Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose of ReviewThis review serves to provide clarity on the nature, scope, and benefits of early palliative care integration into the management of patients with gynecologic malignancies.Recent FindingsThere is increased recognition that timely referral to palliative care improves quality of life for patients and their families by providing goal-concordant care that reduces physical and emotional suffering and limits futile and aggressive measures at the end of life. Palliative care services rendered throughout the continuum of illness ultimately increase engagement with hospice services and drive down health expenditures. Despite these myriad benefits, misconceptions remain, and barriers to and disparities in access to these services persist and warrant continued attention.SummaryPalliative care should be offered to all patients with advanced gynecologic cancers early in the course of their disease to maximize benefit to patients and their families.

ObjectivesOpioids are first-line therapy for cancer-related pain, but their use should be minimized in disease-free survivors. We sought to describe rates and identify predictors of persistent opioid use among previously opioid-naive cervical cancer survivors treated with radiation.MethodsOpioid-naive cervical cancer patients treated primarily with radiation and chemosensitization at a single institution, between January 2011 and December 2015, were identified. Charts were reviewed for demographics, disease, and treatment characteristics, and opioid prescriptions. Primary outcome was persistent opioid use, defined as continued opioid prescription use, 6 months after radiation; patients recurring within 6 months were excluded. Groups were compared using χ2 or Fisher’s exact test. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of persistent opioid use.ResultsA total of 96 patients were included, with a median age of 49 years (range 27–84). Most patients (59%) at diagnosis had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I or II cervical cancer. The most common histology was squamous cell carcinoma (72%) and most (94.7%) patients received radiation with chemosensitization. Rates of persistent opioid use at 3 and 6 months after treatment were 29% and 25%, respectively. Persistent users were more likely to be <40 years old, have disease outside the pelvis at diagnosis, and have had a history of substance abuse, depression or anxiety (p<0.05). In multivariable analysis, a history of substance abuse (adjusted OR 6.21, 95% CI 1.08 to 35.67) and depression or anxiety (aOR 6.28, 95% CI 1.70 to 23.30) were independently associated with persistent opioid use.ConclusionOur study showed that 25% of patients with cervical cancer were still using opioids 6 months after radiation. History of substance abuse and depression or anxiety, all known risk factors for opioid misuse, were associated with persistent use. The goal in the disease-free survivor population should be opioid independence.

Current guidelines recommend a 28-day course of enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after surgery for gynecologic cancer. The high cost of this medication and the low adherence rates observed in prior studies provide an opportunity to benefit patients by demonstrating the safety of a more cost-effective, easier to use thromboprophylactic. To investigate the safety and efficacy of an oral treatment alternative for thromboprophylaxis in postoperative patients with gynecologic cancer. This was a patient-based, multicenter, open-label, blinded, end point, randomized clinical trial conducted May 2015 to March 2019 in outpatient and inpatient gynecologic oncology settings. Women undergoing surgery for suspected or confirmed gynecologic cancer were approached for recruitment. The trial compared rates of major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events during a 90-day follow-up period in patients taking apixaban or enoxaparin for postoperative thromboprophylaxis using a modified intent-to-treat analysis. Data analysis was performed from October to December 2019. Women were randomized to 28 days of apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily) or enoxaparin (40 mg subcutaneously daily). The primary outcome was major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included incidence of venous thromboembolic events, adverse events, medication adherence, participant quality of life, and medication satisfaction. Of 500 women recruited for the study, 400 were enrolled and randomized (median age, 58.0 years; range, 18.0-89.0 years); 204 received apixaban and 196 received enoxaparin. Treatment groups did not differ in terms of race/ethnicity, cancer stage, or surgery modality (open vs robotic). There were no statistically significant differences between the apixaban and enoxaparin groups in terms of rates of major bleeding events (1 patient [0.5%] vs 1 patient [0.5%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.07-16.76; P > .99), clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (12 patients [5.4%] vs 19 patients [9.7%]; OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.87-4.1; P = .11), venous thromboembolic events (2 patients [1.0%] vs 3 patients [1.5%]; OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.26-9.50; P = .68), adverse events, medication adherence, or quality of life between the groups. Participant satisfaction was significantly greater in the apixaban group with regard to ease of taking the medication (186 patients [98.9%] vs 110 patients [58.8%]; OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01-0.25; P < .001) and pain associated with taking the medication (4 patients [2.1%] vs 92 patients [49.2%]; OR, 9.20; 95% CI, 2.67-31.82; P < .001). These findings suggest that oral apixaban is a potentially safe, less painful, and easier-to-take alternative to subcutaneous enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after surgery for gynecologic cancer. The efficacy of apixaban to prevent venous thromboembolic events is hypothesized as being equivalent. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02366871.

OBJECTIVESPre-operative opioid use is common and should be considered a comorbidity among surgical candidates. Our objective was to describe the rate of pre-operative opioid use and patterns of post-operative outpatient opioid prescribing in a cohort of gynecologic oncology patients. METHODSA retrospective cohort study was conducted with 448 gynecologic oncology surgical patients undergoing surgery for a suspected or known cancer diagnosis from January 2016 to December 2016. Pre-operative opioid users (n=97) were identified. Patient and surgical characteristics were abstracted, as was post-operative opioid prescription (type of opioid, oral morphine equivalents amount) and length of stay. For pre-operative opioid users, the type of opioid prescribed post-operatively was compared with the type of pre-operative opioid. Pre-operative opioid users were compared with non-users, stratified by surgery type. Descriptive statistics were analyzed using χ statistic, and medians were compared using a Mann-Whitney U statistic. RESULTSPre-operative opioid prescriptions were noted in 21% of patients, and 24% of these had two or more opioid prescriptions before surgery. The majority of pre-operative opioid users (51%) were maintained on the same agent post-operatively at the time of discharge, but 36% were switched to a different opioid and 7% were prescribed an additional opioid. Overall and in laparotomies, pre-operative opioid users received higher volume post-operative prescriptions than non-users. There was no difference in post-operative prescription volume for minimally invasive surgeries or in length of stay between pre-operative users and non-users. CONCLUSIONSPre-operative opioid use is common in gynecologic oncology patients and should be considered during pre-operative planning. Pre-operative opioid use was associated with a higher volume and wider range of post-operative prescription. Over 40% of opioid users were discharged with either an additional opioid or a new opioid, highlighting a potential missed opportunity to optimize opioid safety. Further research is needed to characterize the relationship between pre-operative opioid use and peri-operative outcomes and to develop strategies to manage pain effectively in this population without compromising opioid safety.

BackgroundAdverse employment outcomes pose significant challenges for cancer patients, though data patients with gynecologic cancers are sparse. We evaluated the decrease in employment among patients in the year following the diagnosis of a gynecologic cancer compared with population-based controls.MethodsPatients aged 18 to 63 years old, who were diagnosed with cervical, ovarian, endometrial, or vulvar cancer between January 2009 and December 2017, were identified in Truven MarketScan, an insurance claims database of commercially insured patients in the USA. Patients working full- or part-time at diagnosis were matched to population-based controls in a 1:4 ratio via propensity score. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the risk of employment disruption in patients versus controls.ResultsWe identified 7446 women with gynecologic cancers (191 vulvar, 941 cervical, 1839 ovarian, and 4475 endometrial). Although most continued working following diagnosis, 1579 (21.2%) changed from full- or part-time employment to long-term disability, retirement, or work cessation. In an adjusted model, older age, the presence of comorbidities, and treatment with surgery plus adjuvant therapy versus surgery alone were associated with an increased risk of employment disruption (p<0.0003, p=0.01, and p<0.0001, respectively) among patients with gynecologic cancer. In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with gynecologic cancers had over a threefold increased risk of employment disruption relative to controls (HR 3.67, 95% CI 3.44 to 3.95).ConclusionApproximately 21% of patients with gynecologic cancer experienced a decrease in employment in the year after diagnosis. These patients had over a threefold increased risk of employment disruption compared with controls.

ObjectiveEarly specialty palliative care is underused for patients with advanced gynecologic malignancies. We sought to understand how gynecologic oncologists' views influence outpatient specialty palliative care referral to help inform strategies for improvement.Methods/MaterialsWe conducted a qualitative interview study at 6 National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers with well-established outpatient palliative care services. Between September 2015 and March 2016, 34 gynecologic oncologists participated in semistructured telephone interviews focused on attitudes, experiences, and preferences related to outpatient specialty palliative care. A multidisciplinary team analyzed transcripts using constant comparative methods to inductively develop a coding framework. Through an iterative, analytic process, codes were classified, grouped, and refined into themes.ResultsMean (SD) participant age was 47 (10) years. Mean (SD) interview length was 25 (7) minutes. Three main themes emerged regarding how gynecologic oncologists view outpatient specialty palliative care: (1) long-term relationships with patients is a unique and defining aspect of gynecologic oncology that influences referral, (2) gynecologic oncologists value palliative care clinicians' communication skills and third-party perspective to increase prognostic awareness and help negotiate differences between patient preferences and physician recommendation, and (3) gynecologic oncologists prefer specialty palliative care services embedded within gynecologic oncology clinics.ConclusionsGynecologic oncologists value longitudinal relationships with patients and use specialty palliative care to negotiate conflict surrounding prognostic awareness or the treatment plan. Embedding specialty palliative care within gynecologic oncology clinics may promote communication between clinicians and facilitate gynecologic oncologist involvement throughout the illness course.