Search

ObjectivesGiven the recent rapid increase in telemedicine in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to investigate the utility of symptom review, CA125, and physical examination in the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence to determine the role of virtual surveillance care in the COVID-19 era.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2013 and 2020 who achieved remission after primary treatment and then had recurrence while in a routine surveillance program. Modalities that detected recurrence including symptoms, CA125, physical examination, or ‘other,’ which was denoted if imaging was obtained for reasons other than suspected recurrence and recurrence was incidentally identified, were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed to summarize the cohort.ResultsOne hundred and nine patients met inclusion criteria. At time of recurrence, elevated CA125 was present in 97 (89.0%) patients, symptoms in 41 (37.6%), and abnormal physical exam findings in 27 (24.8%). Recurrence was incidentally found with imaging obtained for reasons other than suspicion of recurrence in six (5.5%) patients. Recurrence was suspected based on multiple modalities in 46 (42.2%) patients. Elevated CA125, symptoms, or both were present in 102 (93.6%) patients. Of patients with abnormal physical exam findings, 26 (96.3%) also had elevated CA125 or symptoms present. Recurrence was suspected based on physical exam findings alone in one (0.9%) patient.ConclusionsOver 90% of ovarian cancer recurrences were detected by rising CA125, symptoms, or both. Only one patient had recurrence detected by physical examination alone. Given that review of symptoms and CA125 can be conducted virtually, virtual visits may offer a reasonable alternative to in-person visits for ovarian cancer surveillance for patients who have pre-treatment elevated CA125.

Objective The “surprise question” (“Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next year?”) has been shown to be predictive of 12-month mortality in multiple populations, but has not been studied in gynecologic oncology (GO) patients. We sought to evaluate the prognostic performance of the surprise question in GO patients among physician and non-physician providers. Methods GO providers at two tertiary care centers were asked the surprise question about a cohort of their patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation. Demographic and clinical information was chart abstracted. Mortality data were collected at one year; relative risk of death at one year based on response to the surprise question was then calculated. Results 32 providers (12 MDs, 7 APPs, 13 RNs) provided 942 surprise question assessments for 358 patients. Fifty-seven % had ovarian cancer and 54% had recurrent disease. Eighty-three (24%) patients died within a year. Patients whose physician answered “No” to the surprise question had a 43% one-year mortality (compared to 10% for “Yes”). Overall RR of 12-month mortality for “No” was 3.76 (95% CI 2.75–5.48); this association remained significant in all provider types. Among statistically significant predictors of 12-month mortality (including recurrent disease and >2 prior lines of chemotherapy), the surprise question had the highest RR. Conclusions The surprise question is a simple, one question tool that effectively identifies GO patients increased risk of 12-month mortality. The surprise question could be used to identify patients for early referral to palliative care and initiation advance care planning.

Objectives: This study examines childhood gender nonconformity (GNC) in conjunction with the phenomenon in which young children describe memories of a purported previous life. Methods: In a case-co...