PURPOSE To compare the disease-free survival (DFS) between open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomies (RH) performed in academic medical institutions METHODS Retrospective multi-institutional review of patients undergoing RH for stage IA1 (with lymphovascular invasion), IA2, and IB1 squamous, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2017. RESULTS Of 815 patients, open RH was performed in 255 cases (29.1%) and minimally invasive RH in 560 cases (70.9%). There were 19 (7.5%) recurrences in the open RH and 51 (9.1%) recurrences in the minimally invasive group ( P = .43). Risk-adjusted analysis revealed that minimally invasive RH was independently associated with an increased hazard of recurrence (aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.25). Other factors independently associated with an increased hazard of recurrence included tumor size, grade, and adjuvant radiation. Conization before surgery was associated with lower recurrence risk (aHR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.71). There was no difference in OS in the unadjusted analysis (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.11) or after risk adjustment (aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.5 to 2.2). Of 264 patients with tumors ≤ 2 cm on final pathology (excluding those with no residual tumor on final pathology), 2/82 (2.4%) recurred in the open RH group and 16/182 (8.8%) in the minimally invasive RH group ( P = .058). In propensity score matching analysis, 7/159 (4.4%) recurrences were noted in the open RH group and 18/156 (11.5%) in the minimally invasive RH group ( P = .019). Survival analysis revealed an increased risk of recurrence in the minimally invasive group in propensity-matched cohort (HR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.18) CONCLUSION In this retrospective series, patients undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, including those with tumor size ≤ 2 cm on final pathology, had inferior DFS but not overall survival in the entire cohort.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate interest in and patterns of use of non-prescription cannabis products for symptom management amongst gynecologic cancer patients living in states with legal access to medical and recreational marijuana.MethodsCross-sectional study using a novel 35-question survey distributed to women diagnosed with gynecologic cancer within two academic centers in California and Colorado. The survey queries demographic and disease traits, and both objective and subjective issues surrounding use of cannabis products for symptom management. Surveys were distributed to patients actively receiving treatment or under surveillance.ResultsEnrollment began July 16, 2018 and was completed December 1, 2018. Survey return rate was 52.7%. A total of 225 participants met inclusion criteria.Sixty-two percent reported that they have used or would be interested in using cannabis products for symptom management; 60 (26.7%) are using non-prescription cannabis for treatment of cancer related symptoms, and 80 (35.6%) are interested in using cannabis derivatives under direction of their oncologist. Reasons cited for use of cannabis included: pain control (n = 41, 68.3), insomnia (n = 33, 55.0%), anxiety (n = 29, 48.3%), nausea (n = 26, 43.3%), and appetite stimulation (n = 21, 35.0%). Of the women using cannabis products, almost half report decreased prescription narcotic use after initiation of cannabis products (n = 27, 45.0%).ConclusionsWomen with gynecologic cancer report a strong interest in the use of non-prescription cannabis products for management of cancer-related symptoms. Practitioners in the field of gynecologic oncology should be aware of the frequency of use of non-prescription cannabis amongst their patients as well as the growing desire for guidance about the use of cannabis derivatives. A substantial number of patients report decreased reliance on opioids when using cannabis derivatives for pain control.

VTE represents aggressive tumor behavior and poor patient condition, and is an independent prognostic factor for decreased survival in women with cervical cancer.