Laparoscopic hysterectomy with morcellation for a suspected uterine fibroid resulting in dissemination of cervical adenocarcinoma: A case report

• Morcellation of an undetected cervical cancer could be avoided with appropriate screening. • Morcellation of an unknown cervical cancer may impact a patient's survival

The gynecologic oncology fellowship interview process: Challenges and potential areas for improvement

The application and interview process for gynecologic oncology fellowship is highly competitive, time-consuming and expensive for applicants. We conducted a survey of successfully matched gynecologic oncology fellowship applicants to assess problems associated with the interview process and identify areas for improvement. All Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) list-serve members who have participated in the match program for gynecologic oncology fellowship were asked to complete an online survey regarding the interview process. Linear regression modeling was used to examine association between year of match, number of programs applied to, cost incurred, and overall satisfaction. Two hundred and sixty-nine eligible participants reported applying to a mean of 20 programs [range 1–45] and were offered a mean of 14 interviews [range 1–43]. They spent an average of $6000 [$0–25,000], using personal savings (54%), credit cards (50%), family support (12%) or personal loans (3%). Seventy percent of respondents identified the match as fair, and 93% were satisfied. Interviewees spent a mean of 15 [0–45] days away from work and 37% reported difficulty arranging coverage. Linear regression showed an increase in number of programs applied to and cost per applicant over time (p < 0.001) between 1993 and 2016. Applicants who applied to all available programs spent more (p < 0.001) than those who applied to programs based on their location or quality. The current fellowship match was identified as fair and satisfying by most respondents despite being time consuming and expensive. Suggested alternative options included clustering interviews geographically or conducting preliminary interviews at the SGO Annual Meeting

Region of origin and cervical cancer stage in multiethnic Hispanic/Latinx patients living in the United States

Abstract Background Hispanic/Latinx people have the second highest cervical cancer incidence rates in the U.S. However, there is a lack of disaggregated data on clinical outcomes for this diverse and populous group, which is critical to direct resources and funding where they are most needed. This study assessed differences in stage at diagnosis of cervical cancer among Hispanic/Latinx subpopulations and associated factors. Methods We analyzed patients with primary cervical cancer from 2004 to 2019 in the National Cancer Database. Hispanic/Latinx patients were further categorized into Mexican, Puerto Rican (PR), Cuban, Dominican, and Central/South American, as per standard NCDB categories, and evaluated based on stage at diagnosis and sociodemographic characteristics. Multinomial logistic regression quantified the odds of advanced stage at presentation. Regression models were adjusted for age, education, neighborhood income, insurance status, and additional factors. Results Hispanic/Latinx cervical cancer patients were more likely to be uninsured (18.9% vs. 6.0%, p < 0.001) and more likely to live in low‐income neighborhoods (28.6% vs. 16.9%, p < 0.001) when compared to non‐Hispanic White populations. Uninsured Hispanic/Latinx patients had 37.0% higher odds of presenting with regional versus localized disease (OR 1.37; 95% CI, 1.19–1.58) and 47.0% higher odds of presenting with distant versus. Localized disease than insured patients (OR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.33–1.62). When adjusting for age, education, neighborhood income, and insurance status, PR patients were 48% more likely than Mexican patients to present with stage IV versus stage I disease (OR 1.48; 95% CI, 1.34–1.64). Conclusion Disaggregating health data revealed differences in stage at cervical cancer presentation among Hispanic/Latinx subpopulations, with insurance status as a major predictor. Further work targeting structural factors, such as insurance status, within specific Hispanic/Latinx subpopulations is needed