Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Background New York City (NYC) is the epicenter of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID‐19]) in the United States. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of vulnerable populations, such as those with gynecologic cancer who develop COVID‐19 infections, is limited. Methods Patients from 6 NYC‐area hospital systems with known gynecologic cancer and a COVID‐19 diagnosis were identified. Demographic and clinical outcome data were abstracted through a review of electronic medical records. Results Records for 121 patients with gynecologic cancer and COVID‐19 were abstracted; the median age at the COVID‐19 diagnosis was 64.0 years (interquartile range, 51.0‐73.0 years). Sixty‐six of the 121 patients (54.5%) required hospitalization; among the hospitalized patients, 45 (68.2%) required respiratory intervention, 20 (30.3%) were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 9 (13.6%) underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. Seventeen patients (14.0%) died of COVID‐19 complications. No patient requiring mechanical ventilation survived. On multivariable analysis, hospitalization was associated with an age ≥64 years (risk ratio [RR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18‐2.51), African American race (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13‐2.15), and 3 or more comorbidities (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.03‐1.98). Only recent immunotherapy use (RR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.08‐11.27) was associated with death due to COVID‐19 on multivariable analysis; chemotherapy treatment and recent major surgery were not predictive of COVID‐19 severity or mortality. Conclusions The case fatality rate among gynecologic oncology patients with a COVID‐19 infection is 14.0%. Recent immunotherapy use is associated with an increased risk of mortality related to COVID‐19 infection. Lay Summary The case fatality rate among gynecologic oncology patients with a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection is 14.0%; there is no association between cytotoxic chemotherapy and cancer‐directed surgery and COVID‐19 severity or death. As such, patients can be counseled regarding the safety of continued anticancer treatments during the pandemic. This is important because the ability to continue cancer therapies for cancer control and cure is critical.

No abstract

To synthesize evidence from studies investigating survival outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery (traditional or robotic laparoscopy) compared with those for patients with ovarian cancer undergoing laparotomy. Data Sources: We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (from inception to December 2019). Methods of Study Selection: Observational cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that compared risk of recurrence or death between women undergoing minimally invasive and open procedures for staging (10), interval cytoreduction (4), secondary cytoreduction (2), and evaluation of resectability (1) were included. Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Data on the number of participants, number of deaths and recurrences, and results of analyses of overall or progression-free survival were abstracted for all studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the results of studies comparing minimally invasive staging and open staging. The surgical approach (minimally invasive versus open) was not significantly associated with hazard of death or recurrence (pooled hazard ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.61−1.38) or all-cause mortality (pooled hazard ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.49−1.89). One randomized trial demonstrated that diagnostic laparoscopy could triage patients to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and avoid suboptimal primary surgery, without affecting recurrence-free or overall survival. Most studies included in this review were observational and at high risk for bias, and few studies accounted for potential confounding. Conclusion: Although existing studies do not demonstrate deleterious survival effects associated with minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, these data must be viewed with caution given the significant methodologic shortcomings in the existing literature.