Faculty Bibliography

This study aimed to assess factors impacting obstetric triage time to disposition. The primary and secondary hypotheses were that high-risk patients and patients evaluated during periods with less staffing would experience prolonged length of stay (LOS), respectively.This single-site, retrospective cohort study analyzed 9,704 obstetric triage visits of 6,182 patients between January 1, 2022, to February 28, 2023. Inclusion criteria included patients 18 years or older with one or more evaluations. Exclusion criteria included scheduled admissions, unknown chief complaints, triage time under 10 minutes, and patients under 18 years old. A total of 6,612 visits representing 4,390 patients were included. The visits were stratified by disposition: admission versus nonadmission (transfer or discharge). Descriptive statistics analyze continuous variables. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for categorical variables. SAS was used for chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and the two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney test for continuous data. Statistical significance was p-value < 0.05.Of 6,612 visits, 3,475 admissions, and 3,137 nonadmissions occurred. The most common chief complaints were contractions (42%), amniotic fluid index evaluation (18%), and preeclampsia evaluation (8%). Admitted compared with nonadmitted patients had shorter LOS (64 minutes vs. 185 minutes, p < 0.001). Admitted compared with nonadmitted patients had shorter LOS by chief complaint, gestational age, high-risk maternal-fetal medicine status, time of day, and day of the week (all p < 0.001).Nonadmitted, maternal-fetal medicine and preterm patients evaluated during daytime and weekdays had significantly longer LOS. Vulnerable populations and target times for triage workflow improvement were identified. · Patient and unit factors influenced LOS.. · Nonadmitted patients had triple the LOS.. · High-risk patients had longer LOS.. · Daytime and weekday visits had longer LOS..

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate adverse events (AEs) of combination lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for the treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) and to assess outcomes by lenvatinib starting dose. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed patients with recurrent EC treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab at our institution between 10/1/2019-11/30/2021. Starting dose of lenvatinib was defined as standard (20 mg) or reduced (10 mg/14 mg). AEs were manually extracted through chart review and graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. PFS, overall survival (OS), and duration of response (DOR) were analyzed. RESULTS:Forty-three patients were identified; median age was 67 years (range, 54-85). The most common histologies were serous (35%), endometrioid (23%), and carcinosarcoma (21%). Starting lenvatinib doses were 10 mg (n = 10), 14 mg (n = 10), and 20 mg (n = 23). Median number of cycles received was 8 (range, 1-42). Twenty-four patients (56%) required ≥1 lenvatinib dose reduction; 3 (7%) discontinued lenvatinib, and 1 (2%) discontinued pembrolizumab for intolerance or AE. Thirty-six patients (84%) experienced grade ≥ 3 AEs; hypertension, weight loss, anemia, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia were most common. The standard dose group experienced significantly shorter observed PFS vs the reduced dose group (P = .02). There was no difference in DOR (P = .09) or OS (P = .27) between the groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In clinical practice, AEs associated with combination lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab were common and comparable to Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 findings. AEs were similar regardless of starting lenvatinib dose. Further dose optimization studies of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may be indicated in recurrent EC. Clinical trial data remain the gold standard to guide starting lenvatinib dosing.

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.