Title
Author
DOI
Article Type
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Epidemiologic profile of benign versus oncologic gynecology populations: similar procedures, different patients
1 Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Health System. Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
2Institute for Population Research, The Ohio State University. Columbus, OH 19107, USA
DOI: 10.31083/j.ejgo.2020.03.5283 Vol.41,Issue 3,June 2020 pp.396-401
Submitted: 13 June 2019 Accepted: 29 August 2019
Published: 15 June 2020
*Corresponding Author(s): Lindsey Buckingham E-mail: linds.k.b@gmail.com
Objective: We sought to compare preoperative comorbidities in patients undergoing benign versus oncologic gynecologic surgeries. Methods: All cases of benign and malignant gynecologic surgeries in the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database between 2006-2012 were identified. Gynecologic cancers were grouped by site: uterus, ovary, cervix, and “other” including labia, vulva, vagina, pelvis, and retroperitoneum. Preoperative comorbidities were captured. Descriptive analyses were performed. 94,935 patients underwent gynecologic surgeries: 87.8% benign and 12.2% oncologic. The prevalence of cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and neurologic disease differed between benign and oncologic groups (p < 0.001). In uterine, ovarian and other cancers, greater than 40% of patients had one or more comorbidities and > 5% had 2 or more, (p < 0.001). Gynecologic oncology patients were significantly older, had higher BMI, greater proportion black, and had more comorbidities than patients undergoing benign gynecologic surgery. Comorbidity profiles also differed significantly by type of gynecologic cancer. Preoperative and postoperative optimization, risk assessments, and appropriate reimbursement coverage should account for these baseline differences.
Comorbidity profile; Gynecologic cancer; Reimbursement
Lindsey Buckingham, Lori Cory,Colleen Brensinger,Xiaochen Zhang,Robert A. Burger,Fiona Simpkins,Emily M. Ko. Epidemiologic profile of benign versus oncologic gynecology populations: similar procedures, different patients. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2020. 41(3);396-401.
[1] US department of health and human services. Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2010 2015.2010. Accessed December 15, 2018.
[2] Cohn D.E., Leitao M., Levenback C., Berkowitz R., Roman L., Lucci J., et al.: “Reporting of quality measures in gynecologic oncology programs at Prospective Payment System (PPS)Exempt Cancer Hospitals: an early glimpse into a challenging initiative”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2013, 130, 403.
[3] Iyer R., GentryMaharaj A., Nordin A., Burnell M., Liston R., Man chanda R., et al.: “Predictors of complications in gynaecological on cological surgery: a prospective multicentre study (UKGOSOCUK gynaecological oncology surgical outcomes and complications)”. Br. J. Cancer., 2014, 112, 475.
[4] Mahdi H., Jernigan A.M., Aljebori Q., Lockhart D., Moslemi Kebria M.: “The impact of obesity on the 30day morbidity and mortality after surgery for endometrial cancer”. J. Miniz. Invasive. Gynecol., 2014, 22, 94.
[5] Suidan R.S., Leita M.M., Jr., Zivanovi O., Gardner G.J., Long Roche K.C., Sonoda Y., et al.: “Predictive value of the Age Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index on perioperative complica tions and survival in patients undergoing primary debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2015, 138, 246.
[6] Piccirillo J.F., Tierney R.M., Costas I., Grove L., Spitznagel E.L.: “Prognostic importance of comorbidity in a hospitalbased cancer registry”. JAMA., 2004, 291, 2441.
[7] Szender J.B., Frederick P.J., Eng K.H., Akers S.N., Lele S.B., Odunsi K.: “Evaluation of the National Surgical Quality Improve ment Program Universal Surgical Risk Calculator for a gynecologic oncology service”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer., 2015, 25, 512.
[8] Teoh D., Halloway R.N., Heim J., Vogel R.I., Rivard C.: “Evalua tion of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator in Gynecologic On cology Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Surgery”. J. Minim. Invasive .Gynecol., 2016, 24, 48.
[9] Rivard C., Nahum R., Slagle E., Duininck M., Isaksson Vogel R., Teoh D.: “Evaluation of the performance of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing laparotomy”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2016, 141, 281.
[10] Cory L., Latif N., Brensinger C., Zhang X., Giuntoli R.L., Burger R.A., et al.: “Readmission After Gynecologic Surgery: A Compar ison of Procedures for Benign and Malignant Indications”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2017, 130, 285.
[11] Dessources K., Hou J.Y., Tergas A.I., Burke W.M., Ananth C.V., Prendergast E., et al.: “Factors associated with 30day hospital read mission after hysterectomy”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2015, 125, 461.
[12] Bilimoria K.Y., Liu Y., Paruch J.L., Zhou L., Kmiecik T.E., Ko C.Y., et al.: “Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons”. J. Am. Coll. Surg., 2013, 217, 833.
[13] Edwards B.K., Noone A.M., Mariotto A.B., Simard E.P., Boscoe F.P., Henley S.J., et al.: “Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 19752010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer”. Cancer., 2014, 120, 1290.
[14] Cho H., Mariotto A.B., Mann B.S., Klabunde C.N., Feuer E.J.: “Assessing noncancerrelated health status of US cancer patients: othercause survival and comorbidity prevalence”. Am. J. Epi demiol., 2013, 178, 339.
[15] Aletti G.D., Santillan A., Eisenhauer E.L., Hu J., Aletti G., Po dratz K.C., et al.: “A new frontier for quality of care in gyneco logic oncology surgery: multiinstitutional assessment of shortterm outcomes for ovarian cancer using a riskadjusted model”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2007, 107, 99.
[16] Elshaikh M.A., Vance S., Kamal M., Burmeister C., Hanna R.K., Rasool N., et al.: “Influence of comorbidity on the risk of death: a single institution study of 1132 women with earlystage uterine cancer”. Am. J. Clin. Oncol., 2014.
[17] Barber E.L., Rutstein S., Miller W.C., Gehrig P.A.: “A preoperative personalized risk assessment calculator for elderly ovarian cancer patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery”. Gynecol. On col., 2015, 139, 401.
[18] Kohut A., Orfanelli T., Poggio J.L., Gibbon D., Buckley De Meritens A., Richard S., et al.: “Morbidity and mortality risk assess ment in gynecologic oncology surgery using the american college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program database”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer., 2018, 28, 840.
[19] Mansmann U., Rieger A., Strahwald B., Crispin A.: “Risk calculatorsmethods, development, implementation, and valida tion”. Int. J. Colorectal. Dis., 2016, 31, 1111.
[20] Cohn D.E., Ko E., Meyer L.A., Wright J.D., Temkin S.M., Foote J., et al.: “The ”value” of value in gynecologic oncology practice in the United States: Society of Gynecologic Oncology evidence based review and recommendations”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2017, 145, 185.
Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.
Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.
Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.
JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.
Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.
BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.
Top