Katherine Stewart

Fertility considerations prior to conservative management of gynecologic cancers

Fertility-sparing management of early-stage gynecologic cancers is becoming more prevalent as increasing evidence demonstrates acceptable oncologic and reproductive outcomes in appropriately selected patients. However, in the absence of randomized controlled trials, most of the commonly used treatment algorithms are based only on observational studies. As women are increasingly postponing childbearing, the need for evidence-based guidance on the optimal selection of appropriate candidates for fertility-sparing therapies is paramount. It is imperative to seriously consider the fertility potential of a given individual prior to making major oncologic treatment decisions that may deviate from the accepted standard of care. It is a disservice to patients to undergo a fertility-sparing procedure in hopes of ultimately achieving a live birth, only to determine later they have poor baseline fertility potential or other substantial barriers to conception including excess financial toxicity. Many women with oncologic diagnoses are of advanced maternal age and their obstetric and neonatal risks must be considered. In the era of advanced assisted reproductive technologies, patients should be provided realistic expectations regarding success rates while understanding the potential oncologic perils. A multidisciplinary approach to the conservative treatment of early-stage gynecologic cancers with early referral to reproductive specialists as well as maternal-fetal medicine specialists is warranted. In this review, we discuss the recommended fertility evaluation for patients with newly diagnosed, early-stage gynecologic cancers who are considering fertility-sparing management.

Pushing the envelope: expanding fertility sparing treatment of endometrial cancer

Implementation of a sentinel lymph node mapping algorithm for endometrial cancer: surgical outcomes and hospital charges

The purpose of this study was to compare operative times, surgical outcomes, resource utilization, and hospital charges before and after the implementation of a sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping algorithm in endometrial cancer. All patients with clinical stage I endometrial cancer were identified pre- (2012) and post- (2017) implementation of the SLN algorithm. Clinical data were summarized and compared between groups. Total hospital charges incurred on the day of surgery were extracted from the hospital financial system for each patient and all charges were adjusted to 2017 US dollars. A total of 203 patients were included: 71 patients in 2012 and 130 patients in 2017. There was no difference in median age, body mass index, or stage. In 2012, 35/71 patients (49.3%) underwent a lymphadenectomy. In 2017, SLN mapping was attempted in 120/130 patients (92.3%) and at least one SLN was identified in 110/120 (91.7%). Median estimated blood loss was similar between groups (100 mL vs 75 mL, p=0.081). There was a significant decrease in both median operative time (210 vs 171 min, p=0.007) and utilization of intraoperative frozen section (63.4% vs 14.6%, p<0.0001). No significant differences were noted in intraoperative (p=1.00) or 30 day postoperative complication rates (p=0.30). The median total hospital charges decreased by 2.73% in 2017 as compared with 2012 (p=0.96). Implementation of an SLN mapping algorithm for high- and low-risk endometrial cancer resulted in a decrease in both operative time and intraoperative frozen section utilization with no change in surgical morbidity. While hospital charges did not significantly change, further studies are warranted to assess the true cost of SLN mapping.