Caitlin E. Meade

Adjuvant hormone therapy and overall survival among low-grade and apparent early-stage endometrial stromal sarcoma patients

Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (LG-ESS). While adjuvant hormone therapy is recommended for patients with advanced/recurrent disease, no consensus regarding its use among early-stage patients exists. We aimed to identify correlates of adjuvant hormone therapy use and associations of adjuvant hormone therapy and overall survival (OS) in stage I LG-ESS patients. Retrospective cohort study of patients with stage I LG-ESS who underwent hysterectomy from 2004-2019 using data from the National Cancer Database. Categorical data were compared using χ² tests. Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests were used to compare OS according to adjuvant hormone use. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between adjuvant hormone use and OS were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Of 2,386 patients included, 20.2% were treated with adjuvant hormonal therapy. Use of hormone therapy increased over time, with rates approximately doubling from 2004 to 2019 (12.6% to 24.6%). Age, tumor size, lymphovascular space invasion and adjuvant radiation were associated with adjuvant hormone therapy use. There was no association between adjuvant hormone therapy and OS (log-rank p=0.73; HR=1.05; 95% CI=0.76-1.46) for patients with LG-ESS. Use of adjuvant hormone therapy for stage I LG-ESS has increased over time though is not associated with OS in this cohort of patients. Additional evaluation is needed to understand the impact of adjuvant hormone therapy on recurrence rates, progression rates, and quality of life to fully understand its value.

Agreement between Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results– and Medicare Claims–Derived Uterine Cancer Treatment Data

Abstract Background: Despite the prevalent use of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data to study uterine cancer treatment patterns and survival, concordance between SEER and Medicare claims has not been a focus of prior research. We assessed the agreement between SEER and Medicare claims, predictors of disagreement between sources, and associations between treatment (identified in SEER vs. Medicare) and survival. Methods: Patients diagnosed with uterine cancer between 2000 and 2019 were identified using the SEER–Medicare linked database. We calculated kappa statistics to assess the agreement between the two data sources for receipt of hysterectomy with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), hysterectomy with BSO, lymphadenectomy, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), vaginal brachytherapy (VBT), and chemotherapy. For each treatment type, we examined temporal trends in the kappa and used multivariable-adjusted logistic regression to examine predictors of disagreement. Treatment hazard ratios in Cox proportional hazards regression models using treatment information from SEER versus Medicare were compared. Results: For each treatment, we excluded patients with unknown SEER information, resulting in variable sample sizes. Agreement was lowest for hysterectomy with BSO (kappa = 0.71) and highest for lymphadenectomy and chemotherapy (kappas = 0.85). Temporal variation was evident, with lymphadenectomy, EBRT, and VBT agreement dropping in recent years. Black race, younger age at diagnosis, high-risk histology, and advanced stage were associated with higher odds of disagreement for certain treatments. Associations between treatment identified in SEER versus Medicare and survival outcomes were similar. Conclusions: Treatment agreement between SEER and Medicare was high. Impact: Our results support the use of both data sources for uterine cancer treatment–survival analyses.