Disparities in use of gynecologic oncologists for women with ovarian cancer in the United States

A randomized patient education trial investigating treatment-related distress and satisfaction with the use of an at-home gynecologic brachytherapy educational video

BACKGROUND

Physician explanation of gynecologic brachytherapy can be overwhelming or induce patient anxiety, and may be time-constrained given clinical limitations. We report the first randomized trial of an educational video intervention in gynecologic brachytherapy on patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

Between February 2020 and January 2022, 80 gynecologic cancer patients prescribed brachytherapy were randomly assigned to either standard informed consent (Arm A) or a supplemental 16 min brachytherapy educational video (https://vimeo.com/403385455/d0716e3cc8) via the internet (Arm B). Primary outcome was treatment-related distress (National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) distress scale scored 0 (no distress) to 10 (maximum distress)). Secondary outcome was patient satisfaction (summated Likert-scale scored 11-55). Surveys were administered at baseline, after first treatment, and prior to brachytherapy completion.

RESULTS

All patients completed the prescribed brachytherapy. In Arm B, 19/40 (48%) patients and 10/40 (25%) patients' family/friends viewed the video. For patients that completed all surveys (Arm A n=29, Arm B n=28), there was no difference between arms in the sociodemographic, clinical, or treatment variables. Distress scores were low at baseline (Arm A median 4, Arm B median 4, p=0.65) and there was no detectable change in distress between arms on surveys 1 and 2 (β 0.36, p=0.67) or surveys 1 and 3 (β -1.02, p=0.29) in multivariable analysis. Satisfaction scores were high at baseline (Arm A median 54, Arm B median 54.5, p=0.64) and there was no detectable change in satisfaction between arms on surveys 1 and 2 (β 0.22, p=0.93) or surveys 1 and 3 (β 0.63, p=0.85) in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients randomized to an educational video tool for gynecologic brachytherapy, approximately 50% of the cohort and 25% of the cohort's family/friends used the video. Overall, patients had low distress scores and high satisfaction scores with no significant differences between the standard and video intervention arms. Further work is needed to understand factors contributing to gynecologic brachytherapy anxiety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04363957.

Healthcare Access Dimensions and Guideline-Concordant Ovarian Cancer Treatment: SEER-Medicare Analysis of the ORCHiD Study

BACKGROUND

Racial disparities exist in receipt of guideline-concordant treatment of ovarian cancer (OC). However, few studies have evaluated how various dimensions of healthcare access (HCA) contribute to these disparities.

METHODS

We analyzed data from non-Hispanic (NH)-Black, Hispanic, and NH-White patients with OC diagnosed in 2008 to 2015 from the SEER-Medicare database and defined HCA dimensions as affordability, availability, and accessibility, measured as aggregate scores created with factor analysis. Receipt of guideline-concordant OC surgery and chemotherapy was defined based on the NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer. Multivariable-adjusted modified Poisson regression models were used to assess the relative risk (RR) for guideline-concordant treatment in relation to HCA.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 5,632 patients: 6% NH-Black, 6% Hispanic, and 88% NH-White. Only 23.8% of NH-White patients received guideline-concordant surgery and the full cycles of chemotherapy versus 14.2% of NH-Black patients. Higher affordability (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08) and availability (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) were associated with receipt of guideline-concordant surgery, whereas higher affordability was associated with initiation of systemic therapy (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.13). After adjusting for all 3 HCA scores and demographic and clinical characteristics, NH-Black patients remained less likely than NH-White patients to initiate systemic therapy (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple HCA dimensions predict receipt of guideline-concordant treatment but do not fully explain racial disparities among patients with OC. Acceptability and accommodation are 2 additional HCA dimensions which may be critical to addressing these disparities.

Associations of Healthcare Affordability, Availability, and Accessibility with Quality Treatment Metrics in Patients with Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

Differential access to quality care is associated with racial disparities in ovarian cancer survival. Few studies have examined the association of multiple healthcare access (HCA) dimensions with racial disparities in quality treatment metrics, that is, primary debulking surgery performed by a gynecologic oncologist and initiation of guideline-recommended systemic therapy.

METHODS

We analyzed data for patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed from 2008 to 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. We defined HCA dimensions as affordability, availability, and accessibility. Modified Poisson regressions with sandwich error estimation were used to estimate the relative risk (RR) for quality treatment.

RESULTS

The study cohort was 7% NH-Black, 6% Hispanic, and 87% NH-White. Overall, 29% of patients received surgery and 68% initiated systemic therapy. After adjusting for clinical variables, NH-Black patients were less likely to receive surgery [RR, 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.98]; the observed association was attenuated after adjusting for healthcare affordability, accessibility, and availability (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08). Dual enrollment in Medicaid and Medicare compared with Medicare only was associated with lower likelihood of receiving surgery (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97) and systemic therapy (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97). Receiving treatment at a facility in the highest quartile of ovarian cancer surgical volume was associated with higher likelihood of surgery (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Racial differences were observed in ovarian cancer treatment quality and were partly explained by multiple HCA dimensions.

IMPACT

Strategies to mitigate racial disparities in ovarian cancer treatment quality must focus on multiple HCA dimensions. Additional dimensions, acceptability and accommodation, may also be key to addressing disparities.

Association of gynecologic oncology versus medical oncology specialty with survival, utilization, and spending for treatment of gynecologic cancers

BACKGROUND

We examined the association of gynecologic oncology (GYO) versus medical oncology (MEDONC) based care with survival, health care utilization and spending outcomes in women undergoing chemotherapy for advanced gynecologic cancers.

METHODS

Women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV uterine, ovarian, and cervical cancers from 2000 to 2015 were identified in SEER-Medicare. We assessed the association of provider specialty with overall survival, emergency department utilization, admissions, and spending. Outcomes were assessed using unadjusted and Inverse Treatment Probability Weighted propensity-score applied, multi-variable cox modeling, Poisson regression, and generalized models of log-transformed data.

RESULTS

We identified 7930 gynecologic cancer patients (4360 ovarian, 2934 uterine, 643 cervix). 37% were treated by GYO and 63% by MEDONC. For ovarian patients, GYO care was associated with improved OS (median OS 3.3 v. 2.9 years; HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.80, 0.91, p < .0001) and similar mean spending per month ($4015 v. $4316, mean ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.93, 1.02), p = .19), compared to MEDONC in adjusted analyses. For uterine patients, GYO care was associated with similar OS, but decreased spending ($3573 v. $4081, mean ratio 0.87 (95% CI.81, 0.93), p < .0001), and decreased ED utilization (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69, 0.85, p < .0001). For cervical patients, GYO care was associated with similar OS, and similar spending. Admissions were more likely in ovarian (RR 1.23, 95%CI 1.11, 1.37, p = .0001) and cervical patients (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05, 1.51, p = .015) treated by GYO, in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

GYO based care was associated with improved OS and equal spending for patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Uterine and cervix patients had similar OS, and less or equal spending respectively, when treated by GYO compared to MEDONC.

Racial and socioeconomic disparities in adherence to preventive health services for ovarian cancer survivors

PURPOSE

To examine ovarian cancer survivors' adherence to evidence-based guidelines for preventive health care.

METHODS

A case-control, retrospective study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries diagnosed with stage I, II, or III epithelial ovarian cancer from 2001 to 2010 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Survivors were matched 1:1 to non-cancer controls from the 5% Medicare Beneficiary file on age, race, state of residence, and follow-up time. Receipt of flu vaccination, mammography, and bone density tests were examined in accordance with national guidelines. Adherence was assessed starting 1 year after cancer diagnosis, across 2 years of claims. Interaction with the health care system, including outpatient and cancer surveillance visits, was tested as a potential mechanism for receipt of services.

RESULTS

2437 survivors met the eligibility criteria (mean age, 75; 90% white). Ovarian cancer survivors were more likely to be adherent to flu vaccination (5 percentage points (pp); < 0.001) and mammography guidelines (10 pp.; < 0.001) compared to non-cancer controls, but no differences were found for bone density test guidelines (- 1 pp.; NS). Black women were less likely to be adherent to flu vaccination and bone density tests compared with white women. Women dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid were less likely to be adherent compared to those without such support. Adherence was not influenced by measures of outpatient visits.

CONCLUSION

Ovarian cancer survivors are receiving preventive services with the same or better adherence than their matched counterparts. Minority and dual-eligible survivors received preventive services at a lower rate than white survivors and those with higher income. The number of outpatient visits was not associated with increased preventive health visits.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Ovarian cancer survivors are receiving adequate follow-up care to be adherent to preventive health measures. Efforts to improve care coordination post-treatment may help reduce minority and low SES disparities.

When and Who Should Perform Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Surgery?

Abstract

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common cause of death due to gynecologic malignancies. Most patients will be diagnosed at an advanced stage, and despite progress in both surgical procedures and novel targeted therapies, the overall survival of these patients remains very low. Among prognostic factors, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage and residual tumor after debulking surgery are the most widely reported. The current review aims to highlight the disparities in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer and the need for postgraduate training programs in order to accredit gynecologic oncologists. Despite an increase over the centralization of these patients, many are still not receiving specialized surgery.

Values and worries of ovarian cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Older women with ovarian cancer (OC) are less likely to receive guideline concordant treatment. Differences in values and worries about treatment may explain why.

METHODS

Women with OC in 2013-2015 were surveyed about values and worries at the time of initial treatment. Existing values (11 item, e.g., maintaining quality of life) and worries (12 items, e.g., treatment side effects) scales were adapted based on OC literature. Responses were very/somewhat/a little/not at all important or worried. Principal Component Analyses (PCA) identified groups of values and worries that best explained scales' variation. We examined proportions reporting very/somewhat important/worried on ≥1 item in each component by age (older ≥65years, younger <65years).

RESULTS

Of 170 respondents, 42.3% were older. PCA components for values were: functional well-being (3 survey items, proportion of variance explained [PoVE] 26.3%), length of life and sexual functioning (3 items, PoVE 20.1%), attitudes (3 items, PoVE 14.2%), and not becoming a burden (2 items, PoVE 13.7%). PCA components for worries were: economic (4 items, PoVE 27.2%), uncertainty (6 items, PoVE 26.0%), and family impact (2 items, PoVE 16.3%). Older women were less likely to indicate very/somewhat worried to ≥1 item in the economic (51.4% vs 72.4%, p=0.006), uncertainty (80.6% vs. 98.0%, p=0.001), and family impact component (55.6% vs. 70.4%, p=0.03). No other age differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

While worry during OC treatment decision-making may differ across age groups, values do not. Research should assess how differences in worry might affect OC medical decision-making for older and younger women.

Gynecologic oncologists involvement on ovarian cancer standard of care receipt and survival

AIM: To examine the influence of gynecologic oncologists (GO) in the United States on surgical/chemotherapeutic standard of care (SOC), and how this translates into improved survival among women with ovarian cancer (OC).

METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER)-Medicare data were used to identify 11688 OC patients (1992-2006). Only Medicare recipients with an initial surgical procedure code (n = 6714) were included. Physician specialty was identified by linking SEER-Medicare to the American Medical Association Masterfile. SOC was defined by a panel of GOs. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of receiving surgical/chemotherapeutic SOC and proportional hazards modeling to estimate the effect of SOC treatment and physician specialty on survival.

RESULTS: About 34% received surgery from a GO and 25% received the overall SOC. One-third of women had a GO involved sometime during their care. Women receiving surgery from a GO vs non-GO had 2.35 times the odds of receiving the surgical SOC and 1.25 times the odds of receiving chemotherapeutic SOC (P < 0.01). Risk of mortality was greater among women not receiving surgical SOC compared to those who did [hazard ratio = 1.22 (95%CI: 1.12-1.33), P < 0.01], and also was higher among women seen by non-GOs vs GOs (for surgical treatment) after adjusting for covariates. Median survival time was 14 mo longer for women receiving combined SOC.

CONCLUSION: A survival advantage associated with receiving surgical SOC and overall treatment by a GO is supported. Persistent survival differences, particularly among those not receiving the SOC, require further investigation.

A feminist information engagement framework for gynecological cancer patients

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to present a three-part framework of information engagement for situated gynecological cancers. These particular cancers intertwine with medicalization of sexuality and gender power dynamics, situating information behaviors and interactions in women’s socio-health perceptions. Using Kavanagh and Broom’s feminist risk framework, the framework establishes functional and temporal parameters for sense-making and information engagement.

Design/methodology/approach

– This paper employs a structured, reiterative literature review with emergent thematic analysis. Nine indices from medicine, information studies, and sociology were searched using combinations of five terms on cervical cancer (CC) and 14 terms on information engagement in the title, abstract, and subject fields. Results were examined on a reiterative basis to identify emergent themes pertaining to knowledge development and information interactions.

Findings

– Environmentally, social stigma and gender roles inhibit information seeking; normalizing CC helps integrate medical, moral, and sexual information. Internally, living with the dichotomy between “having” a body and “being” a body requires high-trust information resources that are presented gradually. Actively, choosing to make or cede medical decision-making requires personally relevant information delivered in the form of concrete facts and explanations.

Research limitations/implications

– The study covers only one country.

Originality/value

– This study’s information framework and suggestions for future research encourage consideration of gender power dynamics, medicalization of sexuality, and autonomy in women’s health information interactions.

Impact of a multivariate index assay on referral patterns for surgical management of an adnexal mass

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact on referral patterns of using a Multivariate Index Assay, CA125, modified-American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists referral guidelines, and clinical assessment among patients undergoing surgery for an adnexal mass after initial evaluation by nongynecologic oncologists.

STUDY DESIGN

Overall, 770 patients were enrolled by nongynecologic oncologists from 2 related, multiinstitutional, prospective trials and analyzed retrospectively. All patients had preoperative imaging and biomarker analysis. The subset of patients enrolled by nongynecologic oncologists was analyzed to determine the projected referral patterns and sensitivity for malignancy based on multivariate index assay (MIA), CA125, modified-American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines, and clinical assessment compared with actual practice.

RESULTS

The prevalence of malignancy was 21.3% (n = 164). In clinical practice, 462/770 patients (60.0%) were referred to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery. Triage based on CA125 predicted referral of 157/770 patients (20.4%) with sensitivity of 68.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60.8-74.9). Triage based on modified-ACOG guidelines would have resulted in referral of 256/770 patients (33.2%) with a sensitivity of 79.3% (95% CI, 72.4-84.8). Clinical assessment predicted referral of 184/763 patients (24.1%) with a sensitivity of 73.2% (95% CI, 65.9-79.4). Risk stratification using multivariate index assay would have resulted in referral of 429/770 (55.7%) patients, with sensitivity of 90.2% (95% CI, 84.7-93.9). MIA demonstrated statistically significant higher sensitivity (P < .0001) and lower specificity (P < .0001) for detecting malignancy compared with clinical assessment, CA125, and modified-ACOG guidelines.

CONCLUSION

In this study population, use of MIA as a risk stratification test was associated with referral patterns by nongynecologic oncologists comparable to actual clinical practice and higher sensitivity for malignancy than other adnexal mass triage algorithms.