Salpingectomy for Ovarian Cancer Prevention: Video Education for the Surgeon

Given the unremitting obstacles to effectively screen for and treat ovarian cancer (OC), prevention is a necessary countermeasure. The recent discovery of the fallopian tube as the origin of the most common and deadly type of OC, high grade serous cancer (HGSC), makes prevention through salpingectomy possible (Madsen et al., 2015). Opportunistic salpingectomy (OS) is the practice of removing the post-reproductive fallopian tubes at the time of other intraperitoneal surgery, or for sterilization in lieu of tubal ligation, to decrease OC risk (Falconer et al., 2015). The safety, effectiveness, and reach of OS as a primary prevention strategy depends on the knowledge mobilization of a standard surgical approach for surgeons (Hanley et al., 2017, Morelli et al., 2013). Resources for accomplishing this knowledge mobilization activity are needed. We therefore aim to create a peer-reviewed, publicly available surgical instructional video that facilitates standardization of the practice of salpingectomy for the purpose of OC prevention. Content creation was generated by a team of surgeon stakeholders, medical illustrators, instructional designers, and health education specialists. Expert gynecologic surgeons were filmed performing salpingectomy in order to build a video library. Accurate illustration and editing of live video footage was executed to support surgeons in visualizing key anatomic landmarks to ensure safe and complete fallopian tube excision. Review of eligibility criteria, fundamentals of preoperative counseling, and strategic and technical points were prioritized. This endeavor is strictly educational, with no commercial benefit. Publicly available, peer-reviewed surgical education tools will help us collaborate to safely and equitably expand OS within and beyond the current scope of surgical practice

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Prevention over screening for ovarian cancer in patients with high-risk germline mutations: Misinterpreting the findings of ALDO

In November 2022, the findings of the Avoiding Late Diagnosis of Ovarian cancer (ALDO) study were published. Subsequent media coverage suggested that investigators had found a safe alternative to risk-reducing bilateral salpingoophorectomy (rrBSO) in patients with pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations who chose to decline or defer risk-reducing surgery. Unfortunately, this media coverage was largely misleading. Specifically, in the ALDO trial, 4 of 6 patients found to have ovarian cancer by the ALDO screening methodology were diagnosed with advanced-stage disease. The primary endpoint of the ALDO study was the rate of complete surgical cytoreduction, rather than stage at diagnosis or overall survival, which is an inappropriate surrogate for benefit in a population at risk of ovarian cancer.The ALDO trial again demonstrates that screening women at high-risk of ovarian cancer should not be considered a safe alternative to risk-reducing surgery, and can lead to false reassurance and the development of preventable cases of ovarian cancer. While we should continue to investigate new screening options, future efforts should largely focus on why patients decline rrBSO in the first place and how we can pivot our efforts to better address concerns related to rrBSO, including sequelae of surgical menopause. Furthermore, as we continue to understand the role of the fallopian tube in the epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) disease process, we must identify the role of salpingectomy alone in prevention of EOC

“little big things”: A qualitative study of ovarian cancer survivors and their experiences with the health care system

Purpose: Navigation of a complex and ever-changing health care system can be stressful and detrimental to psychosocial well-being for patients with serious illness. This study explored women\u27s experiences with navigating the health care system during treatment for ovarian cancer. Methods: Focus groups moderated by trained investigators were conducted with ovarian cancer survivors at an academic cancer center. Personal experiences with cancer treatment, provider relationships, barriers to care, and the health care system were explored. Sessions were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded by using grounded theory. Subsequently, one-on-one interviews were conducted to further evaluate common themes. Results: Sixteen ovarian cancer survivors with a median age of 59 years participated in the focus group study. Provider consistency, personal touch, and patient advocacy positively affected the care experience. Treatment with a known provider who was well acquainted with the individual\u27s medical history was deemed an invaluable aspect of care. Negative experiences that burdened patients, referred to as the little big things, included systems-based challenges, which were scheduling, wait times, pharmacy, transportation, parking, financial, insurance, and discharge. Consistency, a care team approach, effective communication, and efficient connection to resources were suggested as ways to improve patients\u27 experiences. Conclusion: Systems-based challenges were perceived as burdens to ovarian cancer survivors at our institution. The role of a consistent, accessible care team and efficient delivery of resources in the care of women with ovarian cancer should be explored further

Geographic disparities in the distribution of the U.S. gynecologic oncology workforce: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology study.

A recent ASCO workforce study projects a significant shortage of oncologists in the U.S. by 2020, especially in rural/underserved (R/US) areas. The current study aim was to determine the patterns of distribution of U.S. gynecologic oncologists (GO) and to identify provider-based attitudes and barriers that may prevent GOs from practicing in R/US regions. U.S. GOs (n = 743) were electronically solicited to participate in an on-line survey regarding geographic distribution and participation in outreach care. A total of 320 GOs (43%) responded; median age range was 35-45 years and 57% were male. Most practiced in an urban setting (72%) at a university hospital (43%). Only 13% of GOs practiced in an area with a population < 50,000. A desire to remain in academics and exposure to senior-level mentorship were the factors most influencing initial practice location. Approximately 50% believed geographic disparities exist in GO workforce distribution that pose access barriers to care; however, 39% "strongly agreed" that cancer patients who live in R/US regions should travel to urban cancer centers to receive care within a center of excellence model. GOs who practice within 50 miles of only 0-5 other GOs were more likely to provide R/US care compared to those practicing within 50 miles of ≥ 10 GOs (p < 0.0001). Most (39%) believed the major barriers to providing cancer care in R/US areas were volume and systems-based. Most also believed the best solution was a hybrid approach, with coordination of local and centralized cancer care services. Among GOs, a self-reported rural-urban disparity exists in the density of gynecologic oncologists. These study findings may help address barriers to providing cancer care in R/US practice environments

Geographic disparities in the distribution of the U.S. gynecologic oncology workforce: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology study

A recent ASCO workforce study projects a significant shortage of oncologists in the U.S. by 2020, especially in rural/underserved (R/US) areas. The current study aim was to determine the patterns of distribution of U.S. gynecologic oncologists (GO) and to identify provider-based attitudes and barriers that may prevent GOs from practicing in R/US regions. U.S. GOs (n = 743) were electronically solicited to participate in an on-line survey regarding geographic distribution and participation in outreach care. A total of 320 GOs (43%) responded; median age range was 35–45 years and 57% were male. Most practiced in an urban setting (72%) at a university hospital (43%). Only 13% of GOs practiced in an area with a population < 50,000. A desire to remain in academics and exposure to senior-level mentorship were the factors most influencing initial practice location. Approximately 50% believed geographic disparities exist in GO workforce distribution that pose access barriers to care; however, 39% “strongly agreed” that cancer patients who live in R/US regions should travel to urban cancer centers to receive care within a center of excellence model. GOs who practice within 50 miles of only 0–5 other GOs were more likely to provide R/US care compared to those practicing within 50 miles of ≥10 GOs (p < 0.0001). Most (39%) believed the major barriers to providing cancer care in R/US areas were volume and systems-based. Most also believed the best solution was a hybrid approach, with coordination of local and centralized cancer care services. Among GOs, a self-reported rural-urban disparity exists in the density of gynecologic oncologists. These study findings may help address barriers to providing cancer care in R/US practice environments