Concurrent Surgery for Locoregional Gynecologic Cancers and Pelvic Floor Disorders in a Population of Patients With Medicare Insurance

Treatment of Cervical Cancer Complicated by Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Case Report

ABSTRACT

Concurrent cervical cancer with advanced pelvic organ prolapse is rare: there are no well-established treatment recommendations. It is hypothesized that chronic irritation, as with long-standing pelvic organ prolapse, may lead to dysplasia and human papillomavirus-independent carcinoma, which represents only 5% of cervical cancers. Two patients with complete uterine procidentia were referred to gynecologic oncology with cervical squamous cell carcinoma; both were clinically staged as International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics IB3. Treatment planning was complicated by procidentia in both cases. Standard definitive treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer is radiation therapy and concurrent chemotherapy; however, the mobility and externalization of the target lesion raised concerns regarding anatomic reproducibility during radiation treatment. After multidisciplinary team discussion (gynecologic oncology, urogynecology, radiation oncology), surgical resection and co-management with gynecologic oncology and urogynecology were successfully performed for definitive management for both patients. Although rare, this case study demonstrates the importance of multidisciplinary coordination in these complex clinical scenarios.

Short-Term Outcomes After Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer/EIN With Concomitant Pelvic Floor Disorder Surgery

IMPORTANCE

Endometrial cancer and precancer are common gynecologic problems for many women. A majority of these patients require surgery as the mainstay of treatment. Many of these patients often have concurrent pelvic floor disorders. Despite the prevalence and shared risk, fewer than 3% of women undergo concomitant surgery for PFDs at the time of surgery for endometrial cancer or endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia/hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate postoperative morbidity of concomitant pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and/or urinary incontinence (UI) procedures at the time of hysterectomy for endometrial cancer (EC) or endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia/endometrial hyperplasia (EIN/EH).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis of women undergoing hysterectomy for EC or EIN/EH between 2017 and 2022 used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The primary outcome was any major complication within 30 days of surgery. Comparisons were made between 2 cohorts: hysterectomy with concomitant pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence procedures (POPUI) versus hysterectomy without concomitant POP or UI procedures (HYSTAlone). A subgroup analysis was performed in patients with EC. A propensity score matching cohort was also created.

RESULTS

A total of 23,144 patients underwent hysterectomy for EC or EIN/EH: 1.9% (n = 432) had POP and/or UI procedures. Patients with POPUI were older, were predominantly White, had higher parity, and had lower body mass index with lower American Society of Anesthesiologists class. Patients with POPUI were less likely to have EC (65.7% vs 78.3%, P < 0.0001) and more likely to have their hysterectomy performed by a general obstetrician- gynecologists or urogynecologists. Major complications were low and not significantly different between POPUI and HYSTAlone (3.7% vs 3.6%, P = 0.094). A subgroup analysis of EC alone found that the HYSTAlone subset did not have more advanced cancers, yet the surgeon was more likely a gynecologic oncologist (87.1% vs 68.0%, P < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 cohorts for the primary and secondary outcomes using propensity score matching analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant prolapse and/or incontinence procedures were uncommon and did not increase the rate of 30-day major complications for women undergoing hysterectomy for EC/EH.

Reconstructive Surgery at Hysterectomy for Patients With Uterine Prolapse and Gynecologic Malignancy

In this cross-sectional study examining 211,708 patients with a diagnosis of uterine prolapse who underwent hysterectomy between 2016 and 2019 identified in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample, co-diagnosis of gynecologic malignancy was reported in 2,398 (1.1%) patients, and they were less likely to receive reconstructive surgery at hysterectomy (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.96). This absence of reconstructive surgery was most pronounced among patients with complete uterine prolapse and gynecologic malignancy (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57-0.81). The association was also consistent in coexisting gynecologic premalignancy (n=3,357 [1.6%]). In conclusion, this national-level assessment suggests that patients with uterine prolapse and coexisting gynecologic malignancy or premalignancy may be less likely to receive reconstructive surgery for pelvic floor dysfunction at hysterectomy.

Pelvic floor dysfunction survivorship needs and referrals in the gynecologic oncology population: a narrative review

The population of survivors of gynecologic malignancies continues to grow. The population of gynecologic oncology survivors has a high prevalence of pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologic oncology patients identify several survivorship needs, including a need for more focused pelvic floor disorder sequelae care. The increasing focus on patient needs following cancer treatment has led to the development of survivorship care plans and other strategies for addressing post-treatment transitions and sequelae. Common themes in patient survivorship care are patient needs for flexible and integrated care, and it is unclear if survivorship care plans in their current state improve patient outcomes. Patient referrals, specifically to urogynecologists, may help address the gaps in survivorship care of pelvic floor dysfunction.The objective of this review is to discuss the burden of pelvic floor disorders in the gynecologic population and to contextualize these needs within broader survivorship needs. The review will then discuss current strategies of survivorship care, including a discussion of whether these methods meet survivorship pelvic floor disorder needs. This review addresses several gaps in the literature by contextualizing pelvic floor disorder needs within other survivorship needs and providing a critical discussion of current survivorship care strategies with a focus on pelvic floor disorders.