No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives We sought to analyze the clinicopathologic features, recurrence patterns and survival outcomes of women with high-grade uterine cancer (UC) enrolled on The Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) LAP2 trial. Methods This is a post-hoc analysis of LAP-2 patients with grade 3 endometrioid adenocarcinoma (ENDO), uterine serous (USC), clear cell (CC) and carcinosarcoma (CS). Demographics, clinicopathologic features, and recurrence patterns, were compared by histology and surgical approach. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Of the 2600 patients enrolled in LAP-2, 753 patients had high-grade UC: 350 had ENDO, 289 had USC, 42 had CC and 72 had CS. Compared with the ENDO cohort, those with other high-grade subtypes were older (p < 0.001) and were more likely to have positive peritoneal cytology (p < 0.001), positive lymph nodes (p = 0.05) and higher disease stage on final pathology (p < 0.001). With a median follow-up time of 60 months, compared to patients with ENDO, those with USC, CCC and CS subtypes had higher recurrence rates (p < 0.001), extra-pelvic recurrences (p < 0.001) and poorer PFS (p < 0.001) and OS (p < 0.001). Those diagnosed with USC and CS experienced the worst survival outcomes (p = 0.003). Patterns of recurrence and survival were not different in those staged with LSC vs LAP. On multivariable analysis, age, stage, pelvic washings and Type II histology were independently and adversely associated with survival. Conclusions Women with apparent early-stage, USC and CS histologies have poorer outcomes than women with grade 3 endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Patterns of recurrence and survival were not impacted by surgical approach.

This is the first Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guideline dedicated to standardizing and optimizing perioperative care for women undergoing minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. The guideline was rigorously formulated by an American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists Task Force of US and Canadian gynecologic surgeons with special interest and experience in adapting ERAS practices for patients requiring minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. It builds on the 2016 ERAS Society recommendations for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncologic surgery by serving as a more comprehensive reference for minimally invasive endoscopic and vaginal surgery for both benign and malignant gynecologic conditions. For example, the section on preoperative optimization provides more specific recommendations derived from the ambulatory surgery and anesthesia literature for the management of anemia, hyperglycemia, and obstructive sleep apnea. Recommendations pertaining to multimodal analgesia account for the recent Food and Drug Administration warnings about respiratory depression from gabapentinoids. The guideline focuses on workflows important to high-value care in minimally invasive surgery, such as same-day discharge, and tackles controversial issues in minimally invasive surgery, such as thromboprophylaxis. In these ways, the guideline supports the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists and our collective mission to elevate the quality and safety of healthcare for women through excellence in clinical practice.

No abstract

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.

Purpose To provide a comprehensive review of uterus transplantation in 2021, including a discussion of pregnancy outcomes of all reported births to date, the donor and recipient selection process, the organ procurement and transplant surgeries, reported complications, postoperative monitoring, preimplantation preparation, and ethical considerations. Methods Literature review and expert commentary. Results Reports of thirty-one live births following uterus transplantation have been published from both living and deceased donors. The proper selection of donors and recipients is a labor-intensive process that requires advanced planning. A multidisciplinary team is critical. Reported complications in the recipient include thrombosis, infection, vaginal stricture, antenatal complications, and graft failure. Graft rejection is a common occurrence but rarely leads to graft removal. While most embryo transfers are successful, recurrent implantation failures in uterus transplant patients have been reported. Rates of preterm delivery are high but appear to be declining; more data, including long-term outcome data, is needed. Conclusions Uterus transplantation is an emerging therapy for absolute uterine factor infertility, a condition previously without direct treatment options. It is paramount that reproductive health care providers are familiar with the uterus transplantation process as more patients seek and receive this treatment.