Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:There is a research gap on the impact of payment, reimbursement, and academic productivity in career decision-making for early-career (EC) attendings in gynecologic oncology. We sought to assess gynecologic oncology fellows and EC attendings on their knowledge and perceptions regarding the business of medicine. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:An anonymous survey was electronically disseminated to fellow and EC SGO members. Key themes were the business of medicine, productivity, and compensation/negotiation. A 5-point Likert scale was utilized; descriptive statistics were calculated using SPSS. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:There was a 29 % response rate: 82 fellows and 102 EC attendings. Most were white (n = 143, 78 %) and female (n = 138, 75 %.) Most fellows (n = 67, 82 %) were interested in, and most EC (n = 82, 82 %) were employed in, academic/non-private practice. Fellows and EC attendings reported insufficient education on RVUs (relative value units) and reimbursement (80 %, n = 66; 81 %, n = 83) and did not feel prepared for the business aspect of practice (80 %, n = 66; 73 %, n = 75). Over 40 % of fellows did not understand how RVUs relate to practice. Thirty-three percent of EC attendings did not understand RVU assignments; 29 % were satisfied with methods used to determine productivity, and 17 % did not understand their compensation. Over 60 % of fellows felt unprepared to negotiate clinical productivity expectations. For EC attendings, 47 % were uncomfortable negotiating clinical expectations, 32 % negotiating academic expectations, and 52 % negotiating compensation changes. Female EC felt less prepared than male EC regarding the business of medicine (p = 0.02), RVU assignments (p < 0.01), and compensation negotiations (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Most gynecologic oncology fellows and early-career attendings do not feel prepared for the business of medicine. Women were less comfortable with these concepts than men. Formal education should be incorporated into career development curricula.

BACKGROUND:We evaluated the feasibility of completing 6 cycles of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) and carboplatin (C) in a single arm prospective clinical trial for advanced/recurrent EC and safety and efficacy of day (D) 1, 8 nab-P in combination with D1 C q3weeks. METHODS:IV q21D. The trial tested the null hypothesis that subjects completing 6 cycles was ≤0.50 versus the alternative that the proportion is ≥0.75 in a single stage design with alpha = 0.05 and power = 80% with 23 subjects. Patients who completed 6 cycles (primary outcome), objective response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) were estimated with exact 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS:From 08/2016-03/2018, 23 patients were enrolled. Nineteen patients (82.6%, 95% CI: 61.2%, 95.0%) completed 6 cycles, thus we could reject our null. Twelve patients (52.2%) experienced ≥1 grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events including: anemia, 6 (26.1%); neutropenia, 5 (21.7%); diarrhea, 3 (13.0%). Fourteen patients (60.1%) reported grade 1 neuropathy. Of 9 patients with measurable target lesions, the ORR was 33.3% (95% CI: 7.5%, 70.1%) and CBR was 55.6% (95% CI: 21.2%, 86.3%). Median PFS in the advanced/recurrent patients was 23.2 (95% CI: 12.1, NR) months. CONCLUSIONS:The nab-P/C D1, 8 regimen met pre-specified feasibility criteria with acceptable toxicity and efficacy. Use of nab-P decreases need for steroid pre-medications, and this carboplatin doublet may prove advantageous for trials assessing combinations with immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced EC.

OBJECTIVE:The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been proven effective in preventing HPV-related cancer. However, vaccination uptake in the United States remains unacceptably low. The aim of this study is to determine whether residents' HPV vaccination status, demographics, or residency training setting are predictive of vaccination prescribing practices. METHODS:This was an anonymous, IRB-approved, opt-in survey of OBGYN, Family Medicine, and Pediatric residents. Using the National Residency Match Program Web site, surveys were sent to program directors requesting their residents' participation. Demographics, practice settings, HPV vaccination status, reasons for being inappropriately vaccinated, and resident vaccination-prescribing practices were analyzed. RESULTS:A total of 853 residents participated. A total of 56.7% of respondents were fully vaccinated against HPV. The most common reasons for being unvaccinated were as follows: age (51.7%, n = 122), monogamous (30.9%, n = 73), do not believe it works (22.5%, n = 53), and affordability/insurance did not cover (14.4%, n = 34). Residents working in an urban setting were more likely to be vaccinated than those in suburban (odds ratio [OR] = 1.93, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.364-3.229, p < .001) or rural (OR = 2.08, 95% CI 1.461-3.359, p 0.01) settings. Males were less likely than females (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.702-0.997, p < .001) to be vaccinated. Single residents were more likely to be vaccinated than married (OR = 2.56, 95% CI 2.444-2.704, p < .001) or divorced (OR = 2.15, 95% CI 1.822-3.264, p 0.21) residents. Vaccinated residents were more likely to recommend HPV vaccination to their patients than those who were unvaccinated (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.321-2.548, p .004). CONCLUSIONS:A significant portion of Family Medicine, Pediatrics, and OBGYN residents have not received appropriate vaccination against HPV. Vaccination is highest among residents who identify as female, single, or working in urban settings. Vaccinated residents were also found to be almost 2 times as likely to recommend vaccination to their patients. As such, our data suggest that targeted provider education is needed to increase vaccination rates for both trainees and their patients.

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.

OBJECTIVE:To explore the use of Gynecologic Oncology Group 258 (GOG 258) study regimens before, during, and after the study. METHODS:tests were used for continuous and categorical variables. Multi-variable logistic regression assessed factors associated with the receipt of chemoradiotherapy compared with chemotherapy only or radiation therapy only. RESULTS:From 2004 to 2019, 41 408 high-risk endometrial cancer patients received adjuvant therapy (12% radiation therapy, 38% chemotherapy, 50% chemoradiotherapy). Chemoradiotherapy increased over the GOG 258 study period (40% before study opening, 54% during enrollment, and 59% after results). Serous (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.7) and clear cell histology (0.7, 0.6 to 0.8), higher grade (0.8, 0.7 to 0.9), and lymph node positivity (0.8, 0.7 to 0.9) were negatively associated with receipt of chemoradiotherapy compared with single-modality treatment. Non-Hispanic Black ethnicity (0.8, 0.8 to 0.9) and residing ≥50 miles from the treatment facility (0.8, 0.7 to 0.9) were also negatively associated with chemoradiotherapy. Private insurance (1.2, 1.0 to 1.4) and treatment at community hospitals (1.2, 1.2 to 1.3) were positively associated with chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSION:Despite the lack of benefit in the GOG 258 experimental arm, chemoradiotherapy use increased during study enrollment and after results publication.

Purpose: Locally advanced cervical cancer was defined by an international consensus panel as a high priority malignancy during the COVID-19 pandemic, recommending prompt initiation of definitive treatment and completion of treatment (PMID 32563593). The objective of this study was to study the clinical outcomes of patients (pts) with cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT) and brachytherapy (BT) at our institution in 2019 (pre-COVID) and in 2020 (peri-COVID).
Material(s) and Method(s): This was a retrospective cohort study of pts with FIGO Stage IB2-IVA cervical cancer at our institutions from 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2020. Pts received CRT followed by intracavitary brachytherapy (IC) with two operative insertions one week apart, or interstitial (IS) BT with one operative insertion. BT treatment was planned using image-guided CT or MR delineation. Pre-COVID was defined by initiation of CRT in 1/2019-12/2019, and peri-COVID was defined by initiation in 1/2020-10/2020. Process changes peri-COVID included limited on-site staff (e.g., minimal OR staff, no trainees, remote physics team), universal implementation of COVID-19 testing prior to surgery, and CT instead of MR-delineation based treatment. Outcomes of interest were time to treatment initiation and completion and differences in treatment planning modality or dosimetry. Fisher's exact and Mann Whitney U tests were used with significance p<0.05.
Result(s): Thirty-one pts were included, with 18 patients undergoing treatment pre-COVID and 13 peri-COVID. The median age at diagnosis pre-COVID was 57.7 (range 23-77) and for peri-COVID, 45.5 (range 28-62, p=0.06). There were no differences in non-English speaking pts (44% vs 59%, p=0.71) or uninsured pts (11% vs 33%, p=0.184) between the two cohorts. Median time to initiation of treatment from biopsy diagnosis was 52 days (range 13-209) in 2019 and for peri-COVID, 55.5 (range 20-173, p=0.71). During COVID, four pts had delayed initiation to treatment >100 days: two related to fertility, and one due to fear of COVID-19. For this pt, tumor size progressed from 2.3 cm to 4.2 cm maximal dimension. One pt treated in 2020 tested positive following treatment and did not require hospital admission. All pts except one completed CRT with RT: 25 pts pelvic RT (45 Gy), 3 pelvic and para-aortic RT (45 Gy with 57.5 Gy concomitant boost to nodes), 8 pts pelvic RT (45Gy) with sequential parametrial boost (50.4-59.4 Gy) using IMRT with no dose differences between pre and peri-COVID (Table 1). No pts required treatment breaks and the median overall treatment time was 50 days (range 31-85) in 2019 vs 50 days (range 43-63) in 2020 (p=0.710).
Conclusion(s): Despite the significant burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on our health care system, all cervical cancer pts receiving CRT met standard of care including CRT and BT within the recommended time frame with no significant differences in dosimetric treatment parameters pre- and peri-COVID. Delays in treatment initiation of treatment initiation were seen in 30% of pts in the peri-COVID period, suggesting that patients may have had increased barriers to access care. More follow-up is needed to determine how the Covid pandemic impacted cervical cancer outcome measures.
Copyright

Purpose/Objective(s): Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is an advanced radiotherapy technique that delivers conformal radiation to desired targets while minimizing dose to surrounding organs at risk. In the post-operative setting, IMRT is associated with reduced acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal side effects for patients with cervical cancer. However, no prospective randomized data exist for the use of IMRT in the setting of definitive treatment of intact cervical cancer. The objective of this study was to identify trends in IMRT use for this population. Materials/Methods: Patients with stage IB2-IVA cervical cancer diagnosed from 2004-2018 who were treated with curative intent chemoradiation were identified in the National Cancer Database. Patients who underwent primary surgical management, did not receive external beam radiation to the pelvis or received radiation outside the pelvis, or received an unspecified technique or target of radiation were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was utilization of IMRT vs 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) over time. A Cochrane-Armitage test was performed to assess trends over time. T-tests, chi-square tests, and multivariable logistic regression with propensity score matching were used to identify factors associated with receipt of IMRT.
Result(s): Overall, 13,974 patients met inclusion criteria; 4,590 (33%) received IMRT, and 9,384 (67%) received 3DCRT. In this cohort, 65% were non-Hispanic White, 45% were early stage (I-II), 80% were squamous histology, 62% received brachytherapy, and 28% had lymph node involvement. The utilization of IMRT increased from 30% in 2004 to 71% in 2018 (p<0.001). After adjustment for clinical and demographic variables, factors associated with IMRT use were: Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.5), treatment in the Western U.S. (aOR 1.4, CI 1.2-1.7) and the Southern U.S. (aOR 1.3, CI 1.1-1.5), living more than 50 miles from the treatment facility (aOR 1.2, CI 1.0-1.5), stage III disease (aOR 1.3, CI 1.1-1.5), and lymph node involvement (aOR 1.4, CI 1.3-1.6). Compared to an academic medical center, patients receiving care at a comprehensive community cancer center were less likely to receive IMRT (aOR 0.66, CI 0.59-0.72). There were no differences in IMRT use by age, insurance, or medical comorbidities.
Conclusion(s): Despite the lack of prospective efficacy data supporting the use of IMRT in patients with intact cervical cancer, IMRT has dramatically increased over the last fifteen years especially for patients with advanced-stage disease or lymph node involvement. More data on the optimal use of IMRT, including appropriate target volume margins and on-board imaging, are needed.
Copyright

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Elective surgical procedures were suspended during the coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19) in New York City (NYC) between March 16 and June 15, 2020. This study characterizes the impact of the ban on surgical delays for patients scheduled for surgery during this first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Patients who were scheduled for surgical treatment of malignant or pre-invasive disease by gynecologic oncologists at three NYC hospitals during NYC's ban on elective surgery were included. Outcomes of interest were the percentage of patients experiencing surgical delay and the nature of delays. Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square, and logistic regression tests were performed with significance set at p < 0.05. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of the 145 patients with malignant or pre-invasive diseases scheduled for surgery during the ban on elective surgery, 40% of patients experienced one or more surgical delays, 10% experienced two or more and 1% experienced three surgical delays. Of patients experiencing an initial delay, 77% were hospital-initiated and 11% were due to known or suspected personal COVID-19. Overall, 81% of patients completed their planned treatment, and 93% of patients underwent their initially planned surgery. Among patients for whom adjuvant therapy was recommended, 67% completed their planned treatment, and the most common reasons for not completing treatment were medically indicated followed by concerns regarding COVID-19. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:During the ban on elective surgery in NYC during the first outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, many patients experienced minor surgical delays, but most patients obtained appropriate, timely care with either surgery or alternative treatment.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:Patients with advanced or recurrent gynecologic malignancies occasionally take breaks from systemic treatment colloquially referred to as "treatment holidays" or "chemotherapy holidays." There are no data from the patient perspective that help describe this experience. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Patients with recurrent or advanced primary gynecologic malignancies who had decided to enter a treatment holiday were recruited and interviewed. A treatment holiday was defined as a planned temporary break or delay in treatment for a patient with recurrent or advanced primary gynecologic malignancy for reasons other than pursuit of hospice or best supportive care, research protocol violation or unacceptable toxicity. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and then analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 6 total patients identified for participation, 5 completed interviews with ages ranging from 57 to 80 years. Two participants returned to their previous treatment regimen after their holiday therapy, two switched therapies, and one remained on an extended break from systemic treatment. Treatment holidays were experienced as a break from the physical and psychological routine of being a cancer patient, but also brought about feelings of a lack of structure, uncertainty, and led to a confrontation with mortality issues. Overall, participants had favorable experiences which were initiated by their providers in whom they had a deep sense of trust. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Patients experience treatment holidays as a positive and valuable break from the physical and psychosocial routine of cancer treatment and illness. These experiences produce distinct emotional needs that clinicians should address to best support patients electing treatment holidays.

Objective: To analyze physician opinions of, and experiences with patients who take a temporary break from treatment in the setting of metastatic primary or recurrent gynecologic cancer.
Method(s): An electronic survey was sent to the members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO). A treatment holiday was defined as a planned temporary break from systemic treatment in a patient with recurrent or metastatic gynecologic malignancy. Descriptive statistics were calculated using Microsoft Excel, and continuous variables were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. Free text responses were qualitatively analyzed.
Result(s): Of the 1314 individuals invited to participate, 74 responded (5.6% response rate). Ninety-six percent of respondents had a patient take a treatment holiday. Ninety-five percent of respondents would offer a treatment holiday for ovarian cancer, 90% for endometrial cancer, 70% for cervical cancer, 57% for vulvar cancer, 52% for vaginal cancer, and 49% for sarcoma. Using a Likert scale, respondents identified life events (86.6%), fatigue from side effects (77.9%), schedule fatigue (67.6%) and desire for ''life off treatment'' (64.7%) as ''very important'' reasons for offering a treatment holiday. Patients resumed treatment for return of symptoms (62.9%), progression of disease (60.0%), end of pre-specified break (50%), patient anxiety (45.7%) and recommendation of the physician (11%). 6.8% of physicians experienced regret after a patient underwent a treatment holiday. Ninety-eight percent of respondents agreed that a treatment holiday can be valuable.
Conclusion(s): The gynecologic and medical oncologists who responded to this survey almost uniformly offered their patients treatment holidays, were more likely to offer treatment holidays for ovarian and endometrial cancer, and were unlikely to express regret after the experience.
Copyright