients with other cancers, patients with gynecologic cancer were younger and more likely with low education and low family income (≤250% federal poverty level). They reported higher annual risks of insurance loss (8.8% vs 4.8%; P=.03), any uninsurance (22.6% vs 14.0%; P=.002), and part-year nonemployment (55.3% vs 44.6%; P=.005) but similar risks of catastrophic spending (12.6% vs 12.2%; P=.84). Patients with gynecologic cancer from low-income families faced a higher risk of catastrophic expenditures than those of higher icomes (24.4% vs 2.9%; P<.001). Among the patients from low-income families, Medicaid coverage was associated with a lower risk of catastrophic spending than private insurance. After the Affordable Care Act implementation, we observed reductions in the risk of uninsurance, but there was no significant change in the risk of catastrophic spending among patients with gynecologic cancer. CONCLUSION:Patients with gynecologic cancer faced high risks of uninsurance, nonemployment, and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among patients from low-income families. Catastrophic spending was uncommon in the absence of either nonemployment or uninsurance in a given year.

OBJECTIVES:We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of the oral androgen receptor antagonist enzalutamide in patients with previously treated, recurrent, AR-positive (AR+) ovarian cancer. METHODS:) and overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1 criteria. RESULTS:rate (as binary) was 22% (90% CI: 15.1-100%). The 6-month PFS rate (as time to event) was 19.8% for HGS patients (90% CI: 12.7-100%) and 38.5% (90% CI: 21.7%-100%) for LGS patients. Grade 3 toxicities occurred in 6 patients (one toxicity (Grade 3 rash) was considered a dose-limiting toxicity). One patient died of cardiac arrest after 42 days on treatment of a cardiac arrest not attributed to study drug. CONCLUSIONS:rate of 22% (n = 13); however, the overall response rate was low. Enzalutamide was well tolerated and may be a potential treatment option in select patients.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Financial toxicity is common and pervasive among cancer patients. Research suggests that gynecologic cancer patients experiencing financial toxicity are at increased risk for engaging in harmful cost-coping strategies, including delaying/skipping treatment because of costs, or forsaking basic needs to pay medical bills. However, little is known about patients' preferences for interventions to address financial toxicity. METHODS:Cross-sectional surveys to assess financial toxicity [Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST)], cost-coping strategies, and preferences for intervention were conducted in a gynecologic cancer clinic waiting room. Associations with cost-coping were determined using multivariate modeling. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) explored associations between financial toxicity and intervention preferences. RESULTS:Among 89 respondents, median COST score was 31.9 (IQR: 21-38); 35% (N = 30) scored < 26, indicating they were experiencing financial toxicity. Financial toxicity was significantly associated with cost-coping (adjusted OR = 3.32 95% CI: 1.08, 14.34). Intervention preferences included access to transportation vouchers (38%), understanding treatment costs up-front (35%), minimizing wait times (33%), access to free food at appointments (25%), and assistance with minimizing/eliminating insurance deductibles (23%). In unadjusted analyses, respondents experiencing financial toxicity were more likely to select transportation assistance (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.04, 6.90), assistance with co-pays (OR = 9.17, 95% CI: 2.60, 32.26), and assistance with deductibles (OR = 12.20, 95% CI: 3.47, 43.48), than respondents not experiencing financial toxicity. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings confirm the presence of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancer patients, describe how patients attempt to cope with financial hardship, and provide insight into patients' needs for targeted interventions to mitigate the harm of financial toxicity.

BACKGROUND:The cost of cancer care is high and rising. Evidence of increased patient cost burden is prevalent in the medical literature and has been defined as "financial toxicity," the financial hardship and financial concerns experienced by patients because of a disease and its related treatments. With targeted therapies and growing out-of-pocket costs, patient financial toxicity is a growing concern among patients with gynecologic cancer. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to determine the prevalence of financial toxicity and identify its risk factors in patients with gynecologic cancer treated at a large cancer center using objective data. STUDY DESIGN:Using institutional databases, we identified patients with gynecologic cancer treated from January 2016 to December 2018. Patients with a preinvasive disease were excluded. Financial toxicity was defined according to institutionally derived metrics as the presence of ≥1 of the following: ≥2 bills sent to collections, application or granting of a payment plan, settlement, bankruptcy, financial assistance program enrollment, or a finance-related social work visit. Clinical characteristics were gathered using a 2-year look-back from the time of the first financial toxicity event or a randomly selected treatment date for those not experiencing toxicity. Risk factors were assessed using chi-squared tests. All significant variables on univariate analysis were included in the logistic regression model. RESULTS:Of the 4655 patients included in the analysis, 1155 (25%) experienced financial toxicity. In the univariate analysis, cervical cancer (35%), stage 3 or 4 disease (24% and 30%, respectively), younger age (35% for age <30 years), nonpartnered marital status (31%), Black (45%) or Hispanic (37%) race and ethnicity, self-pay (48%) or commercial insurance (30%), clinical trial participation (31%), more imaging studies (39% for ≥9), ≥1 emergency department visit (36%), longer inpatient stays (36% for ≥20 days), and more outpatient clinician visits (41% for ≥20 visits) were significantly associated with financial toxicity (P<.01). In multivariate analysis, younger age, nonpartnered marital status, Black and Hispanic race and ethnicity, commercial insurance, more imaging studies, and more outpatient physician visits were significantly associated with financial toxicity. CONCLUSION:Financial toxicity is an increasing problem for patients with gynecologic cancer. Our analysis, using objective measures of financial toxicity, has suggested that demographic factors and healthcare utilization metrics may be used to proactively identify at-risk patients for financial toxicity.

OBJECTIVES:To perform a systematic review of gastric-type adenocarcinoma of the cervix and lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia (a possible precursor lesion) in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, and to analyze data from the literature, along with our institutional experience, to determine recommendations for screening and detection. METHODS:A comprehensive literature searc and retrospective search of pathology records at our institutio were conducted. Articles were screened by two independent reviewers. Case reports/series on lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia/gastric-type adenocarcinoma of the cervix in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome were included. Demographic, clinical, and radiologic information was collected. RESULTS:A total of 1564 publications were reviewed; 38 met the inclusion criteria. Forty-nine were included in the analysis (43 from the literature, 6 from our institution). Forty-three reported on gastric-type adenocarcinoma alone, 4 on lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia alone, and 2 on concurrent lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia/gastric-type adenocarcinoma. Median age at diagnosis was 17 (range, 4-52) for patients with lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia alone and 35 (range, 15-72) for those with gastric-type adenocarcinoma. The most common presenting symptoms were abdominal/pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding/discharge. Imaging was reported for 27 patients; 24 (89%) had abnormal cervical features. Papanicolaou (Pap) smear prior to diagnosis was reported for 12 patients; 6 (50%) had normal cytology, 4 (33%) atypical glandular cells, and 2 (17%) atypical cells not otherwise specified. Patients with gastric-type adenocarcinoma (n=45) were treated with surgery alone (n=16), surgery/chemotherapy/radiation (n=11), surgery/chemotherapy (n=9), surgery/radiation (n=5), or radiation/chemotherapy (n=4). Twelve (27%) of 45 patients recurred; median progression-free survival was 10 months (range, 1-148). Twenty patients (44%) died; median overall survival was 26 months (range, 2-156). Thirteen patients (27%) were alive with no evidence of disease. CONCLUSIONS:Gastric-type adenocarcinoma in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome is associated with poor outcomes and short progression-free and overall survival. Screening recommendations, including pathognomonic symptom review and physical examination, with a low threshold for imaging and biopsy, may detect precursor lesions and early-stage gastric-type adenocarcinoma, leading to better outcomes in this high-risk population. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019118151.

OBJECTIVE:To assess survival among patients diagnosed with uterine carcinosarcoma (CS) who underwent sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy alone vs. systematic lymph node dissection (LND). METHODS:We identified newly diagnosed CS patients who underwent primary surgical management from January 1996-December 2019. The SLN cohort underwent SLN biopsy alone with bilateral SLNs identified. The systematic LND cohort did not undergo SLN biopsy. RESULTS:Ninety-nine patients underwent SLN biopsy, and 100 patients underwent systematic LND. There was no difference by age, stage, body mass index, myoinvasion (<50%, ≥50%), lymphovascular space invasion, or positive washings. Eighty-five SLN (85.9%) and 15 LND (15%) underwent minimally invasive surgery (P < 0.001). The median total node count was four (range, 1-13) for SLN and 19 (range, 2-50) for LND (P < 0.001). Nodal metastasis occurred in 23 (23.2%) SLN and in 22 (22%) LND (P = 0.4). Postoperative therapy was administered to 85 (85.9%) SLN and 71 (71%) LND (P = 0.02). Median follow-up was 33 months (range, 1-205) for SLN and 55.3 months (range, 1-269) for LND (P = 0.001). The three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 62.9% (SE 5.2%) for SLN and 52.3% (SE 5.3%) for LND (P = 0.13). The three-year overall survival (OS) was 72.1% (SE 5.1%) for SLN and 71.6% (SE 4.6%) for LND (P = 0.68). An isolated nodal recurrence occurred in two (2%) SLN and four (4%) LND (P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS:There is no difference in PFS or OS among CS patients who undergo SLN biopsy vs. systematic LND. SLN biopsy detects nodal metastasis without compromising oncologic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:As healthcare expenditures continue to rise, identifying mechanisms to reduce unnecessary costs is critical. The objective of this study is to estimate the annual cost of wasted indocyanine green (ICG) used for sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS:Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database and Premier database, we determined the annual number of cases in which sentinel lymph node mapping with ICG would be used and the median cost of ICG to institutions and patients, respectively. We assumed that gynecologic oncologists use 2-4 mL (20-40%) of the currently available ICG vial kit (25 mg per 10 mL) per case. Estimated waste was then calculated using cost as a measure of institutional waste and charge as excess cost transferred to patients or payers. RESULTS:An estimated 45,864 cases of localized endometrial cancer were identified and eligible for sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping. The mean total cost associated with ICG was 99.20 and the mean charge was $483.64. The estimated excess annual cost to hospitals was $2,729,825 to $3,639,767. Similarly, using mean charge data, the annual cost of wasted drug for patients and payers was $13,308,999 to $17,745,332. CONCLUSIONS:The annual cost of wasted ICG due to its current manufactured vial size exceeds $2 million for hospitals and $13.3-$17.7 million for patients. We suggest ICG vials should be packaged in a 10 mg vial kit (2-4 mL sterile solution) to avoid drug waste and the financial impact to institutions and patients.